Geert Wilders denied entry to the UK [Archive]

View Full Version : Geert Wilders denied entry to the UK

Fragony

02-12-2009, 13:55

Edit, spinoff from BG's glory to science and democracy thread, which he posted from England out of all places.

Same day the English government refuses a dutch member of the parlement and EU citizen entry :bow:

Pannonian

02-12-2009, 14:43

Same day the English government refuses a dutch member of the parlement and EU citizen entry :bow:
Absolutely disgraceful, consideriing that England and Holland were supposed to be allied against the common threat of Napoleon. Did the Dutch consider breaking away from the English over this diplomatic faux pas and turning instead to Bonaparte?

CountArach

02-12-2009, 14:55

Absolutely disgraceful, consideriing that England and Holland were supposed to be allied against the common threat of Napoleon. Did the Dutch consider breaking away from the English over this diplomatic faux pas and turning instead to Bonaparte?
I do believe that Bonaparte had already conquered Holland well in advance of this time and as such the British refusal to let in the Dutch citizen was excusable. After all, that Dutch citizen could well have been a spy for the EU - which we all know was a tool of Bonapartist foreign policy - both of them believed in a continental-wide free-trade system. OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE.

Banquo's Ghost

02-12-2009, 14:59

I think this subject deserves its own thread rather than derailing mine. :beadyeyes2:

For those who don't know what Fragony is referring to, this article (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/banned-dutch-politician-on-flight-to-britain-1607694.html)may help.

Geert Wilders was invited to Westminster to show his 17-minute film Fitna, which criticises the Koran as a "fascist book", by a member of the House of Lords.

But on Tuesday he received a letter from the Home Office refusing him entry because his opinions "would threaten community security and therefore public security" in the UK.

Mr Wilders, a member of Holland's Freedom Party, condemned the British Government as "weak and cowardly" and vowed he would make the trip anyway.

Personally, I think it is beyond stupid and also illegal. If the Lords wish to invite a MEP, who has never been convicted of a crime, to speak on his odd views, that is their - and his - right. Barmy politicians should be allowed to talk through their views and be challenged on them.

Devastatin Dave

02-12-2009, 15:00

Fragony

02-12-2009, 15:00

Absolutely disgraceful, consideriing that England and Holland were supposed to be allied against the common threat of Napoleon. Did the Dutch consider breaking away from the English over this diplomatic faux pas and turning instead to Bonaparte?

Mock it all you want, won't change anything in great brittain, nor will it change anything here the UK has made it's choice. Going to be a cold winter for the left, and I am going to feast on the couscous of my maroccan neighbours and maybe even marry their daughter as they suggested just for kicks and giggles.

Banquo's Ghost

02-12-2009, 15:07

Funny how the Brits have an entire population of "youths" chanting and plotting their destruction but won't let a man warming up the emergency siren for all of Europe about their Islamic isssue, on their shore. This world is upside down. Next thing you know the US will elect a Marxist Muslim insurgent... oh wait....:wall:

Actually, in there is a very good point (no Dave, not about the president - you know very well that I would start melting if I doubted the Appointed One ~;p).

The UK is, apparently, the number one intelligence target for the CIA at this time because of the substantial network of jihadist wannabes. Far more agents (there was a guestimate of around 4,000) have been deployed in the UK than Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Apart from the question as to why the US doesn't bomb Bradford flat (as seems to be the policy for other uncooperative countries) it gets to the heart of what Fragony sometimes gets right - which is how a feeble-minded dhimmitude can allow fanatics to flourish.

Fragony

02-12-2009, 15:18

Apart from the question as to why the US doesn't bomb Bradford flat (as seems to be the policy for other uncooperative countries) it gets to the heart of what Fragony sometimes gets right - which is how a feeble-minded dhimmitude can allow fanatics to flourish.

Hey, thanks for that even if mildly insulting. 99% of the muslims are great people. But the lefties only listen to that 1% that aren't great because of their multicultural religion; the most intolerant and absolutist religion the western world has ever seen. Christians and muslims accept other religions, multiculturalists will never accept even a shred of doubt.

Vladimir

02-12-2009, 15:40

The UK is, apparently, the number one intelligence target for the CIA at this time because of the substantial network of jihadist wannabes. Far more agents (there was a guestimate of around 4,000) have been deployed in the UK than Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Ease up on the CIA. I don't want you donning a metallic hat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4548753/Britain-under-attack-from-20-foreign-spy-agencies-including-France-and-Germany.html

Furunculus

02-12-2009, 15:52

Geert Wilders should never have been refused entry.

Furunculus

02-12-2009, 15:54

Ease up on the CIA. I don't want you donning a metallic hat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4548753/Britain-under-attack-from-20-foreign-spy-agencies-including-France-and-Germany.html
it was long suspected that the french version of GCHQ was more involved in economic espionage than security related comm-int.

InsaneApache

02-12-2009, 15:55

Vladimir

02-12-2009, 15:58

it was long suspected that the french version of GCHS was more involved in economic espionage than security related comm-int.

...are always involved. I have to admit though that I'm proud of the French. They actually admitted they do this with that typical French "in your face with style" attitude.

Fragony

02-12-2009, 16:14

Geert Wilders should never have been refused entry.

Well this is good actually. They are trying to trial him for spreading hate here, also good. Portraying him in black&white to stir reflexes is good. Calling him the evil that should be stopped is good. They can do as they please it won't help them, as I have always said, the left needs a miracle the right needs patience, I am perfectly fine with living with the muslims but the left needs to go.

edit; hehe he actually got arrested, a dutch member of the parlement, thanks UK! That saves us a lot of money!

Furunculus

02-12-2009, 16:30

another opinion from Danial Hannan:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/02/11/banning_geert_wilders_insults_muslims_diminishes_freedom_and_cheapens_britain

Fragony

02-12-2009, 16:52

another opinion from Danial Hannan:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/02/11/banning_geert_wilders_insults_muslims_diminishes_freedom_and_cheapens_britain

Little bit of information, the call for the banning of the Quran is just to show the hypocracy in dutch law, if Mein Kampf is banned, why not the Quran. I wouldn't take this aproach, but it's valid imho, nobody in the PVV would actually ban the Quran for real, it's just meant for forcing the lefties to take an honest look at theirselves and deal with the rather inconvenient truth; islamic extremism, and european dhimmitude because of multicultural desire.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-12-2009, 16:52

FactionHeir

02-12-2009, 17:30

The Home Office said: "The Government opposes extremism in all its forms.

"It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country, and that was the driving force behind tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behaviour that the Home Secretary announced in October last year."

Couldn't agree more. If you don't allow imams to preach jihad in the UK, then you equally cannot allow a white guy to preach hatred towards Islam.

rasoforos

02-12-2009, 18:01

Little bit of information, the call for the banning of the Quran is just to show the hypocricy in dutch law, if Mein Kampf is banned, why not the Quran.

You really do not see the difference do you? :no:

Factionheir <---- Finally the voice of reason. :2thumbsup:

Freedom of speech is fine and good but it comes with a price. The price is that people often believe what you say. So you should not be allowed to go out there and talk :daisy: EVEN if you are an Imam or a Dutch MP.

Furunculus

02-12-2009, 18:33

Couldn't agree more. If you don't allow imams to preach jihad in the UK, then you equally cannot allow a white guy to preach hatred towards Islam.

does he incite other people to violence?

our laws are not supposed to be interpretted in a wishy washy way governed by whether we think he's a bit of a tool or not, they are about banning people who incite violence against others.

Hooahguy

02-12-2009, 18:33

You really do not see the difference do you? :no:

Factionheir <---- Finally the voice of reason. :2thumbsup:

Freedom of speech is fine and good but it comes with a price. The price is that people often believe what you say. So you should not be allowed to go out there and talk :daisy: EVEN if you are an Imam or a Dutch MP.
are you in support of the fairness doctrine? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine)

Furunculus

02-12-2009, 18:35

You really do not see the difference do you? :no:

Factionheir <---- Finally the voice of reason. :2thumbsup:

Freedom of speech is fine and good but it comes with a price. The price is that people often believe what you say. So you should not be allowed to go out there and talk :daisy: EVEN if you are an Imam or a Dutch MP.

i'm glad your greek and not british, too many of your sort and we wouldn't have freedom of speech as we know it in the UK today.

Fragony

02-12-2009, 19:28

You really do not see the difference do you? :no:

Of course I do, so does Wilders, I can know I dated his secretary. It's a 'mirror' for dutch law, both books contain what could be seen as 'hate', what we have here, is political trolling, or better sophism. Compared to BNP and the french national party Wilders is a lovepuppy. Basicly he is doing the same as the left, hijacking WW2 for political purpose. Leave us alone we are doing fine. We end up blaming the muslims for what isn't their doing.

rasoforos

02-12-2009, 19:55

i'm glad your greek and not british, too many of your sort and we wouldn't have freedom of speech as we know it in the UK today.

Go hide under your bridge little troll. The three billy goats are coming...

Putting my ethnicity in this conversation was totally uncalled for. I am sorry but I will tell 'my sort' to leave 'your country' so we do not influence you badly...sorry for the inconvenience...

FYI: I spent most of my adult life in the UK...

rasoforos

02-12-2009, 20:03

Of course I do, so does Wilders, I can know I dated his secretary. It's a 'mirror' for dutch law, both books contain what could be seen as 'hate', what we have here, is political trolling, or better sophism. Compared to BNP and the french national party Wilders is a lovepuppy. Basicly he is doing the same as the left, hijacking WW2 for political purpose. Of our muslim population 99% are great people, but the left only caters that 1% of the muslims that are not because of their multiculturalist religion, and it's doing a lot of damage, we don't want it, nor do the muslims, only the left does. Leave us alone we are doing fine. We end up blaming the muslims for what isn't their doing.

Fair enough, I see what you mean, but you can give a children's book to a lawyer and I will bet you good money he can claim that it incites hate (if you pay him good money)...

...It is a vicious circle. Sometimes it is better to keep a compromising balance than to open the door to extremism just because some precedent (a book, a religion, an idea) has been established.

Fragony

02-12-2009, 20:27

Fair enough, I see what you mean, but you can give a children's book to a lawyer and I will bet you good money he can claim that it incites hate (if you pay him good money)...

...It is a vicious circle. Sometimes it is better to keep a compromising balance than to open the door to extremism just because some precedent (a book, a religion, an idea) has been established.

I consider myself to be extremely moderate, the funny thing about the rightwing extremists is that they actually believe there is some hidden power in the Quran that turns people mad. But the extreme right has no power, but the extreme left who see the muslims as the new proletariat does. Our muslims aren't nearly as aggressive or demanding as they are in other Europeam countries. We are doing fine, there is nothing to fix. I wish the politicians would just let us be, but they got addicted to change. Scrap politicians.

Crazed Rabbit

02-12-2009, 21:33

Freedom of speech is fine and good but it comes with a price. The price is that people often believe what you say. So you should not be allowed to go out there and talk :daisy: EVEN if you are an Imam or a Dutch MP.

The stupidity of people is no reason to ban speech. Indeed, you are saying the persuasiveness of a person means they shouldn't be allowed to speak in support of things you disagree with.

You obviously do not believe "Freedom of speech is fine and good". You do not believe in freedom of speech at all, so do not offer such platitudes while tearing down the basic right.

Couldn't agree more. If you don't allow imams to preach jihad in the UK,

In the past the UK certainly has, and it seems they still are. (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/02/government-bans.html)

This is a monumentally pathetic and cowardly move on the part of the UK. If the leaders do not grow a spine forthright, they will find themselves puppets in their own country.

CR

Lemur

02-12-2009, 22:15

The UK is, apparently, the number one intelligence target for the CIA at this time because of the substantial network of jihadist wannabes.
Side note: I would imagine the U.K. is a popular destination for our spies for lots of reasons. For instance, if you spend two years in the tribal regions of Pakistan, you're likely to spend some time with chronic diarrhea in a mud hut covered with biting flies. A two-year stint in London, on the other hand, means you could wind up developing a taste for crumpets.

I've always suspected that half the reason we have so little HumInt in Afghanistan and Pakistan is that nobody in their right mind wants to hang out in those countries for years at a time.

Furunculus

02-12-2009, 22:57

Go hide under your bridge little troll. The three billy goats are coming...

Putting my ethnicity in this conversation was totally uncalled for. I am sorry but I will tell 'my sort' to leave 'your country' so we do not influence you badly...sorry for the inconvenience...

FYI: I spent most of my adult life in the UK...

I apologise if the point i was trying to make came across badly. :)

The point being, that in the UK freedom of speech means being able to be a tool, as long as one does not explicitly incite violence.

Geert Wilders (sp?) appears to be an offensive little creep with whom i would have nothing to do with, but while he lays into the less advanced elements of islam quite ferociously he does not to my knowledge call for violence against muslims in particular, or brown people with big bushy beards in general.

Thus to the British, banning him is a gross infringement of our freedom of speech, and while i appreciate that other people in other countries interpret freedom of speech differently, i will always violently disagree with anyone who suggests it as an appropriate reaction in Britain.

So i violently disagreed with you, but i did so in a way that was overly personal for which i apologise. But banning Geert Wilders for that is not British.

LittleGrizzly

02-13-2009, 00:45

if Mein Kampf is banned, why not the Quran.

My cousin owns a copy, an intresting insight into the mind of a maniac... texts like the old testament have some genocidal egomaniac running the show, so from what i now of the Quran we should ban the old testament first...

Being an evil lefty i think the evil religions (like islam, christianity and judaism) should be free to worship and read thier books...

I think FH has hit the nail on the head... we don't allow wacko muslims spreading hate in our country so we don't allow wacko wilder in our country to spread hate... now its difficult for me to decide how much hatred should be allowed... but if were going to have a policy to kick out wackos, then we can't only kick out the muslim wackos, we have to kick wackos out no matter thier creed or colour...

Strike For The South

02-13-2009, 02:12

Geert is a silly name.

Spino

02-13-2009, 03:59

Geert is a silly name.

Beat me to it, damn you! :furious3:

Furunculus

02-13-2009, 04:57

if Mein Kampf is banned, why not the Quran.

Being an evil lefty i think the evil religions (like islam, christianity and judaism) should be free to worship and read thier books...

I think FH has hit the nail on the head... we don't allow wacko muslims spreading hate in our country so we don't allow wacko wilder in our country to spread hate... now its difficult for me to decide how much hatred should be allowed... but if were going to have a policy to kick out wackos, then we can't only kick out the muslim wackos, we have to kick wackos out no matter thier creed or colour...

being an evil righty........... i do too. Q.E.D.

it is clearly spelled out in law - does he incite violence against others?

it is not about whether you or i think he is a tool!

LittleGrizzly

02-13-2009, 06:39

being an evil righty........... i do too. Q.E.D.

Great.. now if we can just convince crazy people like 'hook' and geert then we are almost there!

it is clearly spelled out in law - does he incite violence against others?

well i don't really now enough about the man, thats why i stuck to the phrase 'wacko' and also 'spreading hate' it could be argued that spreading hate leads indirectly (or maybe directly) to violence... so quite possibly, but i wouldn't argue one way or the other...

Personally i don't care aslong as we are consistent, if we allow this guy to say this stuff about islam then we should similarly allow muslim wackos to spread hateful things about christians/atheists/westerners... as long as they tread the line carefully enough they can peddle thier hatred freely...

The one really unfortunate thing is it is easy to see someone's error about a bit of christian text seen as the translations are seen as accurate enough, unfortunately barely any britians speak arabic so we have to really on translations, this gives someone like geert free reign to come up with the worst possible interpratation (or just make crap up based loosely on something in there)

This makes geert alot more dangerous than your average 'hook' type, he can influence vast amounts of britians with his lies, most of us just laugh at 'hook'

Fragony

02-13-2009, 09:01

Of course he isn't calling for violence, Fitna is just a compilation of images that were shot by radicals, images that were meant to be seen. Wilders ain't that radical he is nothing like the BNP or the Front National.

InsaneApache

02-13-2009, 09:23

Can someone explain to me why it was OK for Gertie to visit the UK two weeks ago but not now? :inquisitive:

Typical of this inept government to shoot itself in the foot. Election now!

Vladimir

02-13-2009, 20:46

I've always suspected that half the reason we have so little HumInt in Afghanistan and Pakistan is that nobody in their right mind wants to hang out in those countries for years at a time.

:laugh4: Who is we? That deserves a thread of its own. :2thumbsup:

Fragony

02-13-2009, 23:35

Go Pat Condell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW6PRABq4HM

rasoforos

02-14-2009, 07:21

The stupidity of people is no reason to ban speech. Indeed, you are saying the persuasiveness of a person means they shouldn't be allowed to speak in support of things you disagree with.

You obviously do not believe "Freedom of speech is fine and good". You do not believe in freedom of speech at all, so do not offer such platitudes while tearing down the basic right.

CR

Thanks for the psychoanalysis but I am sorry, no cake :no:

My post: 'Freedom of speech is fine and good but it comes with a price. The price is that people often believe what you say. So you should not be allowed to go out there and talk EVEN if you are an Imam or a Dutch MP.'

i) Where did I say that stupidity is a reason to ban speech?

ii) Where did I say that the persuasiveness of a person means they shouldn't be allowed to voice an opposite opinion to mine?

If you read my post again carefully you will see that what I am saying is that a person's oppinion, once spoken out, has an effect on other people. Therefore it carries certain responsibilities .

i) Nowhere I mention stupidity.

ii) It is a far far stretch to say that, because I say that opinions carry responsibilities it means that I prohibit freedom of speech to people who voice opposite opinions to mine.

In fact all I am trying to say is that it is fine (by me) for a terrorist-affiliated imam, a racist MP or a Holocaust denier to voice their opinions (under freedom of speech). And then it is OUR right as a society to protect ourselves from such elements and their illegal action (i.e Inciting hatred). This does not restrict freedom of speech.

Please read my posts next time you quote them or try to clarify some points before you launch a frontal assault. :medievalcheers:

Crazed Rabbit

02-14-2009, 09:13

Thanks for the psychoanalysis but I am sorry, no cake :no:

My post: 'Freedom of speech is fine and good but it comes with a price. The price is that people often believe what you say. So you should not be allowed to go out there and talk EVEN if you are an Imam or a Dutch MP.'

i) Where did I say that stupidity is a reason to ban speech?

ii) Where did I say that the persuasiveness of a person means they shouldn't be allowed to voice an opposite opinion to mine?

It was implied. You said people often believe what others say so people should have limits on what they say. Substitute gullible or whatever word you want for stupid, but it's the same difference.

Accordingly, the persuasiveness of a person correlates with how many people they get to believe them. Your talk of responsibility for a person's speech since people would believe is part of the reason you want to control a person's speech.

In fact all I am trying to say is that it is fine (by me) for a terrorist-affiliated imam, a racist MP or a Holocaust denier to voice their opinions (under freedom of speech). And then it is OUR right as a society to protect ourselves from such elements and their illegal action (i.e Inciting hatred).

That is a nonsensical statement. You are saying Wilders has a right to voice his opinion, then saying it is our right to stop him from doing so.

Calling his action illegal is meaningless. Illegality has nothing to do with the morality or wrongness of an action.

This does not restrict freedom of speech.

Yes, it most certainly does. Laws against 'inciting hatred' represent a threat to the foundation of free speech, because they are really laws against saying bad things about people.

For if you say something bad or deride a person for some reason, then you are giving other people reason to dislike them. And it is only a short way to saying some worse things about a person, saying their policies will destroy our country, or that they are unpatriotic or they don't support our troops or they want to flood our streets with UZIs and AK-47s. And so people go past disliking and move on to hating that person and what they stand for, for deserting our troops or causing kids to get killed by guns.

And so when you outlaw inciting hatred you outlaw the ability of a person to speak passionately against the actions of another. If we are outraged, whether it be at alleged war crimes of our leaders or alleged nonsupport for our soldiers, do we not hate the people who have done those things? Maybe not even the people, but we do hate. I hate the assaults on liberty that the drug war in this country has caused, and I want to incite others to hate it as well.

Inciting hatred is a basic human right.

It allows people to condemn the actions of the government, or of corrupt businessmen, or people who would reshape our society to their liking.

To ban that is to ban all intense criticism about any person or group. Which is exactly what the thugs who bullied around the spineless labor government want to do.

CR

PS Pat Condell nails it.
PPS And I did no psychoanalysis

Fragony

02-14-2009, 09:53

Wilders doesn't spread hate. It's about the movie Fitna that nobody would have heard about if it wasn't for the legendary panic of our PM, if the moderaters are ok with it I'll post a link but it isn't that hard to find, nothing to see here, move along.

Banquo's Ghost

02-14-2009, 09:58

As long as you ensure it is the version with the copyright violations removed, you may post a link.

Fragony

02-14-2009, 10:14

Well here goes.

No idea how to put spoiler tags, be warned some graphic content.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=216_1207467783

That's it. There are tons of video's like this on youtube, a storm in a glas of water as we say here.

edit, much more important, anyone knows where the music is from, it's pretty

Strike For The South

02-14-2009, 10:26

Lame. I was expecting some race baiting or offensive.

Scurvy

02-14-2009, 10:40

Quite interesting, and if that was all they'd see in the House of Lord's then it really would be no big deal, not far from views some people express here aswell, and i'm not sure how it could be seen to incite hatred (the subtitles didn't state any difference between radical islam and moderate islam - but i don't speak dutch)

:2thumbsup:

Fragony

02-14-2009, 11:05

Lame. I was expecting some race baiting or offensive.

Shocking isn't it. And this what made our PM :daisy: every color of the rainbow, completely blowing it out of proportions in his panic. And now Brown even goes so far as to deny a dutch member of the parlement acces because some beard makes a few threats. Fitna is nothing it isn't even a well made movie like Submission. Gordon Brown and his dutch collegue Balkenende are obviously too scared to lead a 21th century democracy.

InsaneApache

02-14-2009, 11:30

Brown's a bullying coward but that's for another thread. :book:

Adrian II

02-14-2009, 12:51

edit, much more important, anyone knows where the music is from, it's prettyPeer Gynt Suite by Grieg. I am disappointed. You should really work on your classic knowledge.

BTW this whole issue reminds of Grieg's Opus 54 No 3.

Fragony

02-14-2009, 13:09

Gotcha. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7OVEqH43AI Absolutely gorgeous. Should be named an ode to my valentines day.

Banquo's Ghost

02-14-2009, 14:37

BTW this whole issue reminds of Grieg's Opus 54 No 3.

:laugh4:

:bow:

Adrian II

02-14-2009, 15:28

Gotcha. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7OVEqH43AI Absolutely gorgeous. Should be named an ode to my valentines day.Ever heard his piano concerto Opus 16?

I had a Latin and Greek teacher at grammar school in the 1970's - probably sounds like the Stone Age to most visitors of this forum - who was also an accomplished piano player. He lived nearby and I used to visit him and we talked music. He never went on holiday, he said, because 'if I want to see Brazil I play Villa-Lobos, if I want to smell the sea I play Debussy's La mer and if I want to visit the Norwegian fjords I play Grieg's piano concerto'. I used to laugh at him then, vowing that I would see more of the world than his entire generation ever had. And I did.

Now that I'm 51 years old I am beginning to see his point. :juggle2: :balloon2:

Fragony

02-14-2009, 15:41

Ah music, music > Wilders.

Satie is my god. (Chopin is a close second)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLFVGwGQcB0&feature=related Gnossiene 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTwJojo-_F4&feature=related and2!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_w_lckqz8A&feature=related there a 3???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJQGM3MfqmI&feature=related yay a four!

These all seem very simple, but try playing them they are in fact very hard.

KukriKhan

02-14-2009, 15:46

Geert is a silly name.

‘Geert’ is a Dutch forename of Germanic origin, equivalent to German Gert and English Gerry. The name is a condensed form of ‘Gerhard’, itself a combination of the Germanic words ‘ger’ (spear) and ‘hard’ (strong or brave) meaning 'Strong or Brave with the Spear'.

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert).

If he were Texican, you'd call him "Jerry", or "Geraldo".

InsaneApache

02-14-2009, 16:35

A Dutchman is a 'Jerry'? I'm all confused now. :dizzy2: :laugh4:

rasoforos

02-14-2009, 16:36

a ) It was implied.

b ) Inciting hatred is a basic human right.

It allows people to condemn the actions of the government, or of corrupt businessmen, or people who would reshape our society to their liking.

a) No it was not. I am not implying that. Let me write it once more so you get it 'I am not implying it or saying it or anything'. I do not agree with that argument. You got it wrong. Please accept that I kind of know myself a bit better than you know me and accept that I did not imply that. For one more time, it is not being implied. You just think it is...

b) And this is where we live in a different universe. You see, in my alternate reality you can do all that without asking for all infidels to be slayed and all foreigners to 'go home' (i.e. inciting hatred).

Inciting hatred is definately not a human right. Not in my book, not in the UN's book not in anyone's book.... It is kind of, you know...a crime...

P.S did I mention I am not implying anything?

Crazed Rabbit

02-14-2009, 18:30

a) No it was not. I am not implying that. Let me write it once more so you get it 'I am not implying it or saying it or anything'. I do not agree with that argument. You got it wrong. Please accept that I kind of know myself a bit better than you know me and accept that I did not imply that. For one more time, it is not being implied. You just think it is...

Maybe you didn't think it, but it certainly seems the practical effect would be the same.

b) And this is where we live in a different universe. You see, in my alternate reality you can do all that without asking for all infidels to be slayed and all foreigners to 'go home' (i.e. inciting hatred).

Inciting hatred is definately not a human right. Not in my book, not in the UN's book not in anyone's book.... It is kind of, you know...a crime...

People should definitely be allowed to say all foreigners should go home. Indeed, if that was what you would ban because it incites hate, then that makes allowing it all the more important. Also, it is a right supported by all Americans.

Or, for a poll, go to this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=112699), where 84% of The Org say freedom of speech should not be regulated or only regulated mildly against inciting actual violence. So your claim that inciting hatred is not a right in anyone's book is the complete opposite of the truth.

And please don't use the excuse that inciting hatred is illegal - because it isn't here, and that argument is a cop out, an admission you don't have any arguments to say why inciting hatred should be illegal.

But if you think that, then I don't care what ethnicity you are, kindly don't bring such opinions to this country.

P.S did I mention I am not implying anything?

No.

CR

Adrian II

02-14-2009, 18:52

Ah music, music > Wilders.

Satie is my god. (Chopin is a close second)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLFVGwGQcB0&feature=related Gnossiene 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTwJojo-_F4&feature=related and2!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNdDoL3s8aA&feature=related there a 3???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJQGM3MfqmI&feature=related yay a four!

These all seem very simple, but try playing them they are in fact very hard.We share a love for Chopin, who'da thunk? But Satie is quite easy to play. Chopin's Études on the other hand..

rasoforos

02-14-2009, 18:55

1.) Maybe you didn't think it, but it certainly seems the practical effect would be the same.

2.) So your claim that inciting hatred is not a right in anyone's book is the complete opposite of the truth.

3.) And please don't use the excuse that inciting hatred is illegal - because it isn't here, and that argument is a cop out, an admission you don't have any arguments to say why inciting hatred should be illegal.

1.) Ok now that we kind of agreed that I did not say or imply what you thought I said or implied can we please stop this nonsense? You assaulted me with arguments based on a misunderstanding from your part of my sayings and since we solved that part then I would appreciate you stop bombarding me with arguments for something I did not say.

2.) You claim that inciting hatred is a human right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Read a bit about what consists a human right. A right to say something is not the same as a 'human right'. Again, of course, you misunderstood my comment.

3.) Aaaand yet again you did not bother to read my post...

...let me requote....sigh...

In fact all I am trying to say is that it is fine (by me) for a terrorist-affiliated imam, a racist MP or a Holocaust denier to voice their opinions (under freedom of speech). And then it is OUR right as a society to protect ourselves from such elements and their illegal action (i.e Inciting hatred).

Look. Plain and simple. They can say whatever nonsense they want to say (freedom of speech) but they should be responsible for their words because if their speech convinces a bunch of people to, lets say, go out there and kill people (jewish people, foreigners, communists etc etc) then they are accountable for inciting hatred. They do not incite hatred just by voicing an oppinion but by coercing other people to act in an illegal manner.

SOOOOOO....

Free Speech ----> OK

...but when one convinces others to commit a crime then one should be held accountable for his action. So free speech comes with the 'burden' of responsibility.

The fact that voicing one's opinion also bears responsibility was my initial point; before you understood something completely different and launched an assault.

Now I would humbly request that we leave it at this because I am really tired of defending myself from things I did not say.

It is getting rather tiresome...I would really appreciate it if you do not quote me again in this topic.

Thank you

Kralizec

02-14-2009, 19:29

Well, good for him I suppose :juggle2:

Little bit of information, the call for the banning of the Quran is just to show the hypocracy in dutch law, if Mein Kampf is banned, why not the Quran. I wouldn't take this aproach, but it's valid imho, nobody in the PVV would actually ban the Quran for real, it's just meant for forcing the lefties to take an honest look at theirselves and deal with the rather inconvenient truth; islamic extremism, and european dhimmitude because of multicultural desire.

Eh, not really. One time after Wilders had argued that the Qu'ran should be banned just like Mein Kampf, Plasterk (one of our ministers) said that printing Mein Kampf ought to be permissable too. IIRC Wilders' response was that this was a completely sick idea.

(edit: I was suddenly reminded of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXHFXdJUMx8))

Crazed Rabbit

02-14-2009, 20:30

2.) You claim that inciting hatred is a human right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Read a bit about what consists a human right. A right to say something is not the same as a 'human right'. Again, of course, you misunderstood my comment.

I view free speech as a human right. I view inciting hatred as part of free speech. Hence, inciting hatred is a human right.

3.) Aaaand yet again you did not bother to read my post...

...let me requote....sigh...

In fact all I am trying to say is that it is fine (by me) for a terrorist-affiliated imam, a racist MP or a Holocaust denier to voice their opinions (under freedom of speech). And then it is OUR right as a society to protect ourselves from such elements and their illegal action (i.e Inciting hatred).

Look. Plain and simple. They can say whatever nonsense they want to say (freedom of speech) but they should be responsible for their words because if their speech convinces a bunch of people to, lets say, go out there and kill people (jewish people, foreigners, communists etc etc) then they are accountable for inciting hatred. They do not incite hatred just by voicing an oppinion but by coercing other people to act in an illegal manner.

