Anti-Islamist coalition

February 20, 2009 — xanthippa

A new blog has entered ‘The ‘Sphere’!

Anti-Islamist Coalition

Anti-Islamist Coalition

Thanks to Babazee for creating this logo!

And, just to avoid any possible confusion, let me re-state this once again:

Islam is not the same as Islamism.

Islam is a religion, which is practiced in peace by millions of wonderful people.  I know and love some of them, and I certainly respect many of them.

Islamism is not the same sort of thing at all.  It is a political movement, intent on world domination, which just happens to be dressed up in the guise of Islam. These types of political movements have plagued humanity for thousands of years – and they have usually sought to legitimize themselves by wrapping themselves in the respectability of a ‘religious movement.  It just happens that this particular political movement is abusing Islam for its ends!

Certainly, Islamists believe themselves to be following Islam – which is why they cite it as a justification for their crimes.  And many Islamists truly believe what they are doing is following their god’s will – which is what makes this such a dangerous combination.

Which is what makes it that same old …

Go ahead and hate your neighbour,

Go ahead and cheat your friend,

Do it in the name of Heaven Islam,

So you can justify it in the end …

And THAT is why Islamism must be opposed.

It is an insult to Islam, and a deadly threat to the rest of us.  Never forget what happened to the ‘Mountain People’…  If you don’t know, then, listen, children, to the story that was recorded long ago…

(Please, take a special note of how the ‘Valley People’ reacted when invited in to share, as equals…  Of couse, were I the composer, I would have the ‘Treasure’ say ‘Freedom of Speech and Equal Rights for ALL’!  In my never-humble-opinion, without these, there can be no true peace!  But, that might be too big a mouthful for a song…)

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

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

Ottawa bans ‘Atheist bus ads’

February 19, 2009 — xanthippa

I am shocked at this.

Ottawa buses have sported all kinds of ads – religious or not – which I thought were, well, ‘offensive’.

Few years ago, they ran that ad which had attempted to lure children into the hands of pedophiliac priests:  an outwardly ‘pro-religion’ ad that urged EVERYONE (including underage children, who, of course, can read) to ‘go to church’ to ‘get guidance’.

If one reads its meaning in the ‘commonly understood’ way (at least, commonly understood among the people I know – the ad raised a lot of comments when it ran), it is simply and unequivocally luring children into the ‘dens of pedophiles’ also known as ‘Churches’. (Actually, about 15 years ago, a stranger who happened to be a ‘Mount Cashel’ survivor gave me a very poorly written, yet highly personal and extremely convincing note to warn me that letting my children near a Christian Church is putting them in the hands of pedophiles.  I have not found any evidence to disbelieve him – to the contrary.  When I took my son to a Pentacostal Sunday School, I found a person I knew to have a sexual orientation to ‘children’ – but I do not know if he ever acted on it – to be in charge of the program….and, when I alerted the Church hierarchy, they told me that since he had ‘found Christ’, it was important that they give him a ‘second chance’.  NOT WITH MY SON!!!)

We all know that many pedophiles like to use the ‘channel of divine authority’ to force young people into sex and silence.  It does not mean that every priest is a pedophile, only that pedophiles like to infiltrate the ranks of clergy, because the blackmail of ‘eternal damnation’ is a powerful tool to manipulate.  And, it does explain why the prices of houses within sight of a rectory (or, indeed, a Church) tend to be below the expected market value…. most responsible parents are just not willing to expose their kids to that high a risk!

So, ‘bus ads’ urging young people to ‘go to church’ can, in an undeniable way, be perceived as sending them into an environment where they are much more likely to encounter a pedophile than they would among the general population.  And, in any ‘moral’ judgment, this makes such ads ‘offensive’!

If, on the other hand, one were to read the ‘go to church’ ad in a different way (which, frankly, many Christians have assured me was the intent of the ad), the ad becomes offensive on a completely different  level.  Should the meaning of the ad have been ‘come to our churches when you are most vulnerable, so our priests can emotionally blackmail you to submit to our dogma so you will give us money – and thus buy God’s love and approval’ – well, frankly, that is rather offensive, too.  People who are going through a hard time and are vulnerable are the last ones who should go to places that tell them that ‘giving away money in this world’ will ‘buy them salvation in the next one’!

I also find it offensive in the extreme when some religious people misconstrue the meaning of ‘morality’:  instead of defining ‘morality’ as ‘deep, introspective reasoning to choose the best – least damaging/bad/evil – course of action based on their own experience, reasoning and their specific circumstances’, many religious people reduce ‘morality’ to ‘obedience to a set of dogmatic rules’.  That, in my opinion, is reducing ‘morality’ to the level of ‘puppy-training’ – and something which offends me on the intellectual, spiritual and moral levels!

To sum this up:  I find ads telling people that ‘going to church’ is ‘a good thing’ to be offensive in the extreme!

Yet, ads urging people – especially emotionally vulnerable people – to ‘go to church’ were deemed ‘acceptable’ and ran on the sides of Ottawa buses.

And, that is a good thing:  matters of freedom of expression are more important than any ‘sensitivities’.  Protecting the right of people to get their message out (provided they pay for it from their own pocket) – however much I despise their message – is much more important than whether or not I (or other people) find that message ‘offensive’!

Today, the sides and rears of Ottawa busses sport a different kind of an ad:  ones paid for by our own local ‘Cruella deVille’ and her little furrier empire!

Please, do not get me wrong.  I think that if an animal is killed for food, it is only reasonable to use every part of the animal, including its skin or fur.  However, that is a very a different thing from raising animals in small, crowded cages and then electrocuting them (so the pelt has no holes) and using only their skin to create a ‘luxury product’.  And, it is this latter practice that I find extremely offensive.

Actually, I asked a few of my Hindu friends what they thought about these ads:  they were not particularly fond of them, to say the least!  Their religious sensitivities were deeply offended by the ads promoting frivoulous ‘luxury furs’!

After all, NOT ascribing animals a soul equal to the soul humans have IS just as much of a a religious prejudice as NOT ascribing them one is….   Please, think about this, long and hard.

Yet, these ads urging people to indulge their religious prejudice that animals have no soul (or, at least, not one worth considering) and to indulge themselves by wearing their pelts as an expression of luxury – these are allowed to run!!!  Offensive in the extreme!!!  (Please, ask PeTA what they think of these ads!!!)

And, that is a good thing:  matters of freedom of expression are more important than any ‘sensitivities’.  Protecting the right of people to get their message out (provided they pay for it from their own pocket) – however much I despise their message – is much more important than whether or not I (or other people) find that message ‘offensive’!

Yet, ads urging people not to take their religion to the point of extreme – not to obsess about it, to the detriment of their quality of life (and those near and dear to them) – THOSE ads are deemed to be ‘offensive’?!?!?

I have heard objections to these ads, based on the grounds that ‘seeing them might make people do immoral things’!  Yeah, right… Yet, if that is so….

Well, then, what about a person so obsessed with his religion, he is planning to strap a bomb to his body and blow up himself, along with a busload of schoolkids?  What if THAT person sees the bus and decides not to chance it?  What IF God is NOT real – who would give him the 72 virgins?

Would that be so bad?

Or, what about the father who is planning to clense his family’s honour in his daughter’s blood?  What if HE sees the ad, and realizes that killing his daughter on the GAMBLE that there IS a God just may not be worth it?

Would saving the life of one girl not be worth offending a few people?

Or, what about the man who loves his wife, but who is told by his spiritual adviser that it is not just permitted, but ‘necessary for her salvation’ that he beat her?  It is not so long ago that Christian priests preached this from the pulpit – and many Muslim Imams still do!  So, what if a man who believes them sees this – and it helps him find the courage to respect his wife and treat her like an equal – which is what he wanted to do in the first place, were it not for the ‘religious teachings’???

Would THAT be so offensive?

I suppose that some people think so.  I guess the only time Jews, Christians and Muslims gang together is to lynch atheists – and to silence the voices of reason that threaten the power of clergy to control the lives of nice people.

How ‘offensive’!!!

UPDATE: This week ( ending March 14th), the Ottawa City Council has reversed the ruling and the ‘atheist ads’ will be allowed to appear on the sides of busses.

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

Posted in atheism, debate, education, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Carleton University introduces new course: ‘How to rig an election 101’

February 18, 2009 — xanthippa

Warning:  In order to comply with the CRTC  (CBSC) ruling on a similar situation, please note that the following post may contain sarcasm and may employ facetiousness as a method of criticism.

Press release by Carleton University Faculty of Social Engineering:

For immediate publication:

Following the failure of the progressive students in their attempt to only support research into diseases which are politically correct, it has been deemed necessary to introduce more effective training in social engineering into the curriculum of Carleton University.  We are therefore proud to announce that, the Carleton University Faculty of Social Engineering is introducing a new course, titled ‘How to rig an election’.

The course number is ‘CUFSE 101’ and will be open to all students deemed ‘intrinsically sufficiently progressive’ following an extensive interview process.  If there is sufficient demand, higher-level courses will be designed to follow.

