A big thank you to all who contributed (or linked) from the men and woman in Kandahar.
Recent Comments
RSS feed
John Robson: We come from the Magna Carta!
February 9, 2011 — xanthippa“One of my little pet causes is to get a statue of Alfred the Great on Parliament Hill…”
Yes, the video is long – but well worth listening to:
One Law for All events in London, UK
January 12, 2011 — xanthippaJust got this info from the ‘One Law for All’ folks:
HOLD THESE DATES
‘Enemies not Allies’ Seminar, 26 January 2011, 18.30 – 20.00 (Registration begins at 18.00), Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL (Holborn Tube)
Bigots and neo-Nazis feigning to campaign for rights… ‘anti-racist’ groups promoting fascism… ‘anti-war’ rallies run by supporters of terrorism and dictatorship… Enough!The One Law for All campaign is holding a seminar to expose how important debates including on Sharia law have been hijacked by the far-Right to promote their racist agenda, and by anti-racist and anti-war groups to defend Islamism, both at the expense of people’s rights and lives. The seminar will focus on: The British National Party, the English Defence League, Stop Islamisation of Europe (also Stop Islamization of America), the Stop the War Coalition, the Respect Party, and Unite Against Fascism.Speakers at the seminar are Adam Barnett (One Law for All), Rahila Gupta (Women’s Rights Campaigner), Marieme Helie Lucas (Secularism is a Women’s Issue), Ghaffar Hussain (Quilliam Foundation), Douglas Murray (Centre for Social Cohesion), Maryam Namazie (One Law for All), and Shiraz Maher (International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation), with John Adams (Emeritus Professor at the University of Hertfordshire) to chair.Entry fee: £5 individuals; £10 voluntary and statutory organisations. For booking form and speaker bios visit http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/26-january-2010-seminar-london/.International Conference on Women’s Rights, Sharia Law and Secularism, 12 March 2011, 10.00-19.00 hours, University of London Union, The Venue, Malet Street, London WC1E (Russell Square)
The one day conference to mark International Women’s Day will discuss the adverse impact of religious laws on the status of women.Speakers include: Mina Ahadi (International Committee against Stoning), Karima Bennoune (Law Professor), Helle Merete Brix (Journalist), Nadia Geerts (Writer), Hammeda Hossain (South Asians for Human Rights), Monica Lanfranco (Journalist), Anne-marie Lizin (Honorary Speaker of Belgian Senate), Maryam Namazie (One Law for All and Iran Solidarity), Taslima Nasreen (Writer), Yasmin Rehman (Women’s Rights Activist), Nina Sankari (European Feminist Initiative Poland), Sohaila Sharifi (Equal Rights Now), Bahram Soroush (Civil Rights Activist), Daniel Salvatore Schiffer (Philosopher), Annie Sugier (la ligue du Droit International des Femmes), Anne Marie Waters (One Law for All), Linda Weil-Curiel (Lawyer), and Stasa Zajovic (Belgrade Women in Black).Entry fee: £10 individuals; £3 unwaged and students. For booking form and speaker bios visit http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/12-march-2010-international-conference-on-women%e2%80%99s-rights-sharia-law-and-secularism-london/. The event is sponsored by the International Committee against Stoning, Iran Solidarity, Equal Rights Now and One Law for All.Event against Stoning, 9 July 2011, 14.00-17.30 hours, University of London Union, The Venue, Malet Street, London WC1E (Russell Square)
The Event against Stoning marks International Day against Stoning and will include a film screening of The Stoning of Soraya M followed by a panel discussion including with film director Cyrus Nowrasteh and campaigners Mina Ahadi and Maryam Namazie. The event will be dedicated to Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.Entry fee: £10 individuals; £3 unwaged and students. For more information visit: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/9-july-2011-event-against-stoning-london/. The event is sponsored by the International Committee against Stoning, Iran Solidarity, Equal Rights Now and One Law for All.Save your place now
To register for the above events, send a completed booking form along with a cheque made payable to One Law for All to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK or pay via Paypal at: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/donate/. Donations are also welcome.For more information, contact:Maryam NamazieSpokespersonOne Law for AllBM Box 2387London WC1N 3XX
Pat Condell: ‘American Islamophobia’
January 11, 2011 — xanthippaIn case you don’t know what Pat Condell means when he says that our fear of Islamists in NOT irrational, please, listen to the following video:
If only the guy in the second video were the only lunatic who advocates violence in the name of Islam, if only he were not the only one advocating to replace secular law and order with Sharia, then, perhaps, fearing his message could potentially be called a phobia.