Ah, so you have a problem communicating what you meant. You are against such speech because you say it will cause violence, so such speech would be more properly termed inciting violence, not inciting hatred.

And yet I still strongly oppose your restrictions. Unless the speaker is directly telling people to go and seriously harm other people, and that threat is real and present, there should be no restrictions.

You, however, want restrictions because someone might go and cause violence even if the speaker never told people to commit violence.

And that, as I have said, is an assault on liberty. You are banning any speech that some person might hear and then go attack someone because of it.

The free speech we need to protect most is that which is offensive and hateful.

The fact that voicing one's opinion also bears responsibility was my initial point; before you understood something completely different and launched an assault.

You're responsibility argument is an excuse for taking away free speech. People should not be responsible for their words to the government if they do not incite violence as I outlined above.

Now I would humbly request that we leave it at this because I am really tired of defending myself from things I did not say.

You are saying people shouldn't be allowed to say hateful things, because they have a responsibility, apparently to the morons of the world, not to get said morons worked up.

It is getting rather tiresome...I would really appreciate it if you do not quote me again in this topic.

I'll see what I can do.

Thank you

You're welcome.

CR

Fragony

02-14-2009, 22:14

Well, good for him I suppose :juggle2:

Eh, not really. One time after Wilders had argued that the Qu'ran should be banned just like Mein Kampf, Plasterk (one of our ministers) said that printing Mein Kampf ought to be permissable too. IIRC Wilders' response was that this was a completely sick idea.

(edit: I was suddenly reminded of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXHFXdJUMx8))

Well it is, but it should be allowed, sorry for not being that much impressed by labour's populism.

Oh and thread needs Chopin. Of course this is hard to play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IlOlvlTLLY

InsaneApache

02-15-2009, 13:08

It seems that 'Jackboot' Jaqui Smiths decision to exclude Gertie from the UK had something to do with the killer 'Lord' Ahmed threatening to unleash 10, 000 rioting moslems onto the streets.

If true, then it should be Ahmed who is arrested and locked up. Hang on, he will be come the 25th for killing a guy whilst texting on the M1. I bet he gets a light sentence, after all he has 10, 000 blokes ready to chuck molotovs about. Obviously not a man to be trifled with.

Outrageous. :furious3:

Fragony

02-15-2009, 13:33

Yes that is true.

KukriKhan

02-15-2009, 15:25

Fragony

02-15-2009, 22:14

Don't want to make it all too obvious but this is what uncle Fragony has been warning against for a few years or so now who's the idiot.

Kralizec

02-15-2009, 22:40

:thumbsdown:

Adrian II

02-16-2009, 00:50

InsaneApache

02-16-2009, 01:47

Phew!! Thank God for that. It's not true. Cheers for the heads up mate. :wall:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-16-2009, 02:29

The story about Amed threatening 10.000 demonstrators appears to be a canard let loose by The Spectator. It seems he wrote letters to the HoL and the Home Office pointing out that a visit by Wilders would create a disturbance of public order. His view may be wrong and Ahmed may be an idiot - and I think both judgements apply - but we can criticise him without having recourse to right-wing hypes about muslims in public life.

Hold on, there.

I submit that there is a possibility that Ahmed delivered veiled rather than eplicit threats, impossible to know without seeing what he actually wrote. Given that he is a "pillar of Muslim community" he could have called for calm and tolerance from his bretheran.

That he did not is telling, I think.

This is, after all, the man who entertained a Holocaust denier in the Lords.

Fragony

02-16-2009, 08:05

It seems he wrote letters to the HoL and the Home Office pointing out that a visit by Wilders would create a disturbance of public order.

Which is of course a warning not a threat, man

Adrian II

02-16-2009, 10:24

Phew!! Thank God for that. It's not true.Nothing you write is true, IA. Ever.

I find that highly amusing.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-16-2009, 19:44

Yo Adrian!

What's your take on Wilders? Makes good points despite an imperfect personal background? Plays to an Audience for demagogic effect? Chowderhead (ignorant and/or stupid)?

Adrian II

02-16-2009, 19:54

Yo Adrian!'Sup, man?
What's your take on Wilders?Forgive me for stating the obvious, but we have been here less than two months ago when we discussed some other Wilders-related topic, and frankly I can't stand to discuss the man or his views any more. We're getting an overdose of Wilders in the media every day over here and I get heart-burn and rashes whenever someone mentions him.

Maybe in a few months... :bow:

Seamus Fermanagh

02-16-2009, 20:47

'Sup, man?Forgive me for stating the obvious, but we have been here less than two months ago when we discussed some other Wilders-related topic, and frankly I can't stand to discuss the man or his views any more. We're getting an overdose of Wilders in the media every day over here and I get heart-burn and rashes whenever someone mentions him.

Maybe in a few months... :bow:

I understand completely. Our contemporary "Cause Celebre" individuals are foisted upon us ad nauseum as well. It gets particularly bad during an otherwise slow news cycle when you don't even get a "relief" story.

Strike For The South

02-16-2009, 20:52

Adrian has never seen Rocky? Thats unAmerican.

Adrian II

02-16-2009, 20:58

Adrian has never seen Rocky? Thats unAmerican.Eh?

I have seen all Rocky and Rambo movies twice, Your Honor! :stare:

Strike For The South

02-16-2009, 21:31

Eh?

I have seen all Rocky and Rambo movies twice, Your Honor! :stare:

Than this is the correct response. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VyzII09Hos)

All I ask is we have some continuity in our pop culture, please.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-17-2009, 04:10

Than this is the correct response. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VyzII09Hos)

All I ask is we have some continuity in our pop culture, please.

Spot on Strike! :yes: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Furunculus

02-17-2009, 18:20

"it is clearly spelled out in law - does he incite violence against others?"

well i don't really now enough about the man, thats why i stuck to the phrase 'wacko' and also 'spreading hate' it could be argued that spreading hate leads indirectly (or maybe directly) to violence... so quite possibly, but i wouldn't argue one way or the other...

Personally i don't care aslong as we are consistent, if we allow this guy to say this stuff about islam then we should similarly allow muslim wackos to spread hateful things about christians/atheists/westerners... as long as they tread the line carefully enough they can peddle thier hatred freely...

The one really unfortunate thing is it is easy to see someone's error about a bit of christian text seen as the translations are seen as accurate enough, unfortunately barely any britians speak arabic so we have to really on translations, this gives someone like geert free reign to come up with the worst possible interpratation (or just make crap up based loosely on something in there)

This makes geert alot more dangerous than your average 'hook' type, he can influence vast amounts of britians with his lies, most of us just laugh at 'hook'

no we prevent wacko-muslims from inciting violence (in theory), that is not what Geert Wilders has done, and nothing Geert Wilders has done is contrary to British law.

if it were unlawful to be responsible for civil un-rest for voicing an opinion then the satanic verses would never have been published.

rvg

02-17-2009, 18:46

Freedom of speech has gone to hell in a handbasket. Cmon, Europe, wake the hell up! Restricting freedom of speech (via restrictions on the freedom of movement) over fears that somebody's precious feelings might get hurt is absolutely ridiculous, not to mention antidemocratic. This nonsense must be stopped. Wilders should be able to express his views freely along with the religious crazies, nazis, scientologists and flat earthers. To restrict his rhetoric is to gag the fundamental principle of western democracy.

Fragony

02-17-2009, 18:58

Adrian II

02-17-2009, 19:59

Freedom of speech has gone to hell in a handbasket. Cmon, Europe, wake the hell up!C'mon America, get off your high horse! The same thing has been happening in the U.S. and you better not close your eyes to it. As soon as Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses went on sale in the U.S. the FBI noted a wave of death threats, bombs went off in American bookstores, etcetera. And only recently Random House reversed its decision to publish “The Jewel of Medina”, a novel about Muhamed's wife Aisha, after academics and security experts warned that it would be 'dangerously offensive' to Muslims. The Rushdie affair was cited in their correspondence, and the murder of Theo van Gogh can't have been very far from their minds either.

The worst example of American self-censorship is the refusal of all major media outlets to show any of the 'Danish cartoons' at the center of the 2005 diplomatic row. As Christopher Hitchens wrote (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/hitchens200902?currentPage=2) in a recent piece: 'I brushed up against the unacknowledged censor myself when I went on CNN to defend the Danish cartoons and found that, though the network would show the relevant page of the newspaper, it had pixelated the cartoons themselves. And this in an age when the image is everything. The lady anchor did not blush to tell me that the network was obliterating its very stock-in-trade (newsworthy pictures) out of sheer fear.'

Even the State Department put in its two dimes by declaring: 'These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims. We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.'

Yeah yeah. We respect freedom of expression, but ...

This is a threat to all of us. It comes not from our own governments and publishers who are merely cowards as usual, looking after their perceived short-term interest. It comes from fundamentalist movements and governments who capitalise on this cowardice, and they are making headway in the entire western world.

rvg

02-17-2009, 21:57

C'mon America, get off your high horse! The same thing has been happening in the U.S. and you better not close your eyes to it. As soon as Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses went on sale in the U.S. the FBI noted a wave of death threats, bombs went off in American bookstores, etcetera. And only recently Random House reversed its decision to publish “The Jewel of Medina”, a novel about Muhamed's wife Aisha, after academics and security experts warned that it would be 'dangerously offensive' to Muslims. The Rushdie affair was cited in their correspondence, and the murder of Theo van Gogh can't have been very far from their minds either.

The worst example of American self-censorship is the refusal of all major media outlets to show any of the 'Danish cartoons' at the center of the 2005 diplomatic row. As Christopher Hitchens wrote (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/hitchens200902?currentPage=2) in a recent piece: 'I brushed up against the unacknowledged censor myself when I went on CNN to defend the Danish cartoons and found that, though the network would show the relevant page of the newspaper, it had pixelated the cartoons themselves. And this in an age when the image is everything. The lady anchor did not blush to tell me that the network was obliterating its very stock-in-trade (newsworthy pictures) out of sheer fear.'

Even the State Department put in its two dimes by declaring: 'These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims. We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.'

Yeah yeah. We respect freedom of expression, but ...

This is a threat to all of us. It comes not from our own governments and publishers who are merely cowards as usual, looking after their perceived short-term interest. It comes from fundamentalist movements and governments who capitalise on this cowardice, and they are making headway in the entire western world.

Self-censorship doesn't bother me at all actually. Just because everyone *can* print those toons, doesn't mean that everyone *should*. U.S. media is a business and operates like a business. pissing off s customer base is bad for business, and I can totally understand their reluctance to print the toons. There was no government pressure on the media. The Wilders case is different because it is the British government actively interfering with free speech, and THAT is unacceptable.

Fragony

02-18-2009, 07:47

AdrianII is right, I would even say that the correct-cult is a much bigger problem in America then it is here. Our core is very much intact despite some severe craving dhimmi's that don't get the crowds cheering to their own amazement. Foreign observers often leave with red ears because of how incredibly nasty discussions sometimes can be here.

England and Sweden though, the lost and the damned.

Adrian II

02-18-2009, 16:25

Self-censorship doesn't bother me at all actually.Voluntary self-censorship doesn't bother me either. But this is enforced self-censorship. The enforcers reside in Tehran, Jeddah, Karachi.
Just because everyone *can* print those toons, doesn't mean that everyone *should*.That was the lame excuse that the U.S. govermnetn and all major U.S. media came up with at the time, usually followed by stern a rebuke of the Danish newpaper. What a bunch of sanctimonious rats. Customer base my foot. They were afraid, that's all.

Fragony

02-18-2009, 16:36

Voluntary self-censorship doesn't bother me either. But this is enforced self-censorship. The enforcers reside in Tehran, Jeddah, Karachi.

And that is where you wrong they have zero influence on public opinion.

Adrian II

02-18-2009, 17:53

And that is where you wrong they have zero influence on public opinion.That's right, it's all in the mind. There was never a Khomeini, never a fatwa. There have been no bomb attacks, murders and arson by islamists, no threats or blackmail by islamic leaders in the west, no book burnings, no calls for boycots, no violent demonstrations against western establishments encouraged by Arabic and islamic leaders. The left just made those up to scare us. Phooy!

Romanus

02-18-2009, 18:00

Fragony

02-18-2009, 18:06

That's right, it's all in the mind. There was never a Khomeini, never a fatwa. There have been no bomb attacks, murders and arson by islamists, no threats or blackmail by islamic leaders in the west, no book burnings, no calls for boycots, no violent demonstrations against western establishments encouraged by Arabic and islamic leaders. The left just made those up to scare us. Phooy!

It aren't the hatebeards it are the dhimmi's and multiculturalists. There really isn't a better example then the topic of this particular thread. You don't have to listen, but dhimmi's are terrified and multiculturalists leave a slippery trail all the way to the mosk

Maybe he meant western public opinion.

Thanks yes I did should have made that clear.

rvg

02-18-2009, 18:29

The enforcers reside in Tehran, Jeddah, Karachi.That was the lame excuse that the U.S. govermnetn and all major U.S. media came up with at the time, usually followed by stern a rebuke of the Danish newpaper. What a bunch of sanctimonious rats. Customer base my foot. They were afraid, that's all.

Isn't *forcing* someone to print the toons just as bad as preventing people from printing them? Once again, U.S. government had no hand in the decisions by major media corps to bypass the toons.

Fragony

02-18-2009, 18:39

Isn't *forcing* someone to print the toons just as bad as preventing people from printing them? Once again, U.S. government had no hand in the decisions by major media corps to bypass the toons.

Kinda subject that they all did though. Political correctness is much worse in America then it is here, and it isn't the government prosecuting but the oh so various civil initiatives that know their business and know who to hire.

rvg

02-18-2009, 18:57

It's not a matter of political correctness really. I've seen those toons and imho they're pure trash. Pointless and unfunny. That's beside the point though. I presume that the Euro newspapers published those toons as an act of defiance, to prove a point. We do not have to prove any points to anybody. And if there is no point to prove, then those toons have no purpose. Restraint is actually a good thing as long as it comes from within a a society as opposed to being passed down by the big bad government. Anyhoo, if you take the element of protest away from those toons, then their only remaining purpose is to insult. To turn into profane something that somebody else holds sacred. Then the question arises: "Why would I want to do that?" As an act of protest, yes, but that does not apply here in the States. This is by the way in relation to *all* religions, not just islam. You won't see papers printing toons that insult Jesus, Buddha, etc. It even applies to fringe religions. U.S. media does not do this kind of stuff, and I do not think they are obligated to do it. If they do decide to print it, it is *their* choice, and if they decide to withhold it, it is also *their* choice. If I am that eager to print the toons, I can start my own newspaper and print them all day every day. I might have trouble finding subscribers, but that's another story.

Fragony

02-18-2009, 19:00

Do you really think anyone expected to have riots over cartoons? We are amazed. And yes some people will kick at it a little harder just because of all that nonsense.

edit

rvg

02-18-2009, 19:13

Do you really think anyone expected to have riots over cartoons? We are amazed. And yes some people will kick at it a little harder just because of all that nonsense.

edit

Yes, the riots were absolutely appalling, and I am by no means trying to whitewash any of that. I was merely explaining my position on the toons as an average American. The Danish government did exactly what a modern free democratic state should have done: dismiss the toons as a tasteless piece of crap, as well as tell the muslim whackos to shove their threats where the sun don't shine.

Fragony

02-18-2009, 19:21

Yes, the riots were absolutely appalling, and I am by no means trying to whitewash any of that. I was merely explaining my position on the toons as an average American. The Danish government did exactly what a modern free democratic state should have done: dismiss the toons as a tasteless piece of crap

You probably haven't heard Denmarks Queen about the issue, good girl. But if it's merely a news-story I would like to know what the cartoon looks like, I just don't have that much with the prophet; what do you buy a newspaper for. Just ignoring a few flaws here and there because you want to treat all religions equally, well good luck.

rvg

02-18-2009, 19:32

You probably haven't heard Denmarks Queen about the issue, good girl. But if it's merely a news-story I would like to know what the cartoon looks like, I just don't have that much with the prophet; what do you buy a newspaper for. Just ignoring a few flaws here and there because you want to treat all religions equally, well good luck.

I do believe that the government absolutely *must* treat all religions equally, and by "treating equally" I mean "completely ignore all of them". Now, as an individual I have my favorites that I promote and support, while opposing the rest of them.

Adrian II

02-18-2009, 19:35

Once again, U.S. government had no hand in the decisions by major media corps to bypass the toons.That is why it's called self-censorship, no?

Apparently you are in denial about this phenomenon in the U.S. just as much as some Europeans on this forum are with regard to Europe.

rvg

02-18-2009, 19:43

That is why it's called self-censorship, no?

Apparently you are in denial about this phenomenon in the U.S. just as much as some Europeans on this forum are with regard to Europe.

Not at all. I know it exists, it just doesn't bother me. Only interference from Uncle Sam gets on my nerves. People should be free to self-censor or self-uncensor whichever way they want.

Strike For The South

02-18-2009, 20:22

Not at all. I know it exists, it just doesn't bother me. Only interference from Uncle Sam gets on my nerves. People should be free to self-censor or self-uncensor whichever way they want.

They self censor because they are scared, it works just as well. Values aern't values if you throw them away to live or diffuse a situation. If it had been any other religion those cartoons would've been shown but since we don't want to upset all .5% of the population that is muslim, they don't show them.

America is just as bad as Europe. Our politicians simply find other ways to enforce instead of laws.

Adrian II

02-18-2009, 20:24

Not at all. I know it exists, it just doesn't bother me. Only interference from Uncle Sam gets on my nerves. People should be free to self-censor or self-uncensor whichever way they want.Foreign or domestic threats against writers, publishers, artists or cartoonists don't bother you? That means freedom of expression isn't important to you. QED.

Strike For The South

02-18-2009, 20:27

Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28full%29) quod erat demonstrandum, which literally means "that which was to be demonstrated". The phrase is written in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof) or philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), to signify that the last statement deduced was the one to be demonstrated, so the proof is complete.

They learn me real good.

rvg

02-18-2009, 20:28

They self censor because they are scared, it works just as well. Values aern't values if you throw them away to live or diffuse a situation. If it had been any other religion those cartoons would've been shown but since we don't want to upset all .5% of the population that is muslim, they don't show them.

America is just as bad as Europe. Our politicians simply find other ways to enforce instead of laws.

Irrelevant. They might be scared or embarrassed, I don't really care. I'm pretty sure that if someone did publish the toons, there won't be a lynch mob torching the editor's house. The editor might get fired for being an idiot and costing the paper millions in ads money, but that's another story. Every action, every choice has consequences. If you choose to walk with your pants down around your ankles, people *will* stare and laugh at you, and most public places won't let you in. Nobody forced you to pull your pants down, and nobody will force you to pull them back up.

rvg

02-18-2009, 20:36

Foreign or domestic threats against writers, publishers, artists or cartoonists don't bother you? That means freedom of expression isn't important to you. QED.

I don't remember any U.S. group issuing threats over cartoons. As for foreign threats, I couldn't care less about what some moron in Ryadh, Tehran or Islamabad thinks or plans to do. I can threaten to eat your eyeballs for lunch, somehow I doubt that you'll be very scared. I can also grow a beard, put on some rags and once again threaten to eat your eyeballs. I doubt you'll be any more or less scared.

Strike For The South

02-18-2009, 20:38

Irrelevant. They might be scared or embarrassed, I don't really care. I'm pretty sure that if someone did publish the toons, there won't be a lynch mob torching the editor's house. The editor might get fired for being an idiot and costing the paper millions in ads money, but that's another story. Every action, every choice has consequences. If you choose to walk with your pants down around your ankles, people *will* stare and laugh at you, and most public places won't let you in. Nobody forced you to pull your pants down, and nobody will force you to pull them back up.

It is not irrelevant. Intimidation works just as well as laws. I'm sure someone would've brought a civil suit against the paper and probably would've won.

Simply because something is not a law doesn't mean its accepted and free speech needs to be accepted. There are plenty of instances in history where the paper law were meaningless. Americans need to actively defend and excersise there freedoms or in our complacency's they will be forgotten.

rvg

02-18-2009, 20:42

I'm sure someone would've brought a civil suit against the paper and probably would've won.

