Lately I have been asking myself, what ever happened to the Holland I once fell in love with, and why do I now have second thoughts. I still love the country, it's the politicians and the bureaucrats that makes my stomach turn up-side down. A few months ago I signed a petition to preserve a memorial, the NUTS cave. A small token to show my appreciation and gratitude towards the men who fought and died in the ETO, to preserve and to safeguard our freedom, but also the most precious freedom of all: the freedom of expression.
Here in Norway we concider Holland the most liberal country in Europe, not only because they have legalized hashish, Geee, I don't even smoke, but it's like there's more space, more air to breathe in down there. But, there's a catch, if your're Dutch, and your name is Geert Wilders, do not criticize Islam.
Sentenced to death by Islamists according to Islamic law, and now he's on trial in his own country, not only for using his rights as a citizen, but also for telling the truth? Holland, you need to wake up and smell the burning flesh, from where I stand I can see a problem sneaking up on you. You may think that freedom of speech is something you can take for granted, but history has shown us otherwise. And you won't miss it until it gone.
So, let Wilders go, and keep him safe from those maniacs that killed men like Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn. I wish you all the best.
bjorn
Full Version: On Trial For Hate-speech
Y'all, meaning folks in Europe, experienced what hate can do more than we Americans. So, your laws border on what we consider and invasion of free speech. We give our hate mongers talk shows. Y'all prosecute them for basically being stupid and rude. If we did that, I'd leave work right now and make a citizen's arrest of Rush Limbowel. Now, I am not going to go down the path of what Islam is or is not. My basic thoughts on religion are similar to John Lennon's, "Whatever gets you through the night." My problem is all this pussyfooting around terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
The way I see it, folks like Wilders pop off at the mouth, upset decent folks who understand that this kind of language catches headlines or in this country become popular on the ariwaves = big ratings= advertisement money, but in the long run, it does not get us as a nation anywhere. It raises fear, and where there is fear, there is no reason, and without reason, there is no order, and without order, we have chaos. Which is where we are now in our attitudes towards Muslims. I finally reached some clarity on this point.
Western countries are at the crossroads. We are going to have to sit down and see how we and our fellow Islamic citizens can live peacefully, and if we can't, well the world is a big place. It is rather rude to come to a country then try and turn it into a place like the one you just left. I never understand this, but it must be human nature to embrace the familiar instead of experiencing the unknown. (The latter is what makes America great, but we lose site of that every now and then.)
Take England for example and that group of Muslims who want to install an Islamic nation in England. What does England do, it outlaws the group. As stated before in previous posts, I am no legal scholar, but it seems to me the statements made by that group are treasonous in nature and if they are not from this country, well, all I have to say is don't let the door hit you as we boot you butts back home. If they are native born citizens, prosecute them for making threats against the government. That is not racist nor is it malicious prosecution. You commit a crime, there are consequences, ipso facto. If they don't want to integrate and become loyal, peace loving, British subjects then use the law that we hold everyone else to and deal with these radicals accordingly. As the Devil told Old John as he handed him one of his hot coals, "Take this John and go make a hell of your own. You are too mean for us."
Basically, most folks agree that we should be free to worship God as we see fit. That it is wrong to dislike someone because they are Jewish, Catholic, Proetestant, Native American, Wiccan or Muslim, etc. What gets most of us is this should go both ways, but extremists whether they are Christian, Jewis or Muslim want everyone to play by their rules or else. The or else usually means the offender dies by their rules. Christians were guilty of it and used fire. Nowadays, we use the voting box and legislation. Neither is very satisfactory. Orthodox Jews do not as a rule kill, but individuals have been know to raise a weapon in the name of their faith. They certainly protests enough to make life difficult for secular Jews living in Israel. And we all know about Islamic terrorists.
The reality is we need to start listening to people who have access to the airwaves who can help us discover what we have in common instead of what divides us. It cannot continue to be us against them or all or nothing. That kind of thinking just leads to deadlock in government and leaves the citizens hanging in the wind not knowing which way to turn. Politicians need to lead the way by practicing common decency and respecting the rights of all citizens. If Wilders has evidence of any citizen(s) comitting a clear an present danger to his country then it is his duty to report it to the proper authorities and not spout a load of hot air that makes him look and sound like a hate mongering, ignoramus.
Take what Harry Reid said, it's true. Americans are not going to elect Flavor Flav to the highest office in the land. Black columnists agree that it is true. The average American citizen knows it is true, but it is how and when you say something that makes it racist. That's what Wilders and others need to learn.
The way I see it, folks like Wilders pop off at the mouth, upset decent folks who understand that this kind of language catches headlines or in this country become popular on the ariwaves = big ratings= advertisement money, but in the long run, it does not get us as a nation anywhere. It raises fear, and where there is fear, there is no reason, and without reason, there is no order, and without order, we have chaos. Which is where we are now in our attitudes towards Muslims. I finally reached some clarity on this point.
Western countries are at the crossroads. We are going to have to sit down and see how we and our fellow Islamic citizens can live peacefully, and if we can't, well the world is a big place. It is rather rude to come to a country then try and turn it into a place like the one you just left. I never understand this, but it must be human nature to embrace the familiar instead of experiencing the unknown. (The latter is what makes America great, but we lose site of that every now and then.)
Take England for example and that group of Muslims who want to install an Islamic nation in England. What does England do, it outlaws the group. As stated before in previous posts, I am no legal scholar, but it seems to me the statements made by that group are treasonous in nature and if they are not from this country, well, all I have to say is don't let the door hit you as we boot you butts back home. If they are native born citizens, prosecute them for making threats against the government. That is not racist nor is it malicious prosecution. You commit a crime, there are consequences, ipso facto. If they don't want to integrate and become loyal, peace loving, British subjects then use the law that we hold everyone else to and deal with these radicals accordingly. As the Devil told Old John as he handed him one of his hot coals, "Take this John and go make a hell of your own. You are too mean for us."
Basically, most folks agree that we should be free to worship God as we see fit. That it is wrong to dislike someone because they are Jewish, Catholic, Proetestant, Native American, Wiccan or Muslim, etc. What gets most of us is this should go both ways, but extremists whether they are Christian, Jewis or Muslim want everyone to play by their rules or else. The or else usually means the offender dies by their rules. Christians were guilty of it and used fire. Nowadays, we use the voting box and legislation. Neither is very satisfactory. Orthodox Jews do not as a rule kill, but individuals have been know to raise a weapon in the name of their faith. They certainly protests enough to make life difficult for secular Jews living in Israel. And we all know about Islamic terrorists.
The reality is we need to start listening to people who have access to the airwaves who can help us discover what we have in common instead of what divides us. It cannot continue to be us against them or all or nothing. That kind of thinking just leads to deadlock in government and leaves the citizens hanging in the wind not knowing which way to turn. Politicians need to lead the way by practicing common decency and respecting the rights of all citizens. If Wilders has evidence of any citizen(s) comitting a clear an present danger to his country then it is his duty to report it to the proper authorities and not spout a load of hot air that makes him look and sound like a hate mongering, ignoramus.
Take what Harry Reid said, it's true. Americans are not going to elect Flavor Flav to the highest office in the land. Black columnists agree that it is true. The average American citizen knows it is true, but it is how and when you say something that makes it racist. That's what Wilders and others need to learn.
First I wanna thank you for sharing your thoughts with me, I certainly appreciate it. But you know what really puzzles me? Why do so many of these people from the Middel East or north- or east Africa who come to Europe as fugitives, usually turn into a menace to the society? And how come they can go back - on holyday - to a country the fled in the first place?
Look, Islam may not add up to much in the USA, a thousand Muslims can hardly fill a line-up at the local Sheriff's office, but here in Norway, that many Muslims can make a difference. And they do, they've already taken a big bite out of Oslo, some places you have to pay for "protection" or you'll be told that your house is a firetrap.
"If Wilders has evidence of any citizen(s) comitting a clear an present danger to his country then it is his duty to report it to the proper authorities and not spout a load of hot air that makes him look and sound like a hate mongering, ignoramus", you wrote.
He did no such thing, he told the truth about Islam, and just like the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, he was promptly marked for death. But the worst part is that you can't complain or protest without being labled as a xenophobic racist or a white supremacist. Geerd Wilders did more than "pop off at the mouth", he made the mistake of unmasking the ugly face of Islam, gave the audience a look behind the curtain. For that he is sentenced to death in absentia by the Islamic fascists and as if that's not enough, he's being procecuted to the full extent of the law by his own government. Yes - GOVERNMENT! Imagine that! His trial has nothing to do with justice, it's a political agenda behind all this, and I can smell the Organization of the Islamic Conference" (OIC) from miles away.
"The reality is we need to start listening to people who have access to the airwaves who can help us discover what we have in common instead of what divides us. It cannot continue to be us against them or all or nothing. That kind of thinking just leads to deadlock in government and leaves the citizens hanging in the wind not knowing which way to turn. Politicians need to lead the way by practicing common decency and respecting the rights of all citizens",you wrote.
You see, this way of thinking has gotten us into so much trouble already, I've been listening to the airwaves long enough to know that they are as much a part of the problem as they are a part of the solution, explaining away terrorism and making up all kinds of excuses for the totalitarian family. "Common decency" doesn't cut it when they're marching you off to Gulag at gunpoint. We need leaders who believe in our values stronger and more determined than the enemy of the Democracy believe in his. Don't get me wrong, people may believe in what they want, even stones, as long as they're not throwing them at me. As far as Geert Wilders is concerned, he basically want his country to be free the way it was left when the troopes pulled out after cleaning up after the Germans. It's a challenge to keep it that way.
Regards,
bjorn
Look, Islam may not add up to much in the USA, a thousand Muslims can hardly fill a line-up at the local Sheriff's office, but here in Norway, that many Muslims can make a difference. And they do, they've already taken a big bite out of Oslo, some places you have to pay for "protection" or you'll be told that your house is a firetrap.
"If Wilders has evidence of any citizen(s) comitting a clear an present danger to his country then it is his duty to report it to the proper authorities and not spout a load of hot air that makes him look and sound like a hate mongering, ignoramus", you wrote.
He did no such thing, he told the truth about Islam, and just like the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, he was promptly marked for death. But the worst part is that you can't complain or protest without being labled as a xenophobic racist or a white supremacist. Geerd Wilders did more than "pop off at the mouth", he made the mistake of unmasking the ugly face of Islam, gave the audience a look behind the curtain. For that he is sentenced to death in absentia by the Islamic fascists and as if that's not enough, he's being procecuted to the full extent of the law by his own government. Yes - GOVERNMENT! Imagine that! His trial has nothing to do with justice, it's a political agenda behind all this, and I can smell the Organization of the Islamic Conference" (OIC) from miles away.
"The reality is we need to start listening to people who have access to the airwaves who can help us discover what we have in common instead of what divides us. It cannot continue to be us against them or all or nothing. That kind of thinking just leads to deadlock in government and leaves the citizens hanging in the wind not knowing which way to turn. Politicians need to lead the way by practicing common decency and respecting the rights of all citizens",you wrote.
You see, this way of thinking has gotten us into so much trouble already, I've been listening to the airwaves long enough to know that they are as much a part of the problem as they are a part of the solution, explaining away terrorism and making up all kinds of excuses for the totalitarian family. "Common decency" doesn't cut it when they're marching you off to Gulag at gunpoint. We need leaders who believe in our values stronger and more determined than the enemy of the Democracy believe in his. Don't get me wrong, people may believe in what they want, even stones, as long as they're not throwing them at me. As far as Geert Wilders is concerned, he basically want his country to be free the way it was left when the troopes pulled out after cleaning up after the Germans. It's a challenge to keep it that way.
Regards,
bjorn
QUOTE(AQuaker @ Jan 15 2010, 02:54 PM) 
The way I see it, folks like Wilders pop off at the mouth, upset decent folks who understand that this kind of language catches headlines or in this country become popular on the ariwaves = big ratings= advertisement money, but in the long run, it does not get us as a nation anywhere. It raises fear, and where there is fear, there is no reason, and without reason, there is no order, and without order, we have chaos.
Without taking sides on some of the issues raised, I think I need to point out, Sheila, that under today's laws in many European countries, Winston Churchill could be prosecuted for incitement and "hate speech" for what he said publically in the years before 1939. Some of his language was intemporate to an extreme, not just against Hitlerian Germany but also against those of his own countrymen whom he saw (correctly, as it turned out) to be appeasers of and even facilitators for Nazi aggression. Some of what Sir Winston said upset "decent" folk too.
It is a measure of how spineless and frankly irrelevant much of Europe has become that the governments there selectively single out certain types of speech and brand it as "hate" while studiously and even frantically ignoring the thousands of incitements to hate and violence spewing out of many of the mosques there every day.
As for the European Union, a bigger joke on Mankind has rarely been perpetrated. These bureaucrats will react with august fury and bring the heavy hand of justice down on a French or Italian farmer who makes cheese the way it has been made in their countries for millenia, instead of adhereing to some Norwegian technician's view of proper sanitary protocol, but timidly avert their faces when it comes to violence, intimidation, incitement and worse coming from their muslim communities.
FJB
I have to admit I shake my head a lot when reading the BBC and come across what I consider absurd laws. The police actually stripped eleven year old twins when their mother was arrested for protesting some nuclear plant. For pity's sake. It is up to the British people to unite and demand a return to common sense from their lawmakers. (We need it here too.) The EU is definitely one of those things that make you say, "What the _______?"
QUOTE(FJBoccia @ Jan 15 2010, 10:00 PM)
Without taking sides on some of the issues raised, I think I need to point out, Sheila, that under today's laws in many European countries, Winston Churchill could be prosecuted for incitement and "hate speech" for what he said publically in the years before 1939. Some of his language was intemporate to an extreme, not just against Hitlerian Germany but also against those of his own countrymen whom he saw (correctly, as it turned out) to be appeasers of and even facilitators for Nazi aggression. Some of what Sir Winston said upset "decent" folk too.
This is what happens when a government leans towards one extreme (political correctness run amok) to lock 'em up and throw away the key. We are going to have to searh for a healthy balance that includes free speech. Unless that speech incites violence. Governments need find a pair of cahunas that's a fact jack.
It is a measure of how spineless and frankly irrelevant much of Europe has become that the governments there selectively single out certain types of speech and brand it as "hate" while studiously and even frantically ignoring the thousands of incitements to hate and violence spewing out of many of the mosques there every day.
As for the European Union, a bigger joke on Mankind has rarely been perpetrated. These bureaucrats will react with august fury and bring the heavy hand of justice down on a French or Italian farmer who makes cheese the way it has been made in their countries for millenia, instead of adhereing to some Norwegian technician's view of proper sanitary protocol, but timidly avert their faces when it comes to violence, intimidation, incitement and worse coming from their muslim communities.
I am all for getting along, but I am a firm believer in the sovereignty of individual nations. Sure make treaties and economic deals, but the concept of the EU is so unappealing and their laws nonsensical. Are Europeans really so fearful of another world war taking place on their shores that they toss all reason out the window? They (governments) can bury their head in the sand all they want, but if they don't take the bull by the horns soon, when they finally pull their heads out these psychos will blow them off.
FJB
This is what happens when a government leans towards one extreme (political correctness run amok) to lock 'em up and throw away the key. We are going to have to searh for a healthy balance that includes free speech. Unless that speech incites violence. Governments need find a pair of cahunas that's a fact jack.
It is a measure of how spineless and frankly irrelevant much of Europe has become that the governments there selectively single out certain types of speech and brand it as "hate" while studiously and even frantically ignoring the thousands of incitements to hate and violence spewing out of many of the mosques there every day.
As for the European Union, a bigger joke on Mankind has rarely been perpetrated. These bureaucrats will react with august fury and bring the heavy hand of justice down on a French or Italian farmer who makes cheese the way it has been made in their countries for millenia, instead of adhereing to some Norwegian technician's view of proper sanitary protocol, but timidly avert their faces when it comes to violence, intimidation, incitement and worse coming from their muslim communities.
I am all for getting along, but I am a firm believer in the sovereignty of individual nations. Sure make treaties and economic deals, but the concept of the EU is so unappealing and their laws nonsensical. Are Europeans really so fearful of another world war taking place on their shores that they toss all reason out the window? They (governments) can bury their head in the sand all they want, but if they don't take the bull by the horns soon, when they finally pull their heads out these psychos will blow them off.
FJB
FJB, D'accord.
Too many of my fellow countrymen (-and women) seem to feel comfortable with the Muslims burning the American Flag, some even say that the Americans had it comming. Hell, I've even heard some left wing radicals like Dr. M. Gilbert and Dr. E Fosse ( The "Gaza medic team"), say that the Americans deserved what happened on the 9/11, which makes me embarrassed or down right ashamed over being a Norwegian.
However, if you wanna see what ambivalence look like when it becomes visible in a human face, just take a look at some of these Norwegian journalists on the politcal left when they put this picture up on the front pages:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/01/15/nyheter...ingene/9949599/
That's right, now they're burning the Norwegian flag - again! And for what? Yes, your're right, have a sigar: for publishing these infamous cartoons - again. And yes, I am tempted to ask, what the &%¤# is the matter with these people? Is it so that this desert "prophet" of theirs so frigile he can't take a joke?
Anyway, Frank has already said what needs to be said, and he did it far better than I can. For what it's worth, I can vouch for every word he wrote. Especially what he wrote about the European Union.
