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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

The plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza

January 19, 2009 — xanthippa

More and more Palestinians in Gaza blame Hamas for all the violence they are suffering!!!

Most Palestinians may have voted for Hamas during the last elections, but they have since learned that living under the rule of Hamas is terrible!  Now, they know that Hamas and their disrespect for human life is the cause of their suffering – including the Israeli attacks! 

But, what can they do now? Who will protect them from their own government?  Hamas may have been legitimately elected in Gaza, but they are not using legitimate methods to govern!

Since coming to power, Hamas has seriously oppressed the Gazan population.  Right away, opposition party members (Fatah) were jailed – many were executed.  Journalists were gagged:  no more freedom of the press, thus keeping the world from seeing what they were doing to the people who had elected them.  Demonstrations by the civilian population were brutally suppressed (doctors being specifically targetted).

And, not much was said about it in the world… This is the ‘soft racism’ of mainstream media which consistently fails to report abuses done by a ‘favoured’ groups, like Hamas has become. 

Please, take a look.  This is how Hamas treats the Gazans:

 

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Hamas, which would appear to give independant support to the claims in the video above:

In addition to killing Israeli civilians and armed forces, Hamas has also attacked suspected Palestinian collaborators, and Fatah rivals.[167]

On February 2007, members of the Palestinian Red Crescent, speaking on conditions on anonymity, said that Hamas had confiscated their humanitarian supply convoys that were destined for Palestinian civilians. Hamas claims the supplies were heading to former members of Fatah.[citation needed]

Human Rights Watch has cited a number of summary executions as particular examples of violations of the rules of warfare, including the case of Muhammad Swairki, 28, a cook for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s presidential guard, who was thrown to his death, with his hands and legs tied, from a 15-story apartment building in Gaza City.[168]

Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups frequently extra judicially execute or otherwise punish those they consider collaborators with Israel. Frequent killings of unarmed people have also occurred during Hamas-Fatah clashes.[169][170]

Thousands of angry Hamas loyalists marched on 24 February 2008 at the funeral of a Muslim preacher who died in PNA custody, turning the ceremony into a rare show of defiance against President Mahmoud Abbas.[171]

Hamas imprisoned their political opponenets, tortured and executed them…  Hamas stole humanitarian supplies from the already suffering people, sold them to the highest bidder and used the money to buy more weapons.  When they could no longer buy sewage pipes  from Israel because it was discovered they used them to build Kassam rockets, they started ripping up the already aging sewer system for more pipes….causing sewage floods severe enough that some people (including kids) died. 

As disgusting as it is, it is true.  Hamas did not care if what they did caused the children in Gaza to drown in sewage, if it helped them fight Israel…  Do you think the people of Gaza have not realized this? 

 

Hamas may have been legitimately elected, but they are not using legitimate methods to govern!

Here is another video which shows how Hamas ‘maintains order’ in Gaza…

When Israel has invaded Gaza – in order to stop the shelling of its civilian populations by Hamas – what was the first thing Hamas did?  It shot several hundred Gazan civilians in their legs (kneecapped them) because they feared that the very people of Gaza would welcome the Israeli forces as liberators from Hamas oppression and help them!!!

Let me say it again, in no uncertain words:  Hamas knows that the civilian population of Gaza is ready to work even with the ‘hated Israelis’, if it will free them of Hamas!

Hamas, whose top leadership lives in Syria – not Gaza – has many goals… but the well-being of ordinary Gazans is not one of them.  Now, the Palestinian people living in Gaza know it, too. 

Hamas is anti-Israel, not pro-Palestinian people!  The two are not the same!

Please, if you wish to support the Palestinian people, if you are truly moved by their plight and wish to join a demonstration to show your support – do NOT tolerate any show of support for Hamas there.  Please, tell any co-demonstrator who seems unaware of this that showing support for Hamas is anti-Palestinian people. 

Please, do not allow the oppressors to continue to hijack the demonstrations meant to show support for their very victims.  Support the people of Gaza, not Hamas!

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

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

Religion (definition): part 2

January 9, 2009 — xanthippa
To recap from Religion (definition): part 1 :

Religion is a particular state of mind.  It covers beliefs (faith), convictions and even concepts or principles that humans find note-worthy, worship-worthy or love-worthy.  I attempted to demonstrate that different people define ‘religion’ very differently from each other (and from my above definition), providing example of a school librarian who only considered several sects of Christianity as ‘religion’ (not even covering all of Christianity) and classifying all else as ‘mythology’.  As there is no provision in our society for ‘protection from discrimination on the grounds of mythology’, should everyone define the term as narrowly (or according to their own particular liking), this would effectively place many ‘religions’ outside of legal protection…. 

C.G. Jung’s definition of ‘religion’ (which I happen to like because it is clear, concise and can be workable in both a personal and a legal context – as well as being a definition I think most people could accept), is as follow:

Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as “powers”: spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.

This definition would effectively eliminate the problem which I cited in the ‘librarian’ example – and more.

This definition of religion limits it to a peculiar attitude of the mind:  not the practices or ritualswhich accompany it.

As such, whereever freedom of religion was guaranteed, a person could believe, admit and openly discuss all aspects of their religion freely, without regard to how ‘offensive’ this may be to other religions or to some members of the society.   However, since religion is limited (by definition) to a state of mind – not actions – one could not claim protection under ‘freedom of religion’ laws for taking action which would contravene the laws of the land that person would happen to be living in.  In my never-humble-opinion, drawing a very firm line between ‘beliefs/thoughts/ideas’ and expressing them freely (protected) and actions (not protected) is very, very important.

All actions which contravene the laws of the land – no matter how much rooted in or motivated by ‘religion’ – ought not enjoy any protection under ‘freedom of religion’.

Example:

Human sacrifice is an integral part of many bona fide religions.  From ancient Egypt and other parts of Africa, to China and Japan, to Europe, and the Americas – human sacrifice was an integral part of many religious rituals.  If actions based on religious belief were to be protected under ‘freedom of religion’, any person claiming to subscribe to any one of these religions could commit ritual murder without fear of prosecution or any kind of legal action.  The murderer would be protected under ‘freedom of religion’.

I particularly selected human sacrifice for my example because it is so extreme.  Yet, it is a well documented part of many religious rituals!  If there is a blanket protection for actions based on religious belief, even such extreme acts as ritualized murder would be protected.

In no way am I proposing that this ought to be so.  To the contrary.  I am demonstrating in as strong terms as I can think of that ‘freedom of religion’ must not be allowed to excuse acts which are in breech of secular laws.  OK, so the ‘religious practice’in question need not be as drastic as human sacrifice:  it could be polygamy, ritual rape, paedophilia (child-brides), ritual cannibalism, genital mutilation (male and female) – the list could go on for pages… 

The particulars of the practice are really not important.  The key is that freedom of religion ought to protect one from discrimination based on thoughts, belief, ideas – but must not in any way protect behaviour which contravenes the secular laws of the land.

We must protect everyone’s right to believe and hold ideas freely and openly.  At the same time, we must not allow cries of ‘this is part of my religion’ to protect illegal behaviour:  this would only lead to the hijacking of religions by criminal minded people or those who wish to oppress -or worse. 

It would be wrong of us to allow religions to be abused in this manner.

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

Posted in atheism, freedoms, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 5 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »