Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad!
Came across this on Dvorak Uncensored:
If this is true, then people in Russia who are thought to be likely to soon commit a crime could be picked up by the successor to the KGB, interrogated and told how to alter their behaviour…or else.
Could this even be true?
For once, I am at a loss for words…
UPDATE: YouTube has removed this video due to a copyright complaint – even though under the ‘satire’ clause, this is a fully legitimate use of the material, as has been confirmed by Latma TV’s (the authors) copyright lawyers.
Via Jawa Report, here is the video from Dailymotion:
Via TRF:
Aside from the Mother Theresa bit, I think this about sums it up for the Gaza Flotilla: sending in used shoes and expired medicine…. some help these ‘peace activists’ are!
Around midnight of May 31st, 2010, there was an ‘unpleasant’ confrontation between a ‘flotilla of boats’, sailing under the Turkish flag, and the Israeli military. By now, most of us have been inundated with ‘information’ about what had happened, so I’ll delve right into what is bothering me.
This information comes from ‘respectable news sources’ – and, most people accept the words as true. However, I like doing (both solving and creating) logic puzzles – you know, of the type of the famous ‘Einstein Puzzle‘: if I see two guys, Bob and Rob, and if Bob is wearing a blue shirt, and the two are wearing shirts of the same colour, what colour shirt is Rob wearing?
That type of a puzzle….
So, I could not help notice that some of the things constantly repeated over and over and over within the ‘news stories’ contained internal contradictions. Not just inconsistencies, but downright contradictions!
Sort of like if they were reporting on the above (simplified) puzzle, and kept saying ‘Rob, the one wearing a red shirt, is taller than Bob…’
How am I supposed to figure out which bits are the facts of what happened and which bits are wrong – when the reporting has such glaring internal inconsistencies?!?!?
That does not, in any way-shape-or-form even get close to considering or commenting on the ‘correctness’ – or, demonstrable ‘incorrectness’, as in ‘contradictions to international laws’ – within the statements and claims in the articles. There are bits in the reports which directly contradict other bits asserted in the same reports!
Well, most of the times – in the ‘mainstream media’ – so you have to go to the blogosphere to learn the facts….
Let me give you one example.
From Wikipedia, this is a diagram of how ‘territorial waters’, ‘international waters’ and so on are defined under ‘international law’ (I put ‘international law’ in quotes because that itself is also a nebulous matter, to say the least…plus neither Turkey, nor Israel are idiotic enough to have signed UN’s L.O.S.T. – but it is the convention):
This seems relatively clear: ‘international waters’ begin 200 miles (or more) from the shore. That is rather unequivocal!
Right?
(If there are multiple countries whose claim ‘overlap’ inside this 200 mile limit, the ‘jurisdictional border’ is negotiated – usually giving each side half the amount of the overlap, leaving no ‘international waters’ between them. This, for example, is the case between Canada and those 2 tiny little French islands… Other countries may have ‘right of passage’ through these waters – but not unregulated!)
Next step:
The ‘news reports’ all seem to agree that the ‘incident’ happened 70 miles off-shore. As in, well within the regulated ‘economic zone’, within which all ships may cross, but are obligated to submit to inspections by the ‘enforcing country’, which has the right to regulate these waters.
But, these same reports claim that the incident took place in ‘international waters’!
And – that because the ‘incident’ occurred in ‘international waters’, Israel had no right to board the vessels….and so is, in effect, guilty of piracy!
Apply logic here….
Which is it? Did it happen in ‘international waters’ or did it happen 70 miles off-shore?
It cannot possibly be both!
Ah – the trouble one runs into when applying logic to ‘news reports from reputable sources’!
Just like BCF says:
Geert Wilders Needs Our Help Urgently
With four weeks to go before the general elections in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom are now engaged in a life-and-death struggle against the forces of jihad. In the last couple of years Geert Wilders has emerged as the international symbol of the struggle against Islam.