I seriously doubt it. No judge would dare toy with the First Amendment, simply because it's air-tight and protects all speech with the exception of slander.

Strike For The South

02-18-2009, 20:54

I seriously doubt it. No judge would dare toy with the First Amendment, simply because it's air-tight and protects all speech with the exception of slander.

We have millions being given out because McDonlads made them fat and Marbalaro made them sick. Don't underestimate our stupidity.

rvg

02-18-2009, 20:58

We have millions being given out because McDonlads made them fat and Marbalaro made them sick. Don't underestimate our stupidity.

That's a pretty far cry from the 1st Amendment. As for calling those people stupid, I would hesistate to do so. After all, they have ended up with millions in the bank.

Strike For The South

02-18-2009, 21:00

That's a pretty far cry from the 1st Amendment. As for calling those people stupid, I would hesistate to do so. After all, they have ended up with millions in the bank.

There frivolous lawsuits that should be thrown out. They absolve the person of all responsibility. Not to mention those muslim loving knee shaking Euros have never done this kind of thing. We're known for it.

Money don't change stupid.

rvg

02-18-2009, 21:04

Money don't change stupid.

Well, if they're so stupid, how come they managed to become so rich? Frivvolous lawsuits aren't stupid, they're evil. They do serve their purpose though. I thank them for the Wet Floor/Piso Mojado signs as well as "Caution, contents might be extremely hot" labels on my coffee cup.

Strike For The South

02-18-2009, 21:09

Well, if they're so stupid, how come they managed to become so rich? Frivvolous lawsuits aren't stupid, they're evil. They do serve their purpose though. I thank them for the Wet Floor/Piso Mojado signs as well as "Caution, contents might be extremely hot" labels on my coffee cup.

There rich because lawyers exploited an opportunity which hurts America. Doctors can't practice hell everyday interaction changes because people don't wanna be held responsible.

Money is not a barometer of intelligence. A fat slob who blames others for his problems is a spineless coward in my book and should be stripped of his citizenship. Give it to a Mexican who wants it.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-18-2009, 21:13

They learn me real good.

I believe that should be "They larn me rill good...."

rvg

02-18-2009, 21:17

There rich because lawyers exploited an opportunity which hurts America. Doctors can't practice hell everyday interaction changes because people don't wanna be held responsible.

Money is not a barometer of intelligence. A fat slob who blames others for his problems is a spineless coward in my book and should be stripped of his citizenship. Give it to a Mexican who wants it.

Maybe so. Still, a stupid spineless coward with a mansion, a lamborghini and a trophey wife isn't exactly a definition of failure in my book. He beat the system, good for him.

Strike For The South

02-18-2009, 21:19

I never said he was a failure just a stupid coward who should have citizenship given to someone from the 3rd world.

rvg

02-18-2009, 21:20

I never said he was a failure just a stupid coward who should have citizenship given to someone from the 3rd world.

Stupid coward with millions. And no, he ain't going nowhere.

Kralizec

02-19-2009, 17:57

I thank them for the Wet Floor/Piso Mojado signs as well as "Caution, contents might be extremely hot" labels on my coffee cup.

Good for you, the rest of us has to find out that coffee is hot the hard way :dizzy2:

Fragony

02-21-2009, 12:47

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=54d_1234534586

Lol go Geertje, now work a little bit on your English.

you are weak, you are a coward, UK I am talking to you

Banquo's Ghost

02-21-2009, 14:29

you are weak, you are a coward, UK I am talking to you

This is getting perilously close to country bashing.

As this thread has demonstrated, there are plenty of UK citizens who take issue with the ban. You might make your point better if you accuse the British government of cowardice.

Louis VI the Fat

02-22-2009, 00:59

Meh, I think I'll side with the custard eating appeasement monkeys over this.

I do not want yet more radical imams preaching in our mosques. I do not want those who recruit for jihad allowed entry. I don't want Robert Mugabe speaking in the senate.
I am in favour, though, of a boycott of Islamofascist regimes, of isolating the Zimbabwe regime, and of repatriating hardened criminals.

Freedom of expression and freedom of movement? Bah. Freedoms are intertwined and must be weighed against one another. I am all in favour of all freedoms, just like everybody else. But they have a nasty habit of getting in each other's way. One will have to choose. For me, the internal peace, and law and order take preference over giving centre stage to professional hatemongerers.

So I don't disagree with the denial of entry in principle. What I am not sure of, is the nature of Géraud Wilders. Whether he deserves a boycott. Probably not. Perhaps his greatest threat to public order and the very fabric of our civilized societies is simply his Mozart haircut.

Banquo's Ghost

02-22-2009, 10:17

Perhaps his greatest threat to public order and the very fabric of our civilized societies is simply his Mozart haircut.

I've often wondered about that. If the fellow wants to be taken seriously, why does he style himself as a clown?

Fragony

02-22-2009, 10:20

I've often wondered about that. If the fellow wants to be taken seriously, why does he style himself as a clown?

Coup soleis d'etat.

It's all so wonderful

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/johnystardust.jpg

Where did my powerflame go by the way

Banquo's Ghost

02-25-2009, 14:25

Just as an update, under the heading "You couldn't make this stuff up" :no::

The "peer" who threatened 10,000 rioting Muslims on the streets has been locked up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7909510.stm) for killing a man while texting and driving.

Lord Ahmed, 51, was driving his Jaguar when he hit a stationary car in the outside lane of the motorway on Christmas Day 2007.
The driver of the other vehicle, Martyn Gombar, 28, was killed.
Lord Ahmed, of Rotherham, was sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court. He had admitted driving dangerously.

InsaneApache

02-25-2009, 15:11

Pannonian

02-25-2009, 15:35

Can life peers get expelled from the Lords?

Fragony

02-25-2009, 16:22

InsaneApache

02-25-2009, 16:34

Thankyou Frag :bow:

What you don't get though is that the laws passed by Nu-lab are for the rest of us, not them. After all, they know best and we are just savage, xenophobic morons.

I might be wrong on that of course. :evil:

Fragony

02-25-2009, 16:50

That's the same everywhere, I am actually amazed this wasn't swept under the carpet there is more to this. What I am kinda curious about, will he be able to return to the House of Lords, he now has a criminal record after all. It seems to me that they want to be rid of him without getting dirty hands, even Labour must understand that his behaviour is unacceptable. The punnishment is fine with me two year is too much an accident is an accident.

Adrian II

02-25-2009, 16:59

We have a government run by corrupt, self-serving, crypto-gangsters and nincompoop incompetant ones at that.You are confused. That was Thatcher's government. At least Gordon Brown doesn't use his son to conclude shady deals with oil sheihks who pump millions into Wahhabi sects in Britain.

So yes, you are wrong again. :2thumbsup:

Furunculus

02-25-2009, 17:07

thatcher was ta bomb!

the long version of which is to say she presided over an gov't that was so incompetant and corrupt that she actually managed to salvage a ruin of an economy, which by the time labour next got into power was in such good shape that when informed of the fact Gordon Brown famously said; "what do you want me to do, send them a :daisy: thank you note?"

i feel we are once again approaching a similar situation whereby the tories will get the thankless task of reforming an economy knackered by a 13 years of bloated and wasteful excess.

KukriKhan

02-25-2009, 18:00

Back to Geert Wilders: he's over here this week (had no trouble gaining entry) making the rounds of news-talk TV and radio shows. His English is excellent (I just watched a DVR'd episode of Fox's Glenn Beck program).

Fragony

02-25-2009, 18:37

His english is embarrassing if you ask me :sweatdrop:

KukriKhan

02-25-2009, 18:52

His english is embarrassing if you ask me :sweatdrop:

Well, I admit he doesn't speak Los Angel-ese, rather a Dutch referent, but he's perfectly understandable HERE (http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/02/23/video-geert-wilders-on-glenn-beck-europe-needs-a-1st-amendment/).

Fragony

02-25-2009, 19:02

Hehe I heard these lines before in the other interviews, the exact same ones he had practice, don't get me wrong that's my boy but this is embarrassing when you compare it to the english of our southern neighbours or the vikings. A politician should at least be fluid in English, German and French imho.

edit, he's not facing jailtime, nobody is touching this even the left is pissed off, some people really made a fool out of theirselves, Wilder's couldn't have a better campaignteam.

EDIT, did I mention he's my boy?

Thank you.

Thank you very much for inviting me. And – to the immigration authorities – thank you for letting me into this country. It is always a pleasure to cross a border without being sent back on the first plane.

Today, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to battle for.

As you might know, I will be prosecuted, because of my film Fitna, my remarks regarding Islam, and my view concerning what some call a ‘religion of peace’. A few years from now, I might be a criminal.

Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue; I gave up my freedom four years ago. I am under full-time police protection ever since. The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe’s children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca, Teheran and Gaza?

This is what video blogger Pat Condell said in one of his latest you tube appearances. He says: “If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech.” Now, Mr Condell is a stand-up comedian, but in the video he is dead serious and the joke is on us. Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West – in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.

Today, I come before you to warn of a great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, slavery of women, the end of democracy. It is NOT a religion, it is an political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is built on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never alter. First, there is the Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect. Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. It’s fact.

This is Europe 2009. Muslim settlers calling for our destruction, and free speech on trial. All this is the outcome of a sick and evil ideology, the ideology that is weakening us, the surrender ideology of cultural relativism. It believes that all cultures are equal, and therefore Islam deserves an equal place in the West. It is their duty, the left thinks, to facilitate Islam. This way the cultural relativists paradise comes within reach and we will all be happy, and sing kumbaya.

The forces of Islam couldn’t agree more. Islam being facilitated by government is their agenda too. But they see it as jizya, the money dhimmis pay in order not to be killed or raped by their Muslim masters. Therefore, they happily accept the welfare cheque or the subsidies for their mosque or the money governments donate to their organizations.

This is just one example of cultural relativists and Muslim settlers having the same agenda. There is another. Islam considers itself a religion and therefore we are not permitted to criticize it. The left agrees. Although it hated Christianity for decades, now that Islam appears on the scene, they suddenly change course and demand ‘respect’ for something they call a religion.

Again we see the left and Islam having the same agenda: it is a religion, so shut up.

This all culminates in a third coming-together: nor the left nor Islam is in favor of criticism. In fact, given the opportunity, they would simply outlaw it. Multiculturalism is the left’s pet project. It is actually their religion. Their love of it is so great, if you oppose it, it must be hate. And if you say it, it is labeled hate speech. Now here is something the Islam can agree on.

This is the essence of my short introduction today: where the left and Islam come together, freedom will suffer.

My friends, make no mistake, my prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the left on freedom of speech in order to please Muslims. It was started by a member of the Dutch Labour party, and the entire legal proceeding is done by well-to-do liberals, the radical chic of Dutch society, the snobbish left. Too much money, too much time, too little love of liberty. If you read what the court of Amsterdam has written about me, you read the same texts that cultural relativists produce.

How low can we go in the Netherlands? About my prosecution, The Wall Street Journal noted: “this is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside”. The Journal concluded that by The Netherlands accepting the free speech standards of, “Saudi-Arabia”, I stand correct in my observation that - I quote - “Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties”.

Now, if the Wall Street Journal has the moral clarity to see that my prosecution is the logical outcome of our disastrous, self-hating, multiculturalists immigration policies, then why can’t the European liberal establishment see the same thing? Why aren’t they getting at least a little bit scared by the latest news out of, for example, the UK. News that tells that the Muslim population in Britain is growing ten times as fast as the rest of society. Why don’t they care?

The answer is: they don’t care because they are blinded by their cultural relativism. Their disdain of the West is so much greater than the appreciation of our many liberties. And therefore, they are willing to sacrifice everything. The left once stood for women rights, gay rights, equality, democracy. Now, they favour immigration policies that will end all this. Many even lost their decency. Elite politicians have no problem to participate in or finance demonstrations where settlers shout “Death to the Jews”. Seventy years after Auschwitz they know of no shame.

Two weeks ago, I tried to get into Britain, a fellow EU country. I was invited to give a speech in Parliament. However, upon arrival at London airport, I was refused entry into the UK, and sent back on the first plane to Holland. I would have loved to have reminded the audience of a great man who once spoke in the House of Commons. In 1982 President Reagan gave a speech there very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

So, what should we do? Is this a good moment for freedom-loving people to give in or to change course? To all-of-a-sudden start singing praise of Islam, or proclaiming there is such a thing as a moderate Islam? Will we now accept the continuation of Muslim mass immigration to the West? Will we appease sharia and jihad? Should we sacrifice gay rights and women rights? Or democracy? Should we sell out Israel, our dearest ally, and a frontline state of Islam?

Well, my humble opinion is: No way, Jose!

I suggest to defend freedom in general and freedom of speech in particular. I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe. I propose a European First Amendment. In Europe we should defend freedom of speech like you Americans do. In Europe freedom of speech should be extended, instead of restricted. Of course, calling for violence or unjustly yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre have to be punished, but the right to criticize ideologies or religions are necessary conditions for a vital democracry. As George Orwell once said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Let us defend freedom of speech and let us gain strength and work hard to become even stronger. Millions think just like you and me. Millions think liberty is precious. That democracy is better than sharia. And after all, why should we be afraid? Our many freedoms and our prosperity are the result of centuries of endeavour. Centuries of hard work and sacrifice. We do not stand alone, and we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Late December 1944 the American army was suddenly faced with a last-ditch effort by the Germans. In the Ardennes, in the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler and his national-socialists fought for their last chance. And they were very successful. Americans faced defeat, and death.

In the darkest of winter, in the freezing cold, in a lonely forest with snow and ice as even fiercer enemies than the Nazi war machine itself, the American army was told to surrender. That might be their only chance to survive. But General McAuliffe thought otherwise. He gave the Germans a short message. This message contained just four letters. Four letters only, but never in the history of freedom was a desire for liberty and perseverance in the face of evil expressed more eloquently than in that message. It spelled N – U – T – S. “Nuts”.

My friends, the national-socialists got the message. Because it left no room for interpretation!

I suggest we walk in the tradition of giants like General McAuliffe and the American soldiers who fought and died for the freedom of my country and for a secular and democratic Europe, and we tell the enemies of freedom just that. NUTS! Because that’s all there is to it. No explanations. No beating around the bush. No caveats.

Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left. And we will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all man.

Geert Wilders MP

Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)

The Netherlands

rvg

02-25-2009, 20:09

great speech

Furunculus

02-25-2009, 21:01

i like the start and the end best:

to whit:

Thank you very much for inviting me. And – to the immigration authorities – thank you for letting me into this country. It is always a pleasure to cross a border without being sent back on the first plane.

Today, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to battle for.

As you might know, I will be prosecuted, because of my film Fitna, my remarks regarding Islam, and my view concerning what some call a ‘religion of peace’. A few years from now, I might be a criminal.

Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue; I gave up my freedom four years ago. I am under full-time police protection ever since. The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe’s children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca, Teheran and Gaza?

This is what video blogger Pat Condell said in one of his latest you tube appearances. He says: “If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech.” Now, Mr Condell is a stand-up comedian, but in the video he is dead serious and the joke is on us. Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West – in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.

In Europe freedom of speech should be extended, instead of restricted. Of course, calling for violence or unjustly yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre have to be punished, but the right to criticize ideologies or religions are necessary conditions for a vital democracry. As George Orwell once said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

thoroughly agreed.

Strike For The South

02-26-2009, 05:37

Well, my humble opinion is: No way, Jose!

Lets leave Jose out of this.

Crazed Rabbit

02-26-2009, 05:56

That's a good speech.

A shame what the UK has come to.

CR

Fragony

02-26-2009, 07:49

Poor Brown, this makes him look like an even bigger coward

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-521448/Outcry-Muslim-extremist-allowed-tour-Britain-promote-violence.html

Adrian II

02-26-2009, 09:25

Poor Brown, this makes him look like an even bigger coward

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-521448/Outcry-Muslim-extremist-allowed-tour-Britain-promote-violence.html
Shadow Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones attacked the Government's record of allowing radical extremists into the UK, after ministers previously ignored calls to deny Mr Moussawi entry to the UK.

She said: "The Government has the power to deny entry to people whose presence is not conducive to the public good.

"Yet in the past they have let in extremists to preach hate.Says a Tory. Hahahahaha!

Well, boys and girls, can you guess who let them in? Abu Qatada, head of Al Qaeda in Europe (1993) anyone? Omar Bakri Muhammad, head of Al-Muhajiroun (1986)? Rachid Ramda, who masterminded the Paris bombings (1995)?

The sheer hypocrisy is breathtaking. But hey, people have short memories.

Furunculus

02-26-2009, 10:35

elaborate. please.

InsaneApache

02-26-2009, 12:21

I might be wrong but I think the 'progressive' thinking goes something along these lines:

Tories = Evil

Labour = Warm, cuddly and nice.

I could be wrong about that, or maybe not. :juggle2:

Louis VI the Fat

02-26-2009, 13:33

Well, boys and girls, can you guess who let them in? Abu Qatada, head of Al Qaeda in Europe (1993) anyone? Omar Bakri Muhammad, head of Al-Muhajiroun (1986)? Rachid Ramda, who masterminded the Paris bombings (1995)?

The sheer hypocrisy is breathtaking. But hey, people have short memories.I did some reading up on your links and stories. Thanks for those. What I had previously thought to be naivity is, upon closer scrutiny, cynical and deadly British policy.

Perfidious Albion! Never a limit to her treachery! While bombs were going off in Paris, the perpetrators dined with British policians. Quite openly striking the deal that if only they wouldn't attack Britain, Britain would not interfere with their deadly terror attacks on France and elsewhere.
For a decade, Paris pleaded with Albion to extradite the perpetrators, known by full name. Britain refused. Refused, that is, until the terrorists foollishy broke the agreement and repeated their Paris metro bombings with an attack on the London metro in 2005. Now, at last, they were extradited, within weeks.

Lovely. I thought the ancient British foreign policy principle of 'appease your enemies by betraying your allies' belonged to the history books. :shame:

InsaneApache

02-26-2009, 14:05

Common knowledge of this side of the channel Louis. I agree it's shameful and disgusting. Perfidious politicos though, not Albion.

You see whoever we vote for, we still get a load of merde. Sad but true.

Louis VI the Fat

02-26-2009, 14:33

Common knowledge of this side of the channel Louis. I agree it's shameful and disgusting. Perfidious politicos though, not Albion.I know, I know. :bow:
I personally don't genocide Rwandese or blow up ships in Oceania. Doesn't mean those on the receiving end can't get a rant in about it every now and then, where I accept 'France' as shorthand for 'Mitterrand and his cronies'.

Pannonian

02-26-2009, 16:06

I did some reading up on your links and stories. Thanks for those. What I had previously thought to be naivity is, upon closer scrutiny, cynical and deadly British policy.

Perfidious Albion! Never a limit to her treachery! While bombs were going off in Paris, the perpetrators dined with British policians. Quite openly striking the deal that if only they wouldn't attack Britain, Britain would not interfere with their deadly terror attacks on France and elsewhere.
For a decade, Paris pleaded with Albion to extradite the perpetrators, known by full name. Britain refused. Refused, that is, until the terrorists foollishy broke the agreement and repeated their Paris metro bombings with an attack on the London metro in 2005. Now, at last, they were extradited, within weeks.

Lovely. I thought the ancient British foreign policy principle of 'appease your enemies by betraying your allies' belonged to the history books. :shame:
Count yourself lucky. At least this time we didn't sink your warships, or take your colonies.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-28-2009, 00:16

Geert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWa-6lM9t8E&feature=related)

Is he moderating his line or are reports of his extremism exaggerated?

Crazed Rabbit

02-28-2009, 02:15

The sheer hypocrisy is breathtaking. But hey, people have short memories.

In fairness to some of us, we weren't taking note of international happenings at that time. But you're right; the hypocritical tory is exploiting the public's ignorance and refusal to educate themselves.

CR

Fragony

02-28-2009, 07:38

Geert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWa-6lM9t8E&feature=related)

Is he moderating his line or are reports of his extremism exaggerated?

Exaggerated, but he is moderating his lines there.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-28-2009, 12:32

You are confused. That was Thatcher's government. At least Gordon Brown doesn't use his son to conclude shady deals with oil sheihks who pump millions into Wahhabi sects in Britain.

So yes, you are wrong again. :2thumbsup:

Shadow Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones attacked the Government's record of allowing radical extremists into the UK, after ministers previously ignored calls to deny Mr Moussawi entry to the UK.

