Shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater

February 4, 2009 — xanthippa

Just about everybody agrees that there ‘ought to’ be some limits on ‘Free Speech’.

One of the ‘classic’ examples is ‘Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater‘: it is reasonable to limit Freedom of Speech to prevent someone from shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, thus causing a panic during which people could be hurt or even killed.  Most people agree that this is a reasonable limit.

So, what if the theater IS on fire?

Should people be forbidden to raise a warning in a theater that is actually burning?

When first formulated, this ‘reasonable limit’ on Freedom of Speech was phrased ‘it is reasonable to limit Freedom of Speech to prevent someone from falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater’.

In our eagerness to apply this limit on Freedom of Speech, we have forgotten the ‘reality check’ bit!  Truth has now become irrelevant.

We have become extremely adept at prosecuting people who are figuratively ‘shouting fire’ by criticizing the failures of our current social policies which ghettoize citizens based on cultural or religious grounds and create multiple classes of citizenship.  Any time a person speaks up to criticize social policies which contain principles of ‘culture’ or ‘religion’, or the faulty implementation of these social policies, or their negative impacts – we prosecute them for ‘Shouting “Fire!”‘

Everyone gets all righteously indignant, points fingers at them and condemns them.  These people get dragged through the mud (the courts) and, too often, they get convicted of ‘shouting fire’.  After all, they did!

Our courts – both legal, kangaroo and the ‘court of public opinion’ – have forgotten that  ‘shouting “Fire!”‘ in a burning theater is not only acceptable, it saves lives!  In fact, shutting up the very people who give a true warning – that is what puts us all in serious danger.

Geert Wilders …

… Ezra Levant …

… Mark Steyn …

… Sussane Winter …

… Ayaan Hirsi Ali …

… Kathy Shaidle …

… and many, many more.  The list is getting dangerously long.

FIRE!!!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, perceptions, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Aisha

February 3, 2009 — xanthippa
Aisha

Aisha

Posted in art, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Groundhog Day – What does it mean?

February 2, 2009 — xanthippa

If you live in North America, you are likely ‘familiar’ with ‘Groundhog Day’:  on the 2nd of February, ‘The Groudhog wakes from winter slumber and sticks hear head out of her den.

If it is sunny enough for the groundhog to cast a shadow, the sleepy gal will get startled and run back into her den to continue napping.  This will cause the cold winter weather to continue for 6 more weeks.  If it is cloudy, there will be no shadow to startle her and she’ll wake up nice and slowly.  She will then stay awake, causing the winter weather to recede and the spring weather to come early.

So, what is this quaint little legend all about?

Perhaps there is a reversal of causality:  this could simply be a weather pattern observation, set into a quaint little story.  After all, during the coldest winter temperatures, the sky is cloud-free and sunny.  Clouds act like a blanket that traps heat, so cloudy winter days tend to be warmer.  That is why it never snows when the temperatures are cold.  (We are talking relative winter temperatures here….as in, -40 degrees (Celsius and Fahrenheit ‘meet’ this point) is ‘chilly’, -10 degrees Celsius is ‘warm’.  Remember, I am writing from Canada.)  When it gets that cold, one could not even drive a groundhog out of its den!

It is conceivable that, over generations, people observed that if this time period was particularly cold – it was likely to signal that the winter weather would drag on for a bit.  Conversely, if the temperature at this time was mild, it would be followed by more mild weather, bringing the spring in earlier.  So, the co-relation.

Plausible.  Or, the roots of ‘Groundhog Day’ may lie somewhere else….

There are several things which are significant:

  1. The date – 2nd of February (plus or minus a day or two)
  2. 6 more weeks of winter
  3. The Groundhog herself
  4. The Groundhog affects the weather

1.  The date:  2nd of February

It is the halfway point between the Winter Solstice and the Spring Equinox:  this makes it a ‘cross-quarter day’.

From earliest historical records of human civilizations, we have seen that the solstices and equinoxes had been noted and celebrated by our ancestors.  These 4 ‘easy to define’ (through simple observation) markers of the Earth’s annual cycle are called ‘quarter days’.  The midpoints between them – when that season is most ‘intense’ – are also marked: these are called ‘cross-quarter days’.