Unfortunately, he is not!
And there are Muslims who fear lunatics like this – with good reason. Religious extremists always attack the moderates within their own movement first, to better cow the rest and assure their own control over their co-religionists.
And, since the Islamists think that the only consequences of their actions will be rewards in heaven, they are not easy to dismiss.
So, exactly how many ‘hate-crimes’ against Muslims are occurring in the US, to require CAIR to fight this wave of Islamophobia?
Well, in the State of New York, in 2008 there were 8. In 2009, there were 11.
Which makes for about 1.6 % of the incidents.
Now, don’t get me wrong – there is no excuse for violent crime, whatever its motivation may be.
But those 11 incidents of attacks on Muslims for their Muslimness seems fewer than the number of attacks by Muslims on others for their non-Muslimness…
About
H/T: Gates of Vienna
Thomas Sowell says: read this
December 22, 2010 — xanthippaThomas Sowell is one of the smartest people on the nets.
Really.
And, he highly recommends ‘Justice, Denied’ by Quin Hillyer published by ‘The American Spectator’:
‘Under attorney general Eric Holder, the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) is dangerously politicized, radically leftist, racialist, lawless, and at times corrupt. The good news is that it’s also often incompetent. This means the Holderites can bungle their leftist lawlessness so badly that even the most reticent of judges are obliged to smack them down.
The abuses by the Holderites are legion. They range from DOJ’s infamous abandonment of the already-won voter-intimidation case against several New Black Panthers to multi-faceted assaults on traditional standards of voting rights and obligations; from a growing list of lawsuits deliberately destructive of border security and citizenship laws to outrageously race-based bullying tactics; from efforts to undermine military discipline and state sovereignty on homosexual-related issues to the dangerous obsession with terrorists’ “rights” to the detriment of national security; and, finally, to the selection of judges openly contemptuous of the existing law-all while dedicated to a vision of judge-imposed “universal justice” based not on the text of American statutes but instead on the reigning cultural standards of coastal and international elites. While doing all this, the Holderites operate the least transparent DOJ in decades, treat congressmen and independent agencies with contempt, and claim breathtakingly spurious “privileges” against disclosure of public information.
This isn’t law enforcement and it isn’t justice, but instead is subversive of both.’
30 years in Canada
December 10, 2010 — xanthippaToday, I celebrate a very personal anniversary.
Exactly 30 years ago today, I arrived in Canada.
Exactly 27 years ago today, I became a Canadian citizen.
Since my parents and I refused to swear our oath of allegiance on either the Bible or the Koran, and the bureaucrats did not know what to do, I suggested we swear it on a picture of The Queen. So, that is what we did!
Exactly 3 years ago today, Aqsa Parvez was murdered by her family for the crime of wanting to be a Canadian – just like I became!
Excuse me – I have to go cry…
Ron Paul says what I said: the airport groping and x-raying has to stop!
November 18, 2010 — xanthippaListen to the man:
- private property should be protected by private individuals – not the government
- remove immunity from government agents to grope us and take x-rays of us: if an ordinary citizen does not have the right to do something, then the government does not have that right either
- the duty of the government is to protect our rights – not to abuse them in the name of safety
- buying an airplane ticket does not mean you are relinquishing your rights
- we are not safer by sacrificing our liberty
He also points out something I have said in comments to other blogs, though not blogged here: putting a loaded gun into the cockpit has been much more effective at curtailing air-terrorism than all the airport procedures put together!
(OK – I’ve gone further in my comments on other blogs, if not here: if every adult passenger were required to be certified in the use of firearms and carried a loaded gun on the airplane, we would not only be much safer, we would also be empowered to protect us and our families instead of being treated like cattle waiting for slaughter, hoping it’ll happen later rather than sooner! It’s about time we started accepting the responsibility for our own safety instead of hoping someone else will do it for us .)
H/T: Dvorak Uncensored
Update: MDs and scientists warn that the full body scanners are unsafe and were not properly tested
More on airport ‘security’ procedures
November 16, 2010 — xanthippaPeople who give up freedom for security will get neither.
This phrase – in various permutations – has been attributed to several different people: perhaps because it is very true.
Last week, I posed questions about the propriety of the current procedures we are asked to submit to at airports in the name of security as well as an audio of an interview with a woman who, along with her children, was subjected to what amounts to sexual assault during an ‘airport security check‘.