She said: "The Government has the power to deny entry to people whose presence is not conducive to the public good.

"Yet in the past they have let in extremists to preach hate.
Says a Tory. Hahahahaha!

Well, boys and girls, can you guess who let them in? Abu Qatada, head of Al Qaeda in Europe (1993) anyone? Omar Bakri Muhammad, head of Al-Muhajiroun (1986)? Rachid Ramda, who masterminded the Paris bombings (1995)?

The sheer hypocrisy is breathtaking. But hey, people have short memories.

I call foul here.

Just because the Tories were a thing does not in any way make Labour better. Labour's incompetence extends to not even being able to cover their most insignificant mistakes. Further, the level of blatent institutional corruption makes the Tories look like saints.

When was the last time a Tory was accused of riggin elections or selling honours?

Further, I fail to see what relevence past policy has on Mr Cameron MP, given that he was a minor Civil Servent in the Treasury at the time.

Pannonian

02-28-2009, 13:41

When was the last time a Tory was accused of riggin elections or selling honours?

The last time they were in power? Anyhow, selling honours isn't that much of a disgrace, considering everyone does it, and IIRC even the LibDems nominate their share for favours received. There's much to rag Labour about, but selling honours isn't among them.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-28-2009, 15:07

The last time they were in power? Anyhow, selling honours isn't that much of a disgrace, considering everyone does it, and IIRC even the LibDems nominate their share for favours received. There's much to rag Labour about, but selling honours isn't among them.

Really? And it was covered by the national press?

Face it, whatever the Tories were or are, Labour is much worse.

Fragony

02-28-2009, 15:36

Really? And it was covered by the national press?

Face it, whatever the Tories were or are, Labour is much worse.

That is the same over here, labour pretty much has editorial immunity, you have to be a party member to write for the big newspapers or work for the state-funded tv-networks (the 'ministry of truth' as we call it here)

Pannonian

02-28-2009, 16:51

Really? And it was covered by the national press?

Face it, whatever the Tories were or are, Labour is much worse.
Someone investigated it during the Blair years, because they were surprised the Tories didn't make much of a fuss about it. Turned out the Tories did it too, as did everyone else who were nominating peers. Labour were the worst, but only because they were in power and nominated the most peers. There is a culture of honours for favours throughout our political system.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-28-2009, 18:06

Further, I fail to see what relevence past policy has on Mr Cameron MP, given that he was a minor Civil Servent in the Treasury at the time.

A civil servant? :inquisitive:

Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud. :book:

Hax

02-28-2009, 18:38

I just read that Geert Wilders had been compared with Al Qaeda by an Islamic professor in the US. Wilders said that this "goes too far".

So comparing the Quran with Mein Kampf isn't?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-28-2009, 18:52

Someone investigated it during the Blair years, because they were surprised the Tories didn't make much of a fuss about it. Turned out the Tories did it too, as did everyone else who were nominating peers. Labour were the worst, but only because they were in power and nominated the most peers. There is a culture of honours for favours throughout our political system.

There is a subtle difference between nominating peers who donate and soliciting donations for honours, particually when the honours handed out are non-legislative (i.e. selling knighthoods).

You still haven't provided evidence of election riggin last time the Tories were in power, there have been a string of (ethnic minority) councilers riggin electoral votes under Labour, though.

Fragony

02-28-2009, 19:21

I just read that Geert Wilders had been compared with Al Qaeda by an Islamic professor in the US. Wilders said that this "goes too far".

So comparing the Quran with Mein Kampf isn't?

Well no it isn't, what makes you think it does

Pannonian

02-28-2009, 20:11

There is a subtle difference between nominating peers who donate and soliciting donations for honours, particually when the honours handed out are non-legislative (i.e. selling knighthoods).

Not much difference. It's always been nudge nudge wink wink, I really appreciate what you're doing for me, I'm sure the appreciation will be returned, you know what I mean. I'm just grateful that, for the most part, the appreciation doesn't show itself in government policies. And by that, I mean Tory as well as Labour governments. If fools want to pay for useless knighthoods, that just shows what fools they are.

You still haven't provided evidence of election riggin last time the Tories were in power, there have been a string of (ethnic minority) councilers riggin electoral votes under Labour, though.
Mainly because I never claimed such. I do remember a certain Shirley Porter though, who kept council houses on the market and unrented in her Westminster council, because house buyers were more likely to vote Tory than house renters. The government eventually billed her and her fellow councillors for the lost revenue. One of them committed suicide, while Porter herself declared bankruptcy and fled to Israel to avoid her debts. She was let back a couple of years or so ago, after agreeing to pay a quarter of her share.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-28-2009, 21:14

It's difficult to know how the Tories will do things when they regain power, the gutting of the heritory peers has changed the balance of the Upper House. We shall see.

Regardless, Labour has been utterly shameful in moving constituancy boundaries and packing the Upper House, the sheer scale is disturbing in it's shamelessness and lack of subtlety.

In a way that's the worst bit, not that they are institutionally corrupt, but incompetant as well.

Subotan

02-28-2009, 21:49

Coup soleis d'etat.

It's all so wonderful

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/johnystardust.jpg

Where did my powerflame go by the way
No offence to anyone who does have that haircut, but the only people I've ever seen with that haircut have been ultra-right nationalists e.g. like that Austrian guy.

Just as an update, under the heading "You couldn't make this stuff up" :no::

The "peer" who threatened 10,000 rioting Muslims on the streets has been locked up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7909510.stm) for killing a man while texting and driving.

Lord Ahmed, 51, was driving his Jaguar when he hit a stationary car in the outside lane of the motorway on Christmas Day 2007.
The driver of the other vehicle, Martyn Gombar, 28, was killed.
Lord Ahmed, of Rotherham, was sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court. He had admitted driving dangerously.
He was texting for between 14-18 minutes before the crash, but stopped texting thrre miles before the crash. I'm not supporting his sentence or not, but I'm just clarifying.

thatcher was ta bomb!
*Shudders*
Thatcher was a disaster. She gutted the North of England, wait, disembowelled, would be a better word, proceeded to pour petrol on the fire that was NI, causing the IRA to grow to become the Mafia with rocket launchers, and ended up leaving us with an economy that was based entirely upon the shuffling of money and a housing boom, without actually producing anything to give our economy some standing. Add to that the Poll Tax, her Anti-Europe stance, and "The Right to Buy/Create an Underclass" and you have a Prime Minister who sowed destruction across the land. Yes, I agree that, for example, the mines needed to be closed. However, her response to do nothing and leave the North of England with basically no economy, and therefore no way of getting out of the state it was in, was disgraceful, and her callous attitude only made things worse.

I might be wrong but I think the 'progressive' thinking goes something along these lines:

Labour = Evil

Tories = Worse

Lib Dems = Yay / Who cares?

Fix'd.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-28-2009, 21:53

No offence to anyone who does have that haircut, but the only people I've ever seen with that haircut have been ultra-right nationalists e.g. like that Austrian guy.

Neither Strache nor Haider have had that haircut, and your characterization of them as ultra-right is debateable if you look at their policies, though they are nationalists.

Subotan

02-28-2009, 21:56

Neither Strache nor Haider have had that haircut, and your characterization of them as ultra-right is debateable if you look at their policies, though they are nationalists.

Who am I thinking of then? Eh, I dunno but the only other person I've seen with that haircut was an ultra-right politician. Maybe he was a member of the BNP.

Fragony

03-01-2009, 13:47

Klabam, as expected, if elections would be held today Wilders would be the biggest party, spreading fear and demonising doesn't work anymore nobody cheers get over it. So prosecuters, thanks for your multicultural desire. Brown thanks for being absolutely terrified. Balkenende thanks for being a liar, and of course USA thanks for showing him in color instead of of the usual suggestive black and white.

Furunculus

03-02-2009, 10:35

*Shudders*
Thatcher was a disaster. She gutted the North of England, wait, disembowelled, would be a better word, proceeded to pour petrol on the fire that was NI, causing the IRA to grow to become the Mafia with rocket launchers, and ended up leaving us with an economy that was based entirely upon the shuffling of money and a housing boom, without actually producing anything to give our economy some standing. Add to that the Poll Tax, her Anti-Europe stance, and "The Right to Buy/Create an Underclass" and you have a Prime Minister who sowed destruction across the land. Yes, I agree that, for example, the mines needed to be closed. However, her response to do nothing and leave the North of England with basically no economy, and therefore no way of getting out of the state it was in, was disgraceful, and her callous attitude only made things worse.

i'm willing to compromise on the BBC intro of thatcher:

To her supporters, she was a revolutionary figure who transformed Britain's stagnant economy, tamed the unions and re-established the country as a world power.

Together with US presidents Reagan and Bush, she helped bring about the end of the Cold War.

But her 11-year premiership was also marked by social unrest, industrial strife and high unemployment.

Her critics claim British society is still feeling the effect of her divisive economic policies and the culture of greed and selfishness they allegedly promoted.
and on balance i think she was the bast premier this country has had since churchill.

breaking the unions
reducing the state, and peoples dependence on the state
transforming an economy
re-establishing britain as a great power

were events of such obvious benefit the price involved was worth paying.

as to europe, this sums up my views:

"We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at a European level, with a European super#state exercising a new dominance from Brussels."

InsaneApache

03-13-2009, 12:42

Not long enough. After all he did mow down a guy who had just got out of his car after he'd had an accident.

He should have got two years. TBH I'm amazed that any Nu-Lab apparachnik got any time at all. We have a government run by corrupt, self-serving, crypto-gangsters and nincompoop incompetant ones at that.

Maybe I'm amazed. Maybe not.

Lord Ahmed, a Labour life peer, who sent and received text messages minutes before he was involved in a fatal motorway crash in Rotherham, has been freed from a 12-week jail sentence by the Court of Appeal.

The peer, 51, who was jailed by Sheffield Crown Court on February 25 after admitting dangerous driving, was not present for the ruling by three judges in London. He has served 16 days in prison and was due to be released on March 20 under the end-of-custody licence scheme.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5896803.ece

Dontcha love all the equality seeping down from the top. Oh sorry, that's not equality, it's odure. :dizzy2:

Fragony

03-13-2009, 13:00

byebye