CUFSE 101 Course Curriculum:

This course has been specifically designed to teach students how to ensure that our governments – at all levels – are sufficiently progressive and promote the development of diverse and inclusive society.  In order that proper government policies are developed, it is necessary to teach future progressive candidates how to ensure they will be successfully elected.

To train students in the required skills, the course will focus on the following electoral techniques:

1.  Long term strategic planning:

  • ensuring that the body which supervises the election is stuffed staffed with progressive individuals.  This step must be undertaken by the progressive elements who have been elected, in preparation for future election.
  • ensuring that the wording of electoral rules is sufficiently vague and obscure so that, if necessary, it can be interpreted in completely unexpected ways.  Particular attention will be given to teaching the proper language which will not give any future non-progressive candidates clues as to how these rules can be applied.

2.  Short term measures:

Specialized linguistic training will focus on

  • skills in interpreting electoral rules so as to penalize or disqualify those candidates who have won, but who are undesirable due to their lack of intuitive progressive thought.
  • design of ‘election results’ web page which will obscure the number of votes won by undesirable candidates, or be similarly conducive towards positive reactions to progressive candidates.
  • phrasing of ‘electoral board rulings’ against undesirable candidates in  a way that will raise the least journalistic interest and minimize any attention to the techniques employed to achieve the desirable ends
  • how to engage popular – but not appropriate – candidates in conversations calculated to make them loose temper.  Any resulting ‘strong response’ will be a useful weapon against such a candidate, while an absence of a ‘strong response’ will indicate the best methodology for marginalizing said candidate.

In preparation of this course, a pilot project has trained some progressive candidates in the 2009 Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) elections in these skills.  As can be seen from the CUSA 2009 election results, the pilot was successful beyond expectations!

Points of particular success:

  • Within 4 hours of winning the largest number of votes, the undesirable candidate for CUSA president, Bruce Kyereh-Addo, was notified that he has been disqualified as a candidate, and therefore did not win.
  • To ensure that the ‘progressive candidate’ won, the pilot study graduates outdid themselves in also disqualifying the other non-desirable candidate for CUSA presidency, Cameron MacIntosh.  Thus, Erik Halliwell, the progressive candidate, was the only candidate who was not disqualified, ensuring his election to the post of ‘President of CUSA’.
  • Only anecdotal evidence exists that the electoral board was ‘stuffed’ with Haliwell’s friends, making it easy to dismiss any charges of ‘partiality’ as ‘hearsay’.  The praise here falls on the previous CUSA councillors:  having failed to stop ‘Shinerama’ fundraising to go to support a research into a non-inclusive disease which “has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men”, they have now redeemed themselves in ensuring that the right people staffed the CUSA elections office – and, more importantly, they have not left tangible trails.
  • The CUSA election rules are so well written, the disqualified and/or ‘ruled against’ candidates were completely unaware of how the election rules could be applied.   This has left them unprepared and unable to effectively defend themselves.  Kyereh-Addo is quoted as saying:  “This is just ridiculous. I can’t believe what’s going on right now.”
  • Had this been a credit-course, rather than a pilot, high marks would have been awarded to the person(s) who devised the successful application of the rule that ‘unapproved Facebook messages sent by their supporters’ – without the candidates’ knowledge or approval’ – are a misconduct’ which earns the candidate(s) a ‘ruling against them’.
  • Another sign of brilliance among the ‘election rule drafters’ is that it is a breech of the rules if there are any posters/promotional materials – or electronic messages, approved or not, by the candidates or their supporters – which promote more than one candidate – or which are posted in ‘non-approved areas’!  Simply brilliant!
  • The ‘linguistic training’ also scored a major success when an electoral board officer managed to involve Mr. Kyereh-Addo in a conversation so frustrating, Mr. Kyereh-Addo lost his temper and punched a wall.  As this was on the grounds of Carleton University, the electoral board promptly charged him with “damaging university property in a physically violent manner”:  and thus supplied the grounds for his disqualification of Mr. Kyereh-Addo as a candidate.  Kudos!
  • Much praise also goes to the pilot programme graduate who managed to handle the press coverage of the event, as can be seen in the ‘Charlatan’ (campus newspaper) coverage of the election.  There is not hint of ‘scandal’, ‘electoral fraud’ or even ‘serious controversy’.  This is success beyond expectation.  When reading the article, please note the successful spin which does not even identify that Mr. Kyereh-Addo simply ‘punched a wall’, but leaves the reader with the impression that he had indulged in wanton destruction of University property.  Well spun!
  • The ‘election results’ webpage:  brilliant!  Conveys the ‘information’ without letting people know what happened, does not even make the appropriate candidate look like a looser!  Not including the ‘total number of votes cast’ per category on the website hides the truth without telling a lie!!!  Faultless!!! Simply brilliant!