The Party for Freedom (PVV) refuses government subsidy in order to remain independent. All other Dutch parties receive government money. Therefore, the PVV is facing a serious challenge in order to survive this election season. Dutch state television is engaged in a massive campaign to smear the PVV.
The Party for Freedom needs your help urgently. Every donation is welcome.
There is a Paypal button on the English-language site: www.geertwilders.nl
…
ING bank account of the Stichting Vrienden van de PVV in The Hague: 67.04.72.344(IBAN: NL98 INGB 0670 4723 44, BIC: INGBNL2A)
Postal address:
Postbus 20018
2500 EA Den HaagThere is a Paypal button on the English-language site: www.geertwilders.nl
Please, don’t get me wrong: I hate the burka.
In my never-humble-opinion, wearing a burka (or niqab) is immoral.
So, I resent having to write in the defense of the burka!
…because, nothing, not even the burka or niqab, grant any government the power to legislate a citizen’s choices in clothing.
The government does not – and must not – have the right to tell me how to dress. What to wear or what not to wear. EVER!!!
‘Governments’ simply lack the authority to a law that determines how I choose to dress.
However…
This does not mean that governments do not have the right to enforce a dress code in public buildings/parks/vehicles etc.
As in, if you enter a public building – for whatever reason – the government which administers it has the right to demand that you wear shoes (that is a safety/liability issue – stepping on stuff can harm an unprotected foot), and so on. In the same way, the government has the right to demand that every person entering a public building or park (anything administered by that level of government) must not cover their face.
Therefore, schools, libraries, public transit, hospitals, government offices – well, all the ‘public spaces’ – are areas where the government has the authority to pass a law that people must show their faces. Fully.
That IS within the government’s jurisdiction to pass laws about.
And yes, governments SHOULD pass these laws!!!
Leaving all the ‘obvious’ reasons aside (many people have made these arguments very eloquently already), another very valid argument could be made that it is absolutely necessary that a person’s mouth be fully visible while in public buildings: obscuring one’s mouth is discriminatory.
Our laws , our very constitutions, forbid discrimination on he grounds of disability. Governments naturally hire people based on their skills, regardless of any potential disabilities – like, say, being hearing impaired…. Whether accessing or providing a government service, lipreading is an accepted means of communicating and much more common than most people realize. Many of us even do it without realizing it!
Obscuring one’s lips behind a veil thus discriminates against people who are hearing impaired and rely fully or partially on lipreading to communicate. This is an important issue: a constitutional matter! Perhaps this argument appears disproportional, but, please, take a moment to think about it. It is a valid point.
And, for a society which prides itself on being inclusive and does not discriminate against people with physical disabilities, this is a big deal.
Of course, all private places of business also have the right to enforce dress codes for people who enter their premises. That is fully accepted in our society, and must remain so. It is best captured by the signs: “No shoes, no shirt, no service.”
Perhaps the new ones will read: “No shoes, no shirt, no face, no entry!”
And that would be good.
It not only ‘would be good’, in my never-humble-opinion, it is necessary.
It also seems to me that our existing laws already cover this issue (no pun intended).
Private places of commerce have the right to enforce dress codes. They are free to ban ‘face coverings’ – and must remain free to do so.
Public places are also governed by rules which can be interpreted as forbidding ‘face coverings’: on the grounds that covering one’s mouth discriminates against people who are hearing impaired. This is not permitted in public places. Therefore, no burka, no niqab.
We even have a law (at least in Ontario) which says that a driver’s face must be fully visible and recognizable from outside the vehicle: that is why the front windows in a car are not permitted to have a dark tint. Wearing a veil of any type which is not transparent and obscures a driver’s face, or any other thing which prevents the driver’s face to be fully visible from outside the vehicle is, therefore, already illegal!
No new law needed!
It is not a good idea to have more laws than absolutely necessary. Passing multiple laws to govern one thing is misguided and dangerous.
To sum it up:
Perhaps I’ve missed a few specific instances, I’ll grant that. BUT – they would still be ‘specific instances’! It is wrong to pass a blanket law which bans the burka.
Permitting the government the exercise any authority to legislate how people dress is as frightening as it is ludicrous!
Who’d enforce these laws?
The ‘Fashion Police’?
April 22, 2010 is the 40th anniversary of the Earth Day!
And, while I think that just about everyone who lives on Earth would like it to be a nice, happy, comfortable little planet – have you paused to think what Earth Day is really about?
Oh, sure – we are being told that it is a reminder ‘not to pollute’ and ‘to be good to the Earth’ and not to forget ‘Mother Earth’….
But, things have a way of being more than they seem.
No – this is not ‘yet another conspiracy theory’ – mostly because I think that even though conspiracies are ‘fun’, most people are simply not disciplined enough to carry them out….
What I mean is that every message has its ‘obvious’ meaning – the one we perceive easily. In addition, it also has a deeper message: sometimes intentional, at other times it is just ‘stuff’ that ‘piggie-backs’ on that message…the transmisssion of ideas the originators of the message ‘took for granted’ and which ‘snuck in’ without them (and/or their audience) even being aware of it. Once these subtle and sub-conscious bits are part of the message, any message, they necessarily affect the subconscious attitudes of the people who hear and accept the message’s ‘obvious’ meaning.
And, in my never-humble-opinion, the deep, subconscious message behind Earth Day is this:
‘Anthropocentrism’ and ‘theocentrism’ are mutually exclusive…
Wow!
This is one more Senator who really, really ‘gets it’!
I can’t resist but quote:
Freedom of speech is not, as some have suggested, an American idea. It is an extension of free will. It is a by-product of democracy and it is reflective of the notion that all men and women were created equal. Freedom of speech knows no political station, no power structure nor race, colour or creed. Given this, how sad it is that we seem as a society to place the notion of freedom of speech as less important than ensuring none might become offended by the hard truths of 21st century living.
…
The erosion of many of these freedoms is nowhere more evident than in First Nation’s communities. In many instances, the utter absence of accountability and transparency that has plagued Aboriginal politics for so long can be attributed in large part to the infringement of the rights of grassroots Aboriginal people to their freedom of speech. For many reserve residents, the price for their attempts at free speech and the expression of their concerns in an open manner is often restriction of access to essential services such as housing and post-secondary education. The price of speaking out against corruption and demanding accountability can at times be even more severe, involving physical violence and threats to family and friends.
…
This cannot happen in a vacuum where people live in fear of retribution and retaliation if they have the courage to speak out. This will not happen if divergent opinion is termed racist – and it surely will not happen without the full engagement and participation of grassroots Aboriginal peoples, convicted and convinced enough of the need to embrace the need for change.
Senator Brazeau, if I ever get to meet you, you have a kiss coming!
Thanks, BCF, for pointing it out.
In Canada, we have freedom of speech!
At least, that is what our Constitution says….though many bureaucrats, apartchiks and pseudo-activists would like us to believe otherwise. Don’t let them fool you!
…because each and every one of us has ‘the right to BE OFFENDED’ !!!
Why?
‘Being offended’ is a very human, emotional, natural reaction!
Nobody, truly nobody, has the right to dictate to you what you may – or may not – be offended by!
However, if we permit the government to silence speech that ‘offends’ some people, it paves the road for the government to not only regulate speech, but to also dictate what we MAY – or MAY NOT – be offended by!
Yes – if we permit the government to ban speech which ‘offends’ – or, as the abominable Section 13 puts it, ‘IS LIKELY TO OFFEND’ – we are, in a very real sense, permitting the government to regulate both our speech and our emotional reactions to ‘stuff’!
Think about it – it is the logical extension: if the government regulates speech and ‘protects’ you from anything ‘bad’ which ‘might be likely to’ generate negative feelings of any kind – then you no longer have the right to ‘be offended’ by this ‘sanitized’ speech…. After all, it has been ‘filtered’ in the most rigorous manner to remove all ‘offensive’ things – so, if it is spoken, it cannot possibly cause you to react in a negative manner, to cause negative feelings in you!
If the message is ‘fine’ (approved), and you still react negatively to it, feel bad or – get offended by it – the there has GOT to be something wrong with YOU!
….nothing a re-education camp ‘sensitivity training’ could not fix!
All ‘pubic entertainment’ – as well as ‘political discourse’ – might just be limited to ‘acts’ like this:
P.S. – This is NOT a diss at the Arrogant Worms – they have enough ‘bits’ that would also be banned. This one simply demonstrates ‘the limits’ of my point…
Update: the attack occurred not in downtown Ottawa, but just on the other side of the Ottawa river in Ottawa’s twin city, the Gatineau, PQ. This area is still within sight (and walking distance) of both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Parliament buildings. BCF has the Michael Coren interview with Nick Bergamini.
Nick Bergamini is a student at Carleton University and active in student government.
According to his facebook page:
…
“Quickly, we both responded that yes we were Zionists. All of a sudden we were surrounded by 10-15 men who began to shout at us in Arabic. We tried to back out and run away. All of a sudden, I was struck in the back of the head. I’m not sure if it was a fist, a rock or a pipe but it left me dazed and bleeding.
We quickly ran back to the bar and stood beside the bouncers. The crowd of anti-Israel thugs dispersed.
About 10 minutes later, assuming that it was safe, we began to walk home. We were walking through a parking lot when a car pulled up next to us. The driver shouted “I fucking hit you, you Jew.”
We stood our ground. Quickly we had three guys around us. We were able to push them away. As the cowards that they were, they retreated. Then I heard, shouts of “Open the trunk!” One of them opened the trunk and I saw glistening in the street light the reflection of a 12-inch machete. “Fucking Jew,” he shouted. I began to run for my life as he was only 5 or 6 feet away.
I ran, and as I looked back, I saw the long shiny blade slicing through the air about 12 inches from my neck. I ran as fast I could and, thanks to my grade 9 track and field training, got away.
People who were around the scene said the blade came within inches of my neck.
Read his whole post here!
Is this really happening here, in Canada?
Here, in Ottawa, Canada’s Capital?
Here, right downtown Ottawa – just blocks from our Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada?
Now?
Yes, that would indeed appear to be true!
Question: This happened in the club district, downtown Ottawa. At 1:45 in the morning, this is hardly an abandoned or ‘quiet’ part of town – being so close to the University of Ottawa campus, there are usually quite a few people about! The Ottawa Police usually have a ‘presence’. It’s their job!
So, I am curious to hear their side of the story: how come these guys are not arrested yet?
OK – so Nick Bergamini and Mark Klibanov got themselves beaten up and bloodied.
OK – so some guys with a machete chased them, trying hard to decapitate them.
Goodness knows, we all loose our tempers, some times!
A much more dangerous crime occurred in Ottawa that night!
They were engaging in hate speech – right in the middle of a crowd!
Do you realize just how many people might have had their feelings hurt?
How many might have been traumatized: by hearing there were 2 Zionists in our midst?
How do the police expect us to be able to sleep tonight? We are a city – nay, a community – traumatized!
After all, we ran that Zionist Ann Coulter right out of town (yes, she may be an anti-Semite, but she is still a Zionist!)! Yeah, the Ottawa Police made sure she was not permitted to speak!
We thought we could relax a little…..
But no! Now these two Zionists crop up! Right in the middle of the City!
They even freely and openly admit they are Zionists – and through the admission of their very existence, they traumatize a whole crowd!
Just think of those poor thugs – they must really have had their feelings hurt! They were so traumatized, they got their machete out and went after the Zionists!
This is really, really terrible! These two Zionists have provoked these poor guys so much, they might never calm down from it and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder for the rest of their lives.
Yet, Nick is obviously still free to write this up for his facebook page! Writing down all this self-incriminating evidence – how he admitted openly that he was indeed a Zionist!
So – how long do YOU think it’ll take the Ottawa Police to arrest Nick Bergamini and Mark Klibanov for their hateful speech!?!?!
And the Ottawa Police have still not arrested them… Sheeeeesh!!!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 