Since the state derives its rights from us, citizens, nobody – not even when they are acting on behalf of the state – has more rights than any other citizen: because if ‘regular citizens’ do not have the right to touch you in private areas of your body, then they cannot delegate this right to the State and its agents. Therefore, if a touch is assault if another person on the street touched you that way, it is assault if a TSA or another agent of the State touches you that way.
This week, there is renewed debate on this topic following a YouTube video of a guy who refused to enter the full body scanners telling the TSA agent: “If you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested.”
Here he describes the encounter in his own words. (H/T –TheRawStory)
Perhaps the most interesting part of this story is the flat assertion by the TSA agent that by purchasing an airline ticket, every citizen is voluntarily surrendering their rights and freedoms…
And – even after the police and TSA agents escorted him out of the screening area on the instructions of their supervisor’s supervisor because he chose to not proceed with his travel plans, he was told that as a condition of leaving the airport, he had to go back to the screening area and submit to the patdown!
From his blog (my emphasis) – this conversation is taking place after he was escorted out of the secure area by the police and got his ticket refunded:
‘He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn’t know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents’ supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area.
…
‘I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, “then I’m leaving”. He replied, “then we’ll bring a civil suit against you”, to which I said, “you bring that suit” and walked out of the airport.’
A few very interesting points in there….
- the TSA agents, nor their supervisors, ‘knew the rules’ – according to the person who claimed to be in charge of the airport security
- nor did the police officer on-scene
- these officials were not going to be penalized for ordering the passenger to do the wrong thing – yet the passenger was liable for following their orders
- the passenger faced a choice: disobey the orders of the police officer who told him to leave the secure area OR face a $10,000 fine and a civil lawsuit
- “You are free to leave – but if you do, we’ll sue you and fine you $10,000!”
No wonder everyone is talking about this incident!
But, that is not all…
Then there is that report of an airline pilot who was traveling with his teenage daughter and overheard the person who checked their bags say into a mike to the people running the full body scanners: “Heads up – got a cutie for you!” The daughter found the following patdown ‘invasive’…
When the video of the little girl (perhaps 2-3 years old) being ‘patted down’ while screaming hysterically that she does not want to be touched that way surfaced, we were told this was an isolated incident of a child which got cranky and just went hysterical for no good reason. yet, perhaps this child’s instincts were not as wrong as all that: now we learn that pedophiles have been shown to be applying to become TSA agents who perform the ‘patdowns’ on children…
Sounds to me like this child is telling us the Emperor is wearing no clothes!
(Well, actually, this is worse: at least the naked Emperor was not groping anyone!)
Your choice: nude photos or sexual assault
November 9, 2010 — xanthippaUsually, I rant and nag about ‘stuff’.
Not this time.
This time, I am full of questions, not answers.
Frankly, I don’t really know what to make of it all.
Where it began, how it became accepted, how come this is happening!?!?!
As in, how has this behaviour become so normalized in our society that we accept it without questioning?
OK – I need to back up a little bit….and explain what I am talking about.
When a citizen of a ‘Western Democracy’ wishes to travel from one point to another, they are supposed to be ‘free’ to do so. They are not to be hindered by any government actions.
This is all about that ‘freedom of movement’ thingy…..one of them pesky ‘innate’ human rights!
Now, if a said person contracts someone (a person or company) to facilitate his/her travel, it is a private contract between a free citizen and either another free citizen or, more frequently, a company. Let’s call it ‘a concern’…
Like, say, a concern that runs taxis, buses, horse-dawn carriages, trains or airplanes from one city to another – within the city or without, within the country or internationally. (A government has the jurisdiction to control who crosses the border, but not how ‘free citizens’ travel within them….)
Therefore, said contract is a private, civil business transaction between a free citizen and a private concern.
Since the citizen has the right to freedom of movement, any and all security measures are strictly a matter of the contract between the free citizen and the private concern which is providing said transportation service.
Therefore, in my never-humble-opinion, any security involved in a private individual contracting a private concert to transport them, is a matter strictly between the two contracting parties. A strictly ‘civil’ matter!
Yet, somehow, we have permitted ‘government’ to play that role!
How?!?!?!?
How could, in a truly free society, any such government regulation be permitted, much less legislated?!?!?
And from what I read and hear, the government is now dictating the terms of all air travel, forcing private citizens to either submit to scanners which render photographic-level images of the citizens’ nude form (which, of course, also reveal a huge amount of bio-graphic data which can – and likely will – be used to identify that person in the future) – or submit to a ‘pat down’ which, in any other situation, would be grounds for charging the government agent performing said ‘pat down’ with sexual assault!
Of course, if we submit to this treatment – guilty until proven innocent – during air travel, it WILL spread to other venues…using the same justification: security above freedom!
Admission – I do not often listen to Alex Jones; sometimes, he is a bit ‘out there’. But, there are instances where the ‘outliers’ truly are the proverbial ‘canaries in the coal-mines’. So, I invite you to listen to his interview of a woman who was traveling with her children and all of whom (including the very young children) were subjected to having their genitals probed in a highly intrusive manner:
(Caution: this is disturbing and graphic description of what, under any reasonable circumstances, would be described as sexual assault of a woman AND her children – the interview starts a few minutes into the video)
This is more intrusive than what used to happen in the slave markets!!!
Yes, you would be naked and exposed – no more than the ‘naked scanner’ machines do now – but at least, in slave markets, the buyers were not permitted to touch your genitals out in the open…..and nobody was permitted to store the biometric data gained from the ‘naked body scans’!!!
And THAT just involves ‘VOLUNTARY’ examinations: the ones you permit yourself to be subjected to in order to be permitted – by your government – to exercise your innate freedom of movement, as agreed to in a private contract between yourself and a non-government controlled private individual/company!!!
I simply do not understand why this is acceptable.
Why do we permit our governments to pass laws which permit them such intrusive regulation of our freedom of movement?!?!
An ‘airline ticket’ is a private, civil contract!
It is the business of the airline to provide the security sweeps of the people who contracted them for transport.
If one private company’s security checks are more intrusive than another’s, it will be a matter of private contract made at the time the services of the transport company were contracted.
Companies whose security measures were ineffective would soon loose their customers.
Ditto for companies whose security measures were way too intrusive.
But, throughout it all, the customers would have a choice: do I choose to travel with company A, whose civil contract does permit the performance of highly intrusive security checks before permitting their customers entry onto aircraft….and who, presumably, offers greater ‘security’, or do I choose to travel with company B, who does no real security checks at all? Or, do I choose company C, who is somewhere in-between?
Either way, it is the customer’s choice to enter into a private contract which specifies the level of inspection/security one is both ‘subjected to’ and ‘protected by’.
And, it is a part of a civil contract!
It is, in no way-shape-or-form, the government’s business!!!
So, why do we permit the government and its agents to be the ones who not only perform all security scans, but also have jurisdiction over who is or is not permitted to exercise his or her rights to freedom of travel?
To collect and store all this data about us?
Why do we permit our governments to regulate a whole industry which permits us to exercise one of our core human rights?
How did we ever permit governments to usurp this level of control over us?
Leto was right: a population which walks is easier to control!
Not a single terrorist has been caught through any of these ‘security measures’: so, what is their actual purpose?
Truly, do think about it…..and ask yourself: Why do we permit this?
…
If you figure it out, please, let me know: I sure cannot see any reason for all this beyond conditioning us towards ‘general acceptance’ of greater and greater oppression….of normalizing greater and greater infringements on our freedoms!
In the name of keeping us ‘safe’, of course!
Of course, this type of ‘surveillance’ is not limited to airports: we now have disguised vans roaming our streets, taking x-ray images of everything they encounter: the dose of x-ray radiation we unknowingly receive, we are assured, is no greater that that received during a routine x-ray….
How is that ‘safe’ for, say, a fetus during the first trimester?
Can somebody please explain to me how this is ‘enhancing our freedom’?!?!?
Or even ‘respecting’ our bodily security?
The origin and nature of human rights
November 4, 2010 — xanthippaThis is an excellent series of videos which explain the how different ideas about the where human rights originate affects how we think of them and how we think human rights ought to be exercised.
Yes, I have posted these in the past. However, the versions I had linked have since been found to have violated copyright by putting some music in the background of the videos without proper permission. The whole audio, including the spoken voice, has therefore been pulled from them.
Rather than edit the old post to insert these links – with functioning audio – I decided to re-post the videos again. If you have seen these before, my apologies.
Introduction
Part 1: The Nature and Origin of Human Rights
Part 2: Group Supremacy
Part 3: Coercion vs Freedom
Part 4: Equality and Inequality under the Law
Part 5: The Role of Government
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 