The above notes are only a few of the examples of the many successful applications learned by the progressive students in the pilot study on the basis of which ‘CUFSE 101’ was developed.  The Carleton University Faculty of Social Engineering is confident this success will lead to an establishment of a large number of courses in this area in the future.

The instructor for this specific course has not been named yet, though among the leading candidates are such role models as Warren Kinsella, Richard Warman and our own Matthew Crosier.

For any additional information, please, contact the information officer of CUFSE.

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

Posted in education, freedoms, Humour, language, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

The ‘fatwa’ against Lowell Green

February 13, 2009 — xanthippa

Struggling through the ‘brainfog’ of the flu, I have not made my post about what had happened to Lowell Green as clear and understandable as it should have been.  Please, accept my apologies.

There is some clarification needed…

The Canadian ‘airwaves’ (radio and television) are regulated.  That means that in order to broadcast a signal, a person – or, more typically, an organization – has to purchase the ‘right’ to broadcast from the Canadian government (though, this is the standard in most countries).  The Canadian government has created an organization to deal with this:  the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), which bills itself as ‘an independent public authority in charge of regulating and supervising Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications’.

Aside:  the government ‘regulation’ of any news-media or any private industry is dangerous.  While it is important to assign ‘proper’ bandwidth to different broadcasters – so that their signals do not overlay each other, and so on, there is a serious danger, creating a body which is not ‘answerable’ to anyone but itself to govern this process is not just ludicrous, it actively endangers our society’s freedom of expression.  If a government body can, at will (and without needing to provide justification), approve or deny ‘bandwidth’ to a private company, there is a very large ‘opening’ for abuse.  Will this ‘body/commission’ approve licences to anyone who criticizes them?  How about anyone who criticizes ‘bureaucratic-abuse within licensing bodies’???  What if a special ‘interest group’/’political faction’ gains control of this body?  The list of potential abuses is endless…. think about it!!!  No ‘government’ and no ‘bureaucratic body’ should EVER have this kind of power over a society!

Back to the story…

So, if any person hears or sees anything on the radio or TV that they do not like, they are free to complain.  That, I have no problem with.  What happens next – …

The CRTC, upon receiving a complaint, has a number of options.  It can dismiss it – no more action done.  Or it can investigate it itself – as it has done on many occassions.  Or, as it most often the case, it ‘passes’ the complaint onto the ‘Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’ (CBSC).

The CBSC is a ‘self-regulating’ ‘professional association’ of all people/organizations who wish to ‘broadcast’ in Canada.  Canadian broadcasters MUST belong to it in order to even apply for a broadcasting license.

Now, ‘professional association’s are not necessarily a bad thing.  This is a deep tradition, rooted in the ‘craft guilds’ of the medieval times:  a ‘guild’ would test any ‘apprentice’, to make sure they had ‘mastered the craft’, before he could hang a shingle in front of his hut and practice his craft. It  was a ‘self-policing, quality control’ type thing – and, historically, there was a role for it. Of course, it was also used to limit competition…too many ‘guild-members’ meant not enough demand  – and therefore income – for any one of the members!  So, ‘strict’ – and ‘unquestionable’ – regulations were put into place…

However, modernization and the necessary ‘scaling up’ of these ‘guilds’ and ‘professional associations’ did not always go smoothly.  Just as unionized ‘closed shop’ workplaces became legally forbidden from employing people who were unwilling to join (or rejected by) a workplace union, ‘professional associations’ have become a similar ‘closed-shop’ thing among many professions, regardless of the employer.

Thus, if the Ontario Medical Association refuses to grant an accredited MD membership (the reasons could be simple as ‘having reported more than 3 factual adverse vaccine reaction in children/infant patients per calendar year’ – according to an ex-Ontario MD), such an MD is stripped of their OMA membership –  and thereafter legally forbidden from practicing medicine within Ontario.  Similarly, lawyers (and other professionals) have a ‘self-regulating body’:  if these ‘bodies’ refuse to let you into their ‘country club’, your law-school graduation diploma (etc.) is only worth its decorative value…  You may hang it on your wall, but you are not allowed to practice your profession.

While it is a good idea in principle, this ‘self-regulation’ of professionals, it is deeply flawed in practice…

It gives a group of people the extrajudicial power to decide who may – or may not – practice a ‘profession’.  While this is excellent for ‘quality control’, it is also – rather glaringly – a method of discrediting anyone who might ’embarrass the orthodoxy’ of the profession by holding independent points of view, or by exposing corruption within the organization, etc…. the possibilities are endless.  In short, this is the perfect body to filter out (without legal recourse) anyone who does not ‘play ball’, ‘adhere to orthodoxy’, is ‘not-one-of-the-good-old-boys-network’…. with no legal recourse for those who are ‘rejected’ or ‘censored’ or ‘censured’….