Take care
bjorn
However, if you wanna see what ambivalence look like when it becomes visible in a human face, just take a look at some of these Norwegian journalists on the politcal left when they put this picture up on the front pages:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/01/15/nyheter...ingene/9949599/
That's right, now they're burning the Norwegian flag - again! And for what? Yes, your're right, have a sigar: for publishing these infamous cartoons - again. And yes, I am tempted to ask, what the &%¤# is the matter with these people? Is it so that this desert "prophet" of theirs so frigile he can't take a joke?
Anyway, Frank has already said what needs to be said, and he did it far better than I can. For what it's worth, I can vouch for every word he wrote. Especially what he wrote about the European Union.
Take care
bjorn
Paul Vellerman, Amsterdam’s Court public prosecutor, and Birgit van Roessel, the Court’s second public prosecutor, who’re both heading the trial against Wilders, also both are working for the National Expertise Centre Discrimination. This Centre is the leading organization of the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ to track down “crimes of expression and speech”.
HMMMM....what fate has in store for one !
Does anyone remember...
In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered". Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".
However I think the court will use this:
Netherlands - Constitution
Adopted on: 17 Feb 1983
ICL Document Status: 1989
Chapter 1 Fundamental Rights
Article 1 [Equality]
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.
It is up to the British people to unite and demand a return to common sense from their lawmakers. Shelia, our Laws are now Directives from Europe, a Law takes several years to ascend, they are not proposed, read, re-read etc by hordes of fools. Please also remember that the EU is first and fore-most an Economic entity rather than a Political formation. A great many of the Laws are designed for Economic benefit. Although the recognition of regional food specialities was almost ignored, I do believe that view is now rescinded.
HMMMM....what fate has in store for one !
Does anyone remember...
In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered". Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".
However I think the court will use this:
Netherlands - Constitution
Adopted on: 17 Feb 1983
ICL Document Status: 1989
Chapter 1 Fundamental Rights
Article 1 [Equality]
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.
It is up to the British people to unite and demand a return to common sense from their lawmakers. Shelia, our Laws are now Directives from Europe, a Law takes several years to ascend, they are not proposed, read, re-read etc by hordes of fools. Please also remember that the EU is first and fore-most an Economic entity rather than a Political formation. A great many of the Laws are designed for Economic benefit. Although the recognition of regional food specialities was almost ignored, I do believe that view is now rescinded.
Does it strike anyone else as singular that "Leftist" and "Hate America" are, in one form or another, so frequently are found in the same sentence?
Socialists hate America! Socialism is in essence a religion. It denies the existence of any God, and bows to the "Immutable forces of History." Socialists hate America because, according to the immutable forces of history, America should have passed into grinding poverty and proltarian revolution decades ago. Yet it stubornly refuses to accept the highest and best level of socio-economic system, i.e., socialism; and not only does it stubornly insist on continuing to subject its people to the cruel exploitations of the evil capitalists, it thumbs its nose at history by continually being the most prosperous, the wealthiest, the strongest and by and large the happiest nation in the world, while those nations which have bowed to the forces of history and accepted the benefits of socialism have invariably experienced economic stagnation and increased poverty!
They NEED to destroy us. Our very existence is tangible proof that their great god History, as propounded by its prophets Marx, Engles, Lenin, et al, is a false god. Such blasphemy cannot be tolerated!
Mike
Socialists hate America! Socialism is in essence a religion. It denies the existence of any God, and bows to the "Immutable forces of History." Socialists hate America because, according to the immutable forces of history, America should have passed into grinding poverty and proltarian revolution decades ago. Yet it stubornly refuses to accept the highest and best level of socio-economic system, i.e., socialism; and not only does it stubornly insist on continuing to subject its people to the cruel exploitations of the evil capitalists, it thumbs its nose at history by continually being the most prosperous, the wealthiest, the strongest and by and large the happiest nation in the world, while those nations which have bowed to the forces of history and accepted the benefits of socialism have invariably experienced economic stagnation and increased poverty!
They NEED to destroy us. Our very existence is tangible proof that their great god History, as propounded by its prophets Marx, Engles, Lenin, et al, is a false god. Such blasphemy cannot be tolerated!
Mike
QUOTE
First I wanna thank you for sharing your thoughts with me, I certainly appreciate it. But you know what really puzzles me? Why do so many of these people from the Middel East or north- or east Africa who come to Europe as fugitives, usually turn into a menace to the society? And how come they can go back - on holyday - to a country the fled in the first place?
Bjoern,
Because they find here (I'm talking about France) what they don't have in their own country: freedom, peace, social benefits, often they don't even have to work. Thay save and go back to their country to spend nice holidays with their family and buy a flat or house for their retirement days. But they still criticise when they feel they don't get enough!
Of course, I'm not talking about the political refugees who really are in danger in their country and never go back there. Those people have often left behind their family (dead or alive) and know they cannot go back.
I wonder how my life would be if I went to live in Algeria, for instance?
Nathalie
QUOTE(G.MITCHELL @ Jan 17 2010, 01:24 PM)
Paul Vellerman, Amsterdam’s Court public prosecutor, and Birgit van Roessel, the Court’s second public prosecutor, who’re both heading the trial against Wilders, also both are working for the National Expertise Centre Discrimination. This Centre is the leading organization of the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ to track down “crimes of expression and speech”.
Gary, what's about to steamroll over mr. Wilders is the same type of kangaroo court that held mr Ezra Levant pinned down for 900 days. Well, not entirely, though, this time it's actually a real court, with real lawyers and judges. And that scares the hell out of me; one thing is that if some hot shots form up an organization in order to make a buck by going after "racists", it's a whole new ballgame when the Government put their thumbs down on it in order to score political points. I smell a rat, no, make that many rats. But then again, if you knew how they make politics and the Norwegian "leverpostei", you will never have another good nights sleep.
_________
To Nathalie
I cincerely believe that the best way we can help those in dire need, is to teach them how to help themselves. What we have been doing so far is, in my opinion, counterproductive. Wish I knew how to fix it though, but I don't. Frankly, I think we're too far gone already, Europe is on its way to hell. But look at the bright side: we're traveling on first class!
bjorn
Bjorn,
I agree with you however, some political people don't like it when their "people" can think and act for themselves...
Those who travel in second class can already think and act for themselves, even though they need a good kick in the bum at times.
But there are those, numerous, who travel in the freight wagon and cannot do much for themselves because they are constrained through violence and intimidation, for instance. Our governments have to act for these people, but do they really do it?
Nathalie
I agree with you however, some political people don't like it when their "people" can think and act for themselves...
Those who travel in second class can already think and act for themselves, even though they need a good kick in the bum at times.
But there are those, numerous, who travel in the freight wagon and cannot do much for themselves because they are constrained through violence and intimidation, for instance. Our governments have to act for these people, but do they really do it?
Nathalie
QUOTE(Frenchie @ Jan 19 2010, 02:55 AM)
Bjorn,
I agree with you however, some political people don't like it when their "people" can think and act for themselves...
Those who travel in second class can already think and act for themselves, even though they need a good kick in the bum at times.
But there are those, numerous, who travel in the freight wagon and cannot do much for themselves because they are constrained through violence and intimidation, for instance. Our governments have to act for these people, but do they really do it?
Nathalie
I agree with you however, some political people don't like it when their "people" can think and act for themselves...
Those who travel in second class can already think and act for themselves, even though they need a good kick in the bum at times.
But there are those, numerous, who travel in the freight wagon and cannot do much for themselves because they are constrained through violence and intimidation, for instance. Our governments have to act for these people, but do they really do it?
Nathalie
Well, Nathalie, I'm not sure which wagon I'm in, but I do know one thing, I'd rather put up a fight before I let anybody take over my country and turn it into a Sharia Hell. In Holland, two politicians and a director stood up for something they believed in: Freedom of speech. Two of them are dead, the third is on trial for "hate-speech". I think maybe we should put that into perspective and start asking some critical questions.
I primarily blame the socialists for what's happening in Europe these days, as they're trying to unite God and Karl Marx at the same time as they're recycling a paradigm that belongs on the historical dunghill. When the Soviet Union imploded and the ideological beacon in the Kreml began to flicker, they desperately needed a new housegod to replace the one that's buried under the ruins of the Berlin Wall.
And they succeeded beyond anything I could imagine. Let me give you an example or two, how they did it. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former Norwegian Prime Minister, now some head honcho in the World Health Organization (WHO), seem to have established a new paradigma: It's immoral to question the UN "Climate Panel" and its socalled scientific research and conclutions. It's our fault that the planet Earth has a fever, and we'd better reach deep in our pocket and pay our debt to the new housegod, or the "global warming" will burn us to death.
Oh, and by all means, don't even think about mentioning that many European cities has a growing ghetto-problem, or suggest that it has something to do with the growing number of illegal immigrants. And if you dare to ask if the sky-rocketing crime rate has something to do with illegal immigration and the non-western "culture" or "religion", you'd better be prepared for the consequences. Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh wasn't. Point being this: sit down and keep your mouth shut, let the politicians and the bureaucrats do the thinking for you. Stick your head out, and they'll open up with a verbal barrage of supressing fire.
I feel it's my duty to point a finger at the warning signs, even though I shouldn't have to, they're practically smashing in our windshields as we're driving down our gold brick road. Europe is in trouble - again, and they behave like drunken sailors. Hopefully we'll live to see another hangover.
And I would like to see Normandy again, it's like home away from home to me. I have a brother in Dieppe that I never have met, as my dad, in fact, once was a drunken sailor. We'll start learning French in February, and we're entertaining the idea of moving to Normandy "on Golden Pond". Growing old in Norway no longer appeal to me, and I couldn't think of a better place to walk out from this world than my little sanctuary in Ct. Cyr, surrounded by thousands of my heroes. God bless.
bjorn
Bjorn
I've heard about the problems you mention in the Netherlands. Rather shocking.
I'm afraid you'll find the same sources of disappointment here.
I feel that not many of us ask themselves questions -let alone critical ones- and have the will to react and speak out. There are so many sheep in this world...
I can't believe you have a brother in Dieppe, it is just 35 miles North from where I was born.
If you need information about Normandie, let me know. I live in Le Havre now.
Nathalie
I've heard about the problems you mention in the Netherlands. Rather shocking.
I'm afraid you'll find the same sources of disappointment here.
I feel that not many of us ask themselves questions -let alone critical ones- and have the will to react and speak out. There are so many sheep in this world...
I can't believe you have a brother in Dieppe, it is just 35 miles North from where I was born.
If you need information about Normandie, let me know. I live in Le Havre now.
Nathalie
Canada is almost as bad with its Human Rights Tribunals enforcing censorship.
There was a humourous article by Mark Steyn about their decisions.
What if a blind man with a guide dog had taken on a Muslim bed-and-breakfast owner?
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/01/the-cas...eing-eye-horse/
What’s new in the exciting world of Canadian “human rights”?
Well, the other day Kelly Egan of the Ottawa Citizen reported the story of a gay bed-and-breakfast owner allergic to dogs who got hauled in for “mediation” by the “Human Rights” Tribunal of Ontario after he turned away a blind man with a Seeing Eye dog. Douglas McCue, 68, of the CornerStone B & B in Perth, Ont., suffers from acute sinusitis aggravated by exposure to canines. Ian Martin, a blind diabetic, responded with a lawyer’s letter and a demand for compensation that started at two grand and quickly escalated into five figures.
As a notorious homophobic disablist, I don’t have a dog in this fight. Unfortunately, neither did Mr. McCue. After “mediation,” he cut the plaintiff a cheque for 700 bucks and expressed his “sincere regret,” which is to say it was entirely insincere but mandated by the state. And then he closed his bed and breakfast. No longer will Ontario vacationers face the scourge of caninophobic homosexual innkeepers.
Perhaps Mr. Martin could buy the CornerStone from Mr. McCue and run it happily as a non-discriminatory B & B celebrating the diversity of Canada’s guide-dog mosaic. At least until a litigious imam shows up and complains to the HRTO that having to put up with a filthy mutt wandering round the dining room is grossly offensive to him as a Muslim, and that as tolerant progressive Canadians we need to send a strong signal to Islamophobic blind hoteliers.
After all, why does he need a dog? Earlier this year, Mona Ramouni, a blind Muslim from Dearborn, Mich., began taking her seeing-eye horse on the bus with her. Dogs “violate ritual purity,” a spokesperson for the Council on American-Islamic Relations explained to the Chicago Tribune. So Cali, a three-year-old miniature former show horse who started training with Miss Ramouni last November, is the perfect compromise, acceptable to Muslims, the blind, and dog-fearing gays alike. A “human rights” tribunal genuinely committed to “mediation” would surely have ordered the government to replace all guide dogs with publicly funded seeing-eye horses by the spring of 2010. The superfluous pooches could be retrained as guard dogs at the new detention facility for equinophobic bus drivers.
A few months back, at an appearance in Ottawa with my fellow free-speech campaigner Ezra Levant, I conceded that, as a couple of right-wing blowhards, we did not make very fetching victims, and that, if you were casting this thing for maximum public appeal, you’d ditch Ezra and me and replace us with David Suzuki and Margaret Atwood. But the truth is that most of the victims of the Canadian “human rights” racket are very appealing. Mr. McCue isn’t an extremist nut like yours truly: he’s a nice gay. What did he do to deserve being put out of business by the government of Ontario? What did Gator Ted, the Burlington bar owner in the interminable investigation into the “human right” to smoke marijuana on someone else’s property, do to merit his years in Ontario “human rights” hell? Or John Fulton, the St. Catharines fitness club owner who expressed misgivings about letting a pre-op transsexual (i.e., still flying the old meat and two veg) use the ladies’ shower because his female clients might not be comfortable with it. Two years on, the plaintiff is now a full-blown plaintifette, having relocated to Ottawa and ditched the wedding tackle en route, and the “human rights” regime remains determined to do the same, metaphorically, to Mr. Fulton: cut his nuts off.
Let’s take it as read that, as the Ontario “Human Rights” Commission made clear in its drive-through verdict in the Maclean’s case, I’m a hater. Hate is my business. Hate is my middle name. Hating is where I’m at. I love to hate and I hate to love. “Hate-monger, hate-monger, mong me some hate,” I trill to myself in the mirror every morning. So, when Barbara Hall, Chief Commissar of the OHRC, decides to catch my eye, I couldn’t be happier, or hatier.
But Gator Ted and Douglas McCue aren’t in the hate biz. They’re not even mildly “right-wing.” They’re just fellows trying to keep their heads down and make a living. For years John Fulton co-sponsored the annual St. Catharines AIDS walk. Does that sound like some frothing Steynian homophobic bigot? Well, a fat lot of good the LGBT outreach did him come the day the “human rights” enforcers showed up to ruin his life. Put yourself in the shoes of these defendants: a guy wants to smoke medical marijuana on the premises of your restaurant. Do you refuse and get plunged into a “human rights” nightmare? Or do you string along with his hitherto unknown “human right” and get sued when the trucker sitting on the bar stool next to him fails his drug test? Do you decline to let the pre-op use the ladies’ changing room and get a “human rights” complaint? Or permit the Big Swinging Dick to have the run of the shower and get a whole bunch of other suits from his outraged female members? Do you rebuff the Seeing Eye dog and lose your business? Or do you let him in and lose your clientele? (Mr. McCue keeps hypoallergenic bedding in his guest rooms for some of his regulars, and, as I understand it, gay men are more prone to sinusitis.)
The reality is there is no correct answer to any of the above: as I said a couple of weeks back, tyranny is always whimsical. Which is exactly how the social engineers of the “human rights” nomenklatura like it. Because it legitimizes the state as the only valid mediator of social relations. And so in the cause of invented rights of near parodic absurdity, a profoundly wicked “human rights” apparatus is happy to destroy utterly the lives and livelihoods of blameless individuals.
The Ottawa Citizen’s report on Mr. McCue’s travails was headlined “When two rights go wrong,” although what followed never quite spelled out what rights were at issue here: the right to vacation while blind vs. the right to inn-keep while gay? The Citizen’s headline writer didn’t seem to mean anything more than that the two parties both belonged to approved victim groups. At which point the whole “human rights” racket starts to fall apart. It used to be simpler: Jews vs. neo-Nazis? Muslims vs. Steyn? Gays vs. Christians? Easy calls all. The last time gays, B & Bs and the “human rights” commission were in the news was a couple of years back, when Dagmar and Arnost Cepica closed their bed and breakfast rather than comply with a P.E.I. HRC ruling that they rent the room to a homosexual couple. We all knew who to root for back then: obviously if the uptight squaresville Christian couple are that hung up on the godless sodomites going at it like the clappers in their premium rental unit they shouldn’t be in the B & B business at all.
What goes around comes around. But, in the dog-bites-gay case, the upshot seems to be that persons with sinusitis no longer enjoy the human right to run a B & B. Which may not seem a big deal, but is certainly at odds with the “human rights” establishment’s deference to say, Micheline Montreuil, the transgendered lawyer and serial plaintiff against the Canadian Forces and other transphobic putative employers. But what it ultimately portends is the death of “public accommodation,” the concept by which the state claims the right to regulate what goes on in your health club or restaurant. As many readers point out, we homophobic Islamophobic haters are a dying breed: any day now I’m bound to keel over from a massive stroke, and thereafter gays, Muslims and Seeing Eye dogs will gambol and frolic in harmony throughout the peaceable kingdom. Yet the shifting hierarchies of multiculturalism are not too hard to discern: in Britain, an educational establishment gung-ho about forcing the kindergartners of evangelical Christians to be taught the joys of same-sex marriage crumbled in nothing flat when Muslim parents in Bristol objected. If it’s a choice between Heather Has Two Mommies or Heather Has Four Mommies And A Big Bearded Daddy Who Wants To Marry Her Off To A Cousin Back In Pakistan, bet on the latter. Any gay couple or blind man with a Seeing Eye dog who takes on a Muslim bed-and-breakfast proprietor will get short shrift from the “human rights” commission. The OHRC is currently champing at the bit to force gay altar servers on Ontario Catholics. At the local mosque, no imam need worry about such state encroachments on religion.
The “human rights” bureaucracy has had a grand run sticking it to Christians and other unfashionable groups. The internal contradictions of the rainbow coalition will prove harder to negotiate.
Vee
There was a humourous article by Mark Steyn about their decisions.
What if a blind man with a guide dog had taken on a Muslim bed-and-breakfast owner?
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/01/the-cas...eing-eye-horse/
What’s new in the exciting world of Canadian “human rights”?
Well, the other day Kelly Egan of the Ottawa Citizen reported the story of a gay bed-and-breakfast owner allergic to dogs who got hauled in for “mediation” by the “Human Rights” Tribunal of Ontario after he turned away a blind man with a Seeing Eye dog. Douglas McCue, 68, of the CornerStone B & B in Perth, Ont., suffers from acute sinusitis aggravated by exposure to canines. Ian Martin, a blind diabetic, responded with a lawyer’s letter and a demand for compensation that started at two grand and quickly escalated into five figures.
As a notorious homophobic disablist, I don’t have a dog in this fight. Unfortunately, neither did Mr. McCue. After “mediation,” he cut the plaintiff a cheque for 700 bucks and expressed his “sincere regret,” which is to say it was entirely insincere but mandated by the state. And then he closed his bed and breakfast. No longer will Ontario vacationers face the scourge of caninophobic homosexual innkeepers.
Perhaps Mr. Martin could buy the CornerStone from Mr. McCue and run it happily as a non-discriminatory B & B celebrating the diversity of Canada’s guide-dog mosaic. At least until a litigious imam shows up and complains to the HRTO that having to put up with a filthy mutt wandering round the dining room is grossly offensive to him as a Muslim, and that as tolerant progressive Canadians we need to send a strong signal to Islamophobic blind hoteliers.
After all, why does he need a dog? Earlier this year, Mona Ramouni, a blind Muslim from Dearborn, Mich., began taking her seeing-eye horse on the bus with her. Dogs “violate ritual purity,” a spokesperson for the Council on American-Islamic Relations explained to the Chicago Tribune. So Cali, a three-year-old miniature former show horse who started training with Miss Ramouni last November, is the perfect compromise, acceptable to Muslims, the blind, and dog-fearing gays alike. A “human rights” tribunal genuinely committed to “mediation” would surely have ordered the government to replace all guide dogs with publicly funded seeing-eye horses by the spring of 2010. The superfluous pooches could be retrained as guard dogs at the new detention facility for equinophobic bus drivers.
A few months back, at an appearance in Ottawa with my fellow free-speech campaigner Ezra Levant, I conceded that, as a couple of right-wing blowhards, we did not make very fetching victims, and that, if you were casting this thing for maximum public appeal, you’d ditch Ezra and me and replace us with David Suzuki and Margaret Atwood. But the truth is that most of the victims of the Canadian “human rights” racket are very appealing. Mr. McCue isn’t an extremist nut like yours truly: he’s a nice gay. What did he do to deserve being put out of business by the government of Ontario? What did Gator Ted, the Burlington bar owner in the interminable investigation into the “human right” to smoke marijuana on someone else’s property, do to merit his years in Ontario “human rights” hell? Or John Fulton, the St. Catharines fitness club owner who expressed misgivings about letting a pre-op transsexual (i.e., still flying the old meat and two veg) use the ladies’ shower because his female clients might not be comfortable with it. Two years on, the plaintiff is now a full-blown plaintifette, having relocated to Ottawa and ditched the wedding tackle en route, and the “human rights” regime remains determined to do the same, metaphorically, to Mr. Fulton: cut his nuts off.
Let’s take it as read that, as the Ontario “Human Rights” Commission made clear in its drive-through verdict in the Maclean’s case, I’m a hater. Hate is my business. Hate is my middle name. Hating is where I’m at. I love to hate and I hate to love. “Hate-monger, hate-monger, mong me some hate,” I trill to myself in the mirror every morning. So, when Barbara Hall, Chief Commissar of the OHRC, decides to catch my eye, I couldn’t be happier, or hatier.
But Gator Ted and Douglas McCue aren’t in the hate biz. They’re not even mildly “right-wing.” They’re just fellows trying to keep their heads down and make a living. For years John Fulton co-sponsored the annual St. Catharines AIDS walk. Does that sound like some frothing Steynian homophobic bigot? Well, a fat lot of good the LGBT outreach did him come the day the “human rights” enforcers showed up to ruin his life. Put yourself in the shoes of these defendants: a guy wants to smoke medical marijuana on the premises of your restaurant. Do you refuse and get plunged into a “human rights” nightmare? Or do you string along with his hitherto unknown “human right” and get sued when the trucker sitting on the bar stool next to him fails his drug test? Do you decline to let the pre-op use the ladies’ changing room and get a “human rights” complaint? Or permit the Big Swinging Dick to have the run of the shower and get a whole bunch of other suits from his outraged female members? Do you rebuff the Seeing Eye dog and lose your business? Or do you let him in and lose your clientele? (Mr. McCue keeps hypoallergenic bedding in his guest rooms for some of his regulars, and, as I understand it, gay men are more prone to sinusitis.)
The reality is there is no correct answer to any of the above: as I said a couple of weeks back, tyranny is always whimsical. Which is exactly how the social engineers of the “human rights” nomenklatura like it. Because it legitimizes the state as the only valid mediator of social relations. And so in the cause of invented rights of near parodic absurdity, a profoundly wicked “human rights” apparatus is happy to destroy utterly the lives and livelihoods of blameless individuals.
The Ottawa Citizen’s report on Mr. McCue’s travails was headlined “When two rights go wrong,” although what followed never quite spelled out what rights were at issue here: the right to vacation while blind vs. the right to inn-keep while gay? The Citizen’s headline writer didn’t seem to mean anything more than that the two parties both belonged to approved victim groups. At which point the whole “human rights” racket starts to fall apart. It used to be simpler: Jews vs. neo-Nazis? Muslims vs. Steyn? Gays vs. Christians? Easy calls all. The last time gays, B & Bs and the “human rights” commission were in the news was a couple of years back, when Dagmar and Arnost Cepica closed their bed and breakfast rather than comply with a P.E.I. HRC ruling that they rent the room to a homosexual couple. We all knew who to root for back then: obviously if the uptight squaresville Christian couple are that hung up on the godless sodomites going at it like the clappers in their premium rental unit they shouldn’t be in the B & B business at all.
What goes around comes around. But, in the dog-bites-gay case, the upshot seems to be that persons with sinusitis no longer enjoy the human right to run a B & B. Which may not seem a big deal, but is certainly at odds with the “human rights” establishment’s deference to say, Micheline Montreuil, the transgendered lawyer and serial plaintiff against the Canadian Forces and other transphobic putative employers. But what it ultimately portends is the death of “public accommodation,” the concept by which the state claims the right to regulate what goes on in your health club or restaurant. As many readers point out, we homophobic Islamophobic haters are a dying breed: any day now I’m bound to keel over from a massive stroke, and thereafter gays, Muslims and Seeing Eye dogs will gambol and frolic in harmony throughout the peaceable kingdom. Yet the shifting hierarchies of multiculturalism are not too hard to discern: in Britain, an educational establishment gung-ho about forcing the kindergartners of evangelical Christians to be taught the joys of same-sex marriage crumbled in nothing flat when Muslim parents in Bristol objected. If it’s a choice between Heather Has Two Mommies or Heather Has Four Mommies And A Big Bearded Daddy Who Wants To Marry Her Off To A Cousin Back In Pakistan, bet on the latter. Any gay couple or blind man with a Seeing Eye dog who takes on a Muslim bed-and-breakfast proprietor will get short shrift from the “human rights” commission. The OHRC is currently champing at the bit to force gay altar servers on Ontario Catholics. At the local mosque, no imam need worry about such state encroachments on religion.
The “human rights” bureaucracy has had a grand run sticking it to Christians and other unfashionable groups. The internal contradictions of the rainbow coalition will prove harder to negotiate.
Vee
QUOTE(Bjoern G @ Jan 16 2010, 12:28 PM)
Too many of my fellow countrymen (-and women) seem to feel comfortable with the Muslims burning the American Flag, some even say that the Americans had it comming. Hell, I've even heard some left wing radicals like Dr. M. Gilbert and Dr. E Fosse ( The "Gaza medic team"), say that the Americans deserved what happened on the 9/11
Man, that really makes my blood boil. Can they say what, exactly, did we have it coming for? How did we deserve it? How about an American saying that a European country deserved to be occupied by the Germans? How well would that go over? Hypocrisy!
Good Lord that makes me want to choke someone out when I hear that. France is the worst, with thousands of our best young men laying in her soil having died to help and free them, they still say that.
Wow.
Dude, calm down. The poster is a tad, hmm, I am having trouble finding the right word. Let's just say he is a bit passionate in his pro-Israeli positions, and he may very well hang with a group of people who may have made such a remark, but I do not think it reflects his whole country. My cousin works in the Netherlands, and he tells us that the Dutch think Americans rock. No matter where you are, there is probably some a$$hole thinking of way to pi$$ in your cornflakes.
And I remember the outpouring of sympathy from our European allies after September 11th. It was genuine and welcomed.
And I remember the outpouring of sympathy from our European allies after September 11th. It was genuine and welcomed.
QUOTE(USMCSomaliaVet @ Mar 25 2010, 02:49 PM)
Man, that really makes my blood boil. Can they say what, exactly, did we have it coming for? How did we deserve it? How about an American saying that a European country deserved to be occupied by the Germans? How well would that go over? Hypocrisy!
Good Lord that makes me want to choke someone out when I hear that. France is the worst, with thousands of our best young men laying in her soil having died to help and free them, they still say that.
Wow.
Good Lord that makes me want to choke someone out when I hear that. France is the worst, with thousands of our best young men laying in her soil having died to help and free them, they still say that.
Wow.
QUOTE(AQuaker @ Mar 25 2010, 04:21 PM)
Dude, calm down. The poster is a tad, hmm, I am having trouble finding the right word. Let's just say he is a bit passionate in his pro-Israeli positions, and he may very well hang with a group of people who may have made such a remark, but I do not think it reflects his whole country. My cousin works in the Netherlands, and he tells us that the Dutch think Americans rock. No matter where you are, there is probably some a$$hole thinking of way to pi$$ in your cornflakes.
And I remember the outpouring of sympathy from our European allies after September 11th. It was genuine and welcomed.
And I remember the outpouring of sympathy from our European allies after September 11th. It was genuine and welcomed.
That was not directed at him personally. It was directed at anyone who thinks we had it coming. I understand that no matter where you go there are d-bags who will stop at nothing to display their ignorance. I did not say, nor do I think, it applies to any country as a whole.
The outpouring of sympathy was indeed touching and genuine, to be sure.
My problem is that a FEW of the same people who sent their support along soon soured and started taking pot shots and baiting. That bothers me, as it did many Americans.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.