Many cultures have described this ‘cycle’ as the ‘Wheel of the Year’:

http://www.midnightmoonchild.com/images/wheelx.gif

This image is from the names of the ‘marker days’ reflect the one of traditions descended from the British isles.  The ‘Pagan’ belief systems which accompany the annual cycles associate various Gods and Goddesses with specific parts of this cycle.

The 2nd of February is Candlemas, often also called Imbolc.  When considering the roots ‘Groundhog Day’, its date would suggest that we are not discussing simple long-term weather pattern observation.

2. ‘6 more weeks of winter’

This is also closely connected to the Wheel of the Year:  the period between each of the 8 ‘markers’ along the wheel is 6 weeks.

Let us consider the ‘season’ of ‘winter:

Astronomically, Winter Solstice marks the first day of winter and the darkest day of the year – after this point, daylight periods: begin to lengthen.   Astrologically, this marks the ‘Rebirth of the Sun’:  still too ‘young’ to bring warmth, but his strength is growing.

Even though the Sun had been ‘reborn’ and the days are now getting longer, the momentum of the ‘cooling’ takes 6 weeks to ‘ripen’.  That is why, 6 weeks after the beginning of a season, its’ ‘weather characteristics’ are the ‘strongest’.  And, winter is usually most bitter around the beginning of  February… just as we approach the ‘height of the season ‘holiday’:  Candlemas.

Accordingly, following Candlemas, winter begins to recede.  It is still there – but overall, the temperatures begin to warm, the sun is more visible and begins to slowly but surely melt the snow… and it will only be 6 weeks before the day is longer than the night!

Is it only co-incidence that the ‘Groundhog Day’ tradition cites this identical time period of 6 weeks?


3.  The ‘Groundhog’ herself

Spring is the time when things begin to grow.  Accordingly, Pagans associated growth and fecundity with spring and anthropomorphised the principle into the Goddess of Spring and Renewal:  Eostera (also spelled Ostara, and about 8 other ways, like ‘Easter’).

What is interesting about this goddess is that she is said to ‘awake’ on the winter cross-quarter day, Candlemas.  As she awakens, she adds her own magic to strengthen the growing Sun and because of her effort, the winter begins to recede.

Her power is greatest at the full moon following the Spring Equinox:  that is how we derive the timing of our Easter celebrations even today.  (Yes, there is a ‘detour’ through the Judeo-Christian tradition, but their ‘timimng’ of these festivals in Judaism and Christianity ultimately leads to the same archetype, even if through Ishtar and Isis.)

Since chickens only lay eggs when the day is longer than the night, the Spring Equinox marked the return of this cherished source of nutrition:  it became one of the symbols of the Goddess Eostera.  With their renown fecundity – and the timing of giving birth to their babies – rabbits also became symbols of Eostera.  And yes, that is why the ‘Easter Bunny brings eggs’.

Yet, there was another shape Eostera is said to take on when appearing to humans:  Groundhog.

So, is it co-incidence that it is Groundhog, as opposed to another hibernating animal, day?


4. The Groundhog affects the weather

Our little modern myth of Groundhog Day specifically states that it is the groundhog who changes the weather – not the other way around.  Why should the groundhogs ‘going back to sleep’ cause the weather to be colder, while ‘staying awake’ would cause it to warm up?

Curiously enough, it is when Eostera awakens and lends a helping hand to the Sun that the Pagan myths say winter begins to recede…  Co-incidence?  I think not!

In Conclusion

Today, ‘Groundhog Day’ is in no way a ‘religious celebration’.  Not in the least!  It is nothing more than a bit of fun to liven up chilly winter days.

Yes, it contains an echo of its roots in old Pagan traditions.  And that’s great!  Just as ‘inheriting your mother’s smile’ does not make one the same person as one’s mother, having fun with Groundhog Day does not mean one is inheriting its ancient religious significance.

Yet, just as looking at an old family photo album is fun, allowing one to trace certain characteristics they inherited from various ancestors, it is also fun to trace our today’s fun little customs, to see which echos of our ancestor’s traditions we have inherited!  It’s just a different kind of a ‘photo album’…

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in atheism, education, human nature, perceptions, philosophy, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Happy Birthday – to my blog!

January 31, 2009 — xanthippa

Yes!

It is hard to believe.

I have now been ‘around’ for a year!

Sincere thanks to all of you, who have made this effort worthwhile – and fun!

Posted in about. Tags: . 2 Comments »

The concept of ‘murder’ is not ‘universal’

January 30, 2009 — xanthippa

In the dawn of civilization, we lived in smaller groups – sometimes little more than extended families of 20-30 people.  The actual number depended on many factors, such as the environment, population density, how developed our societies were and what they depended on for sustenance, and so on.

For thousands of years, these earliest societies hardly ever grew to more 150 people – the Dunbar’s number – and formed our monkeysphere.  In these small communities, we could care about each person as an individual:  we knew them, their family, and we could relate to them on  an individual, personal level.  This group was what we related to as ‘we’ or ‘us’.  Everyone else was ‘them’, an outsider.

This is very important, because these concepts of ‘us’ and ‘them’ were key in the evolution of our concept of morality.

For example, the Yanomamo of the Amazon basin live in relatively isolated ‘traditional villages’.  They have a very specific understanding of the concept of  ‘murder’.  ‘Murder’, in their view, is killing someone or something ‘of the village’.  Killing a person who is ‘not of the village’ is ‘killing, not ‘murder’.  For the Yanomamo, killing a dog or a chicken that lives in the village is just as much ‘murder’ as killing a person who is ‘of the village’.

After all, everyone living ‘in the village’ forms a community which shares social bonds and therefore has an expectation of trust from the other members of the community.  It is killing a being with whom one shares social bonds that defines ‘murder’ for the Yanomamo.  The act of transgressing against the social bonds, the breaking of  trust which was built up through living together in one community, that constitutes ‘murder’.

This little example shows how a concept we consider universal can be thought just as universal, yet interpreted completely differently in other societies.

As we ‘scaled up’ our communities and instituded rules/laws – rather than direct resolution of specific actions – to govern our behaviour, we have moved from the early, Yanomamo-style concept of ‘murder’=’breaking social bonds of trust’ to the more general concept of ‘murder’=’killing a human’.

It is we, ‘The Westerners’, who have a shifted our moral concepts somewhere along our society’s development.  Instead ‘drawing the line’ based on ‘trust’ and ‘social bonds’, we have made them more abstract (emotionally) choice:  we base in to genetic similarity, belonging to the same species.

Yes, it is much more complex than just ‘genetic similarity’…  The strong and undeniable influence of Christian doctrines of ‘soul’ and their separation between ‘human’=’soul’ and ‘non-human’=’no soul’ probably has a lot to do with why our ancestors shifted their definition of ‘murder’ from ‘breaking the expectation of trust’ to ‘killing a member of our species’.  The root cause is not the point here – the fact that it happened is.

We can still see the ‘old morality’ hold true in some of our attitudes:  many of us struggle with the cultural understanding that killing an enemy soldier during war does not constitute ‘murder’, while killing a stranger on the street during peacetime does.  These ‘conflicting attitudes’ have been much remarked upon.  Still, most people who comment on it miss the true significance of this apparent contradiction:  this is a vestige of our original, ‘human’ concept of ‘murder’ – from before we drew an abstract line around ‘human’ and began to consider it to be ‘absolute’.

This is a clear and undeniable demonstration that it is our own cultural morals which have deviated from their original meanings.

There is nothing wrong with that – societies evolve and so do their ideas of morality.  Evolving our morals to keep pace with social evolution is usually a good thing – in my never-humble-opinion.  I am not criticizing that in the least. Yet, I am calling attention to the fact that most of us still have trouble even conceiving of the very idea that OUR understanding of what constitutes morality is not universal!

Hinduism, for example, has a much broader concept of what constitutes ‘murder’ than we, in ‘the West’ do.  While the very idea of ‘soul’ originated in the area of today’s India (and influenced certain mystic Jewish sects, like the Essenes – via whom Christianity acquired the concept of the divine soul), the Hindus do not limit the concept of ‘soul’ to just humans.  Therefore, their idea of ‘murder’ is also different from our ‘Western understanding’.  To pious Hindus, killing any living being constitutes ‘murder’.

And Islam teaches that all Muslims are members of the same greater family (Umma), or tribe: to be a Muslim is to be one of ‘us’ – non-Muslims are ‘they’.  Therefore,  killing a member of the Umma is ‘murder’….but killing someone who is not a Muslims (and therefore not a member of the Umma, not one of ‘us’) is not ‘murder’, it is just ‘killing’.  The ‘Umma’ may have grown beyond a single village, but the concept of ‘being of the Umma’ has not!

Understanding this is essential in order for people form different cultures to communicate effectively.  This is especially important as we are reaching the next stage of ‘scaling up of our communities‘ – this time on the global scale.

When negotiating how we integrate our cultures (because that is what is happening, like it or not), none of us (all sides) must fall into the error of considering our interpretation of deep concepts, of what constitutes ‘morality’, to be somehow ‘universal’.

Doing so would only lead to deep misunderstandings which lead to conflict and suffering.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in human nature, perceptions, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 6 Comments »

Geert Wilders: NOT a ‘perfect poster boy’…SO?

January 30, 2009 — xanthippa

While reading the reactions to ‘The Geert Wildres case’, I have been saddened, dismayed and disheartened….

Why?

Because so many people who – in principle -think they support Freedom of Speech are critical of supporting of Geert Wilders in particular!

I have read criticism in many places, to the effect that if we ‘want to fight for Freedom of Speech’, we ‘should find a better poster-boy’….

People who express these sentiments are missing the point!!!

Let’s go back to basic human psychology…

Whom does a bully pick on first???

The successful bully will first pick on the strongest opponent who does not have allies ready to come to his/her defense!

This is a very basic psychological principle, taught to us both in school (if one were inclined to study psychology or anthropology/sociology or even history or business skills) and also in fiction – good fiction (including ‘science fiction’ and ‘historical novels’, ‘where’ most good ‘fiction’ writer are).  From Waltari to Card, from Čapek to Asimov.  The lesson is clear.  One would expect that most intelligent people would have learned it by now…

It is precisely because Geert Wilders is not likable, it is precisely because he is on the fringes of society, that he is one of the ‘first lines of victims’ of this new form of totalitarianism which hides its ugly face beneath a pretense of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘accommodation’.  Not aware of his new totalitarianism?  Please, look around!  (Or read Kathy Shaidle’s book, ‘Tyrany of the Nice’.)

More and more invasive internet censorship….

More and more government regulation of our information streams…

More and more interference with mainstream media (through not using ‘organized means’)….and more and more media activism…

Add to this the growing debts by ‘Western’ governments – and the reality of who holds the bonds on these debts….

Include the Western obsession with the intentionally manipulated ‘Global Warming‘ agenda – with the billions paid in ‘carbon indulgencies’ by European countries….  (Along with unsupportable social systems, do you think sucking billions out of the European economies could have played a tiny role in the economic meltdown?)

And, last but not least, these latest ‘economic bailout packages’ with ‘strings attached’ give governments way too much control over industries (not that the European countries have not been racing down this road already…).  Whenever big business and big governments get all nice and cozy with each other, the rest of us need to worry.

This little peek around should dispel any last doubts that ALL our governments are steadily moving down the road towards totalitarianism….perhaps a little slower in Canada and the US than in Europe, but, slow and steady….

But, back to my main point:

Totalitarian governments are always bullies – it’s part of the definition.  That is why they follow classical bully-psychology:  beat up the biggest guy nobody will come and help because he’s a jerk.  When they want to establish – set a precedent – that they have the power to control something, totalitarian governments will pick on their strongest opponent who is least likable.  Once the precedent is set, they can then pick on their other opponents, one at a time. Please, notice the pattern!

In the words of Martin Niemöller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Have we really forgotten the lesson?

For those who have, or who have failed to learn it, let me say it once again: IT’S NOT ABOUT GEERT WILDERS.  IT’S ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH – AND ABOUT POLITICIANS USURPING THE POWER TO SILENCE US.

Don’t let them.  Please!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, perceptions, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Will all Muslims be caught in the backlash against Islamists?

January 28, 2009 — xanthippa

This post can stand on its own, but it is a loose continuation of my rant from yesterday:  Actions and reactions

In my never-humble-opinion, we are dealing with several things which overlap and muddle all discussions when we discuss ‘freedom of speech’, Islam and the now inevitable clash between the two.  Here is my little breakdown:

1. Islamists – those for whom Islam is not just a religion, but a political movement bent on dominating the world (it is wrong to dismiss the things people say they believe – and want to do, even if it sounds outrageous to our sensibilities).

2. Muslims – these are people for whom Islam is a religion.  It includes people for whom it is nothing more than their personal faith and who wish nothing more than to live in a free, democratic society.  It also includes all the Islamists.