Well, it would appear that the CRTC does – often – pass complaints it receives about TV or radio coverage/broadcast on to this extrajudicial, non-transparent body called the CBSC…

Even the broadcasters themselves – according to what I hear on the airwaves – are now aware of how the ‘decisionmakers’ within the CBSC are selected.  Yet, their decisions are binding on anyone who wishes to continue to remain  a member – and thus have a licence to broadcast.  Transparency of process?  Please….

In this particular case, Mr. Green was not allowed to know who (or, if there were several ‘whos’) complained about the broadcast he made.  He was not allowed to know what the specifics of the complaint were.  And, he was not allowed to present any defense on his behalf – personal, professional or legal.

So, do you think this ‘professional organization’ stands up for its members? Will it be the ‘buffer’ to protect them from petty government censorship or bureaucratic interference?  Will it protect the professional ideals of its membership:  freedom of speech, the right to deliver news and opinions, no matter how diverse?   Will it shield its members from government or bureaucratic censorship?

Or, has this ‘professional association’ become an instrument of censorship itself – not answerable to anyone, with no legal recourse for appealing unjust decisions?  Just an organization with the unquestionable ability to silence those whose opinions it does not find politically useful?  An organization that has the ability to silence anyone who broadcasts any ‘news or opinion’ that it does not approve of – without any responsibility to the populace whose news/opinion sources it limits?

Please, you be the judge:  here is the decision in the Lowell Green case… sounds to me like the CBSC has issued a fatwa against Mr. Green!

One more question I have:  the document itself states that the ‘decision’ was reached in October of 2008.  So, why was it not announced until February, 2009?  Everything else aside – what is the reason for this delay?

I’m sorry – I just don’t get it.

Freedom of Speech – good bye!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Lowell Green: another martyr of the ‘pc’ fascists?

February 10, 2009 — xanthippa

If you follow my blog, you are aware that I am ‘Pro-Free-Speech’… and you might have also picked up on the fact I am a huge fan of Mr. Lowell Green.

Mr. Green is an open-line radio show host – funny, intelligent and outspoken.  Brash – perhaps.  Well-informed – always!  If you live outside the Ottawa area, you can listen to his show online, at CFRA.com, 10am-12noon, EST.

Over the more than 50 years in broadcasting, Mr. Green has been a thorn in the side of those who value appearances over substance, ideology over reality, political correctness over the truth.  He has also penned 3 books:  ‘The Pork Chop– and Other Stories : a Memoir’, ‘How the Granola-Crunching, Tree-Hugging Thug Huggers Are Wrecking Our Country’ and  ‘It’s Hard to Say Goodbye’.  (I have each one – autographed by Mr. Green!)  The middle one is my personal favourite.

Now, Mr. Green has come under attack for – you guessed it – something he said.  Not only is it an attack, it is a ‘judgment’, pronounced against him, by CRTC, the body which regulates the Radio and Television station licensing in Canada.

The judgment:  his opinion-based talked show contained uninformed discussion and – he was rude.

It’s not about Lowell Green.

It’s not about what he did or did not say on that show – or if his opinion was or was not informed.  There are (I hope) no laws against being stupid…

Yet, he was censored.  Huge apology announcements run by his station – wording clearly designed to besmirch his good name.

During the whole process of the CRTC hearing, he had exactly zero opportunity to defend himself.

He was not even allowed to know the name of the person (or organization) which launched a complaint against him.  He was not even allowed to know if it was one or more complaints.  Nothing.

This reminds me of the time my son was – during school lunch-hour – attacked from behind (so he had not seen them) by a group of school-mates.  It was officially classified by the police as a ‘racially-motivated hate-crime’.  Yet, neither he, nor we – his parents, were ever allowed to know the identity of the school-mates who attacked him, or what had happened to them as a result.

Some society we are becoming!

Sorry…my brain is somewhat mushy while I am fighting this nasty flu that is ‘making the rounds’, but this is outrageous!  Until I get somewhere ‘reasonable’, please, listen to Michael Coren’s show with Ezra Levant, where this incident is being discussed:

I LOVE that line:  “SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!”

P.S.:  Since when does ‘offensive’ or ‘aggressive’ = ‘vilification’??? Do people no longer learn English (and, I say this an an immigrant – who LOVES the English language!)

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Aisha

February 3, 2009 — xanthippa
Aisha

Aisha

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

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 »
« Older posts
Newer posts »