3. Islamists make claims and demands on behalf of all Muslims, whether all Muslims agree with them or not.

4. Making claims and demands is perfectly OK. I know I make enough of them!

5. Legislators are satisfying and accommodating these claims and demands.  This is wrong.

Even if the Islamists DID have a mandate to speak for all Muslims (which they do NOT) it is unwise to grant any demands for special privileges to any group within a democracy, because this sets up official ‘classes of citizenship’. (Do we really want to follow the example of Malaysia, where there is one ministry to deal with the rights of non-Muslim women and then a secretariate to deal with the rights and welfare of only Muslim women, with no agencies permitted to participate in both?)

Also, accommodating the Islamists sets them up as ‘community leaders’ and this special status empowers the individual Islamist leaders.  It physically, financially (as government programs for the community are often administered through them) and psychologically gives them the ability to control most of the Muslims in their community.  Not only is very unfair to those moderate Muslims who want to enjoy democracy, it also, in a very real way, creates a parallel governance structure which is independent of the national government and free to pursue its own goals (which are often not compatible with the national government’s goals of maintaining terittorial sovereignity, and so on.)  

6. By setting Muslims apart from society, and giving them a special, privileged status (real or perceived), a strong resentment against all members of this perceived special group will necessarily happen.  That is human nature – people resent being treated (even if this is just a false perception) as second-class citizens, and, if they feel unable to change the governance structure which instituted this inequity, they will turn their resentment against the privileged group.   This is dangerous.

I am in no way saying this is right, or should be happening.  Rather, I am lamenting that human nature dictates that this is inevitable.

Let us look at what is happening in Europe now. No, let’s not dwell on the players: that is minutia. Let us examine the bigger forces behind the action….

The European Union (EU) has adopted many of the ‘multicultural’ attitudes from the UN.  The UN has, over and over, accommodated lobbying from the Organization of Islamic Conference to accord special status to religions in general and to Islam in particular.  And, regardless of the fact that the Western society is deeply rooted in the European renaissance – whose very existence began by criticizing religion and removing blasphemy from the criminal code… the EU has re-criminalized blasphemy.

In Holland, Geert Wilders, a sitting MP, is criminally charged. The prosecution charged him with making anti-Muslim statements. Wilders claimed he made true, supportable statements and quoted Muslim leaders. Wilders won, the charges get thrown out of court. The prosecution appealed. The appeals court – which over-rules the lower court in every way – ruled (on the day after President Obama’s inoguration – so the mainstream media focus would be elsewere) that the charges should not have been dropped and that the politician must face prosecution in that lower court because he is, in the appeals court’s opinion, guilty and must be punished.

You don’t have to be an accomplished jurist to understand the situation here. The lower court was told by its boss that this guy must stand trial because he is guilty.  So, they have to try him and find him guilty. Even if they do not, the appeals court will over-rule them.  Do you think there is even a tiny possibility this can be an impartial trial?

In Austria, Sussane Winter, a sitting MP, was actually convicted of ‘insulting Islam’.  24,000 Euros in penalties (I wonder what her court costs were in addition to the fine) and a suspended 3 month prison term. Her statements may have been phrased differently, yet the substance of what she said is in complete agreement with what the leading Muslim scholars are saying.

If re-criminalizing blasphemy is not going to plunge Europe into another era of ‘Dark Ages’, then what I found out while digging about on this definitely will!

The story comes from Belgium (and, yes, it does make on recount the Monty Python skit about the contest for the most insulting thing to call a Belgian…).

There, only a few years ago, some very, very strange stuff was happening indeed.

First, I must declare my political bias here – I deplore separatist parties. Frankly, I think it is wrong for a party to be in Parliament, if its main goal is to break up the state. Yet, if this party’s representatives are elected into parliament, I would never prevent them from representing their electorate. In this case, subverting the will of the electorate would be a greater wrong.

OK

In Belgiun, there is was a separatist party of an ethnic minority. This party was – from what I have read – not too nice. But, what happened to it – that is even more ‘not nice’. It would appear that the Belgian Parliament actually passed some laws whose sole purpose it was to make this minority party illegal.

Scary?

Not as scary as what followed…

The party ‘cleaned up’ – at least, on the outside, changed its name (slightly) and is now growing in popularity.

GROWING IN POPULARITY!

Is this the beginning of the backlash?

And if it is, will ALL Muslims be caught up in it, not just the Islamists???  I certainly hope not!!!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, illusions, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Actions and reactions

January 27, 2009 — xanthippa

As a physical scientist, I have learned that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  If you push on something, it will ‘push back’.  Of course, the exact outcome will not only depend on the forces applied, but also the properties of the materials involved in the interaction.

When observing people, I have learned that this principle holds – but in a unique way.

You can ‘push’ – and that soft squishy bit that our human behaviour is wrapped up in (tolerance, good manners, politeness and so on) will absorb a lot of this ‘push energy’.  On absorbing it, it may – over time – slowly dissipate this energy, if no further ‘push’ is applied.  No real reaction occurs.

If there are many more ‘pushes’, or if there comes a particularly big ‘push’, the energy built up in all this soft squishy stuff will be greater than the material can absorb:  there will be a counter-reaction.  Because so much of this energy has been stored in that squishy stuff – without a chance to dissipate – this energy will be released, magnifying the ‘opposite reaction’. In other words, if you push people long and far enough, they will strike back – and not just for the last push, but for all of the ‘little pushes’ and the last one put together.

This is often referred to as ‘backlash’ – and while this is decidedly not a constructive way of resolving the underlying issues, it does not change the reality of how the human psyche reacts.  Singly – but especially in groups – humans will only allow themselves to be pushed past some point.  Then they strike back – with interest, so to speak.

Where am I going with this?

It’s a not-too-subtle observation that forcing people to accept policies which elevate one minority above the rest of society will, in no uncertain terms, necessarily result in deep resentment of this minority.  If taken too far, it may, eventually, lead to very real rejection of this minority by the rest of society.

It does not matter whether this privileged group is identified on the basis or race, language, religion, wealth or anything else.  Once it is separated from the mainstream and elevated above it (in a real or perceived manner), given special privileges, the very perception of this inequity is what will cause resentment – and perhaps direct action – against this group.  That is simply human nature.

For decades now, Islamists (and I do not mean Muslims in general, but rather only those who treat Islam as both a religion and a political ideology which demands world conquest) have demanded a separation between all Muslims (and here, it is the Islamists who frame the definition to include all Muslims, whether they like it or not) and the rest of society.  Not only have they demanded a separation, but they have also demanded special privilages, ones not enjoyed by any religious or political groups.

There is nothing wrong with this demand.

Just about every religious group thinks theirs is the only ‘right’ faith.  Just about every political movement holds the view that theirs is the best way to run the world.  If these things were not true, it would make for pretty pathetic religions and pretty ineffective political movements.

The problem came when our lawmakers satisfied their demands and gave this ‘identified’ group of people privileges not enjoyed by the rest of society.

From such small things as demanding separate swim times in public pools – where only members of their faith may swim – to demanding and receiving legal recognition of their moral customs which are contrary to our legal and moral standards.  Not only have they succeeded in securing these (and many more) special privileges for only members of their religious minority (whether or not they partake of the political side of the movement), they are now demanding that members of the rest of society should not be allowed to criticize them:  from how they behave to the tenets of their religious faith!

That means that not only is this group separated from the rest of society and privileged in its treatment, this group is now succeeding in forcing our lawmakers to outlaw the very principles on which our society was built….and without which our society cannot exist.

Again, it is not wrong for them to demand this.  The fault lies in satisfying this demand.

And since satisfying more and more such demands appears to be happening at a frighteningly fast pace, the rest of society feels that their way of life is being increasingly threatened…  that slowly, but surely, their very existence is being outlawed.

Push…after push…after push…

I fear that the ‘soft squishy’ bits of our society have stored up about as much ‘push’ as they can absorb….

So, what happens now?  Are we yet at a point when the backlash is about to occur? This may just be my Cassandra complex, but I can’t help saying it anyway.  Unless we figure out a way of dealing with the pressures created by unreasonable accommodations of non-integrating minorities soon, we will face social unrest the likes of which I do not want to imagine.

I just hope it is not too late!!!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Article 29

January 25, 2009 — xanthippa

As we struggle to preserve our freedom of speech, many people have been quoting the United Nations ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’.  They cite Article 19:

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Sounds very nice:  solid, unequivocal, reassurring.  No sitting on the fence here.  Right?

Yet, Article 19 is only one of many which make us the lofty documents which so many of us faithfully believe guarantees us our rights and freedoms.  The document has to be considered in its entirety, because following the articles which address specific ‘human rights’, there are others which modify these by defining when and how they are to be applied.

Please, consider Article 29:

  • (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
  • (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
  • (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

All right, let us look at it…

Section 1 is a blatant statement that individuals owe their soul to the community and that the community owes nothing back to them.  I use the term ‘soul’ in the sense of ‘that essence which makes us uniquely us’ and not in the religious sense, because the implication of the clause is quite clear:  without the community, none of us would be free to become who we are.

Personally, I most vehemently disagree with this statement.  The ‘community’ is often much more crippling to our development than not…

It is true that people have a greater chance for surviving when they form communities – and it is also true that many of our social needs are fulfilled by being members of a community.  I do not deny that.  However, the benefits which we derive from being members of a community have a great price:  we must necessarily give up much of our individuality in order to do so.

In other words, by being members of a community, we may enjoy physical safety – but at the cost of not developing of our full individual personality!

That is why I disagree so vehemently with the statement in Section 1.   But, why should that statement – or anything like it – even be included here?  What possible purpose is there in asserting the superiority of the community over every individual, in a document which is meant to address individual human rights?

Having affirmed the superiority of the community over every individual in Section 1, Sections 2 and 3 then go on to invalidate any and all individual human rights which the community does not wish to grant.

Section 2 begins by saying:

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law …

That seems pretty unequivocal, too.  Laws trump rights. Any law which is passed by any jurisdiction can limit the exercising of any of the rights and freedoms so gloriously listed in the previous articles!  In other words, if you live in a country which passes laws to deny its citizens any of the rights listed in the declaration, these citizens have just lost any ability to exercise these rights!

So, what was the point of the exercise in the first place?

If you live in a country that allows its citizens to exercise freedom of speech – for example – then you don’t need the UN’s declaration.  And, if you live in a country that does not, Section 29 has just clearly stated that you are out of luck!  You may still have these rights, you are just not allowed to exercise them!!!

The section then goes on to say more about the types of laws which are so important they can over-ride our human rights:

law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(Yes, I would like to have highlighted the ‘rights and freedoms of others’ – but I am attempting to align the highlights not with what my priorities are, but with what I, in my never-humble-opinion, think are the current priorities of most of our governments, the EU and UN in the lead…)

The implication of these words?  MORALITY??? It is legitimate for governments to ban speech which they thind does not think is moral enough?

And, of course, speech which might disturb ‘public order‘ can also be legitimately banned by any government!  No wonder that governments are rushing to criminalize speech which might annoy the most militant, most ruthless segments of society.  Instead of living up to their responsibility and keeping order, it is much easier to shut up those who might stir up trouble.

But it is worse than just that:  if a government deems it is against ‘public order’ and ‘general welfare’ of a society for its political opponents to exist, this gives the right to ban their legitimate opposition from speaking.  Think about it.  Really think about it…

If you still had any doubt that the intent of Section 29 is to silence political opposition, please, examine Section 3:

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The UN is a political body – right?

This is an unequivocal statement that anyone whose politics, views or ideas are not aligned with the political aims and goals of the United Nations, has no right to exercise any of the rights and freedoms the UN had so universally declared!

Yeah, I put it into a rant, too:

What a UNIVERSAL HOAX!


add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 7 Comments »

Defend Geert Wilders

January 24, 2009 — xanthippa

If you have not heard, there is a new blog each and every person who holds the principle of Free Speech dear to their hearts should visit:

Defend Geert Wilders

What is it?  What is its purpose?

When Mark Steyn was being persecuted in Canada, all the Canadian ‘Free Speechers’ went to get the latest information about what was happening at one central place, ‘Free Mark Steyn’.

By having the latest, most accurate information at our fingertips, we could then work to raise public awareness and de-normalize the attitudes which allowed this abuse of the judicial system (in our case, the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals).  As more and more people became aware of what was truly happening, public attitudes changed.  Mark Steyn – and Ezra Levant, who was also persecuted in the same manner – were vindicated.   Many thanks to Binks for having had the courage and dedication to run this site.

Now, another Canadian Free Speecher – Walker Morrow – has stepped up and started up ‘Defend Geert Wilders’ in the same spirit – and with the same hopes.  So, if you would like to keep up to date with what is happening in the war for Freedom of Speech, Geert Wilders battle, bookmark this site.

And, if you get some information that should be included there, but is missing – comment, write, contribute.

Free Speechers of the world – unite!

Don’t let them silence us.

Please!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »