Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.

Adrian, the difference between the cabinet of a nation being appointed and the EU leadership being appointed is when you vote for a head of state, you have the ability to change the cabinet. Is there any vehicle of redress for Insane Apache to get rid of the head of the EU (ignorant American says who?)? Nope. Just like none of us can do a damn thing about Kofi Annan, the EU governement is non-representational and therefore, cannot be considered a democratic institution. I fail to see how you guys have gotten the ratification you have been able to muster without some say by the average Joe (or Jose) as to who is running their lives. Government by bureacracy is not Democratic (at least not in my book). People may moan about the US president & the electoral college, but at least there, voting does count. The current EU system is like the original system here in the US... each state assembly (which was mass elected) would pick 2 senators. Then the senate would pick the president. No ordinary citizen had diddly squat to say about the president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Is there any vehicle of redress for Insane Apache to get rid of the head of the EU (ignorant American says who?)? Nope.

---

The EU has no head and it is not yet a full union.

The (elected) European Parliament sent home the previous Commission. But then, the Commission President is a different animal altogether from the American President. He is appointed by our elected heads of government and approved by the European Parliament, and he carries out the broad policy outlines established by those heads of state, not his own preferred policies.

So Mendelson is working on a diplomatic approach in consultation with the European Governments, that is his job.

Quote:

---

It is a side-issue, but here goes. Your Prime Minister is appointed by Her Majesty, isn’t he? Yet he represents you. Alright, alright, the PM is elected first. But all your government ministers are appointed, not elected, yet they represent you legally and diplomatically…

---

Are we getting a bit desperate Adrian? The party leader is elected by the party members. The Queen invites the leader of the party with the most MP's to form a government. She doesn't appoint him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Adrian, the difference between the cabinet of a nation being appointed and the EU leadership being appointed is when you vote for a head of state, you have the ability to change the cabinet. Is there any vehicle of redress for Insane Apache to get rid of the head of the EU (ignorant American says who?)? Nope. Just like none of us can do a damn thing about Kofi Annan, the EU governement is non-representational and therefore, cannot be considered a democratic institution.

---

Oh so true.

Just to show that freedom of speech is double edged.

BNP

Quote:

---

A jury at Leeds Crown Court has cleared BNP leader Nick Griffin of two racial hatred charges and BNP activist Mark Collett of four others.

---

Who was it who said "I disagree with what they have to say but I shall fight to the death to allow them to say it"

'bout sums it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Just to show that freedom of speech is double edged.

BNP



Who was it who said "I disagree with what they have to say but I shall fight to the death to allow them to say it"

'bout sums it up.

---

Agreed. Makes a marked contrast to this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...International/

Quote:

---

Gaza City, Gaza Strip — Armed militants angered by cartoon drawings of the Prophet Mohammed published in European media surrounded EU offices in Gaza on Thursday and threatened to kidnap foreigners as rage over the caricatures spread across the Islamic world.
Foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers began leaving Gaza as gunmen there threatened to kidnap citizens of France, Norway, Denmark and Germany unless those governments apologized for the drawings.

---

My God. Truly disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Who was it who said "I disagree with what they have to say but I shall fight to the death to allow them to say it"

'bout sums it up.

---

That would be the great ideologue of the 'Trinity of Evil', Voltaire.

I'm almost tempted to think that France still functions like some kind of 'canary in a coal mine' for freedom of expression. France never fails to enrage those with a problem with the free flowing of ideas. No matter of what background, whenever or where ever militant intolerance rears it's ugly head, it's proponents feel an uncontrolable urge to invade, ridicule or torch France.

Fantastic.
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/ass1.gif

Does that mean they'll be burning white flags soon?

(~;p)

uncalled for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

That would be the great ideologue of the 'Trinity of Evil', Voltaire.

I'm almost tempted to think that France still functions like some kind of 'canary in a coal mine' for freedom of expression. France never fails to enrage those with a problem with the free flowing of ideas. No matter of what background, whenever or where ever militant intolerance rears it's ugly head, it's proponents feel an uncontrolable urge to invade, ridicule or torch France.

Fantastic.
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/ass1.gif

---

I'll give you that France has given the world a lot in terms of moving towards truly free speech. But as long as you have regimented secularism, and religious symbols of any type are outlawed, I don't think you can lay claim to being the bastion of free speech you once were.

As for the intolerant masses wanting to invade, ridicule and torch France, that's just because... well, you're France. :oops: Just kidding, mon ami.

I feel that although the pictures were in poor taste, I feel that for those that don't like seeing things like that DON'T LOOK AT THEM! Follow this "turn the other cheek" part of whatever religion you preach!

religion can make me not get to go to the shops, take my shoes off, restrict what I do and where I do it, and all of this I am supposed to accept without a word of protest. And if I argue a theological point again this isn't socially acceptable, but I have to put up with whatever religious conventions are thrown in my direction.

A few years ago a Roman Catholic friend of the family was amazed that my brother bought a film on DVD - just couldn't understand it. I was told that it was rude to tell her that my brother "believed it was the right thing to do" as that was going to be an impolite comment.

I am sure that it is not true of all followers of Islam, but significant sections are acting rather like Christinanity did about 500 years ago... then the weapons were not as powerful though. :sweatdrop:

~:smoking:

https://img463.imageshack.us/img463/...burning1rr.jpg

American flag: € 25.
Gasoline: € 2.
Cigarette lighter: € 0.75.
Burning demonstrator: Priceless!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

religious symbols of any type are outlawed

---

Uhm, that's stretching things a bit.
French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols inschools

Well if you look at how they have developed their infrastructure and economies they are in the dark ages. Without the oil they would be be in a very poor condition economically.

I believe that religion (ie Islam) is holding back the renaissance that the Arab world (and others) needs, to throw off the shackles of unenlightenment and oppression.

It is no coincidence that the industrial revolution was started in England. We had in place the free thinking and educational establishments that was needed to achieve this.

I stand corrected, Louis. Apparently, the ban on conspicuous religious symbols is just at schools receiving state funding. But that still doesn't invalidate my point. Children are required to attend school until age 16, and unless their parents can afford the tuition at an unsubsidized school, they may not wear any conspicuous religious symbols (such as a head scarf, a yamaka or a crucifix) for the duration of that time. That is a bit repressive.

On a side note, do you guys allow Sikhs to carry daggers to school? Does that fall under religious or cultural symbol?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I am sure that it is not true of all followers of Islam, but significant sections are acting rather like Christinanity did about 500 years ago... then the weapons were not as powerful though. :sweatdrop:

~:smoking:

---

That is what I am starting to think. I'm also starting to think up comparisons between burning people at the steak and burning cities with nukes (Iran).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It is no coincidence that the industrial revolution was started in England. We had in place the free thinking and educational establishments that was needed to achieve this.

---

Well, enlightenment is only a minor factor for the industrial revolution. Much more important factors like geography, location, import/export, coal, infrastructure, political climate etc was the main reasons.

But it's all wrong, the revolution should have started in Russia, some aliens must have intervened. Oh wait, that's not the industrial revolution, but the permanent one.

And why do Sikhs carry daggers, have long hair and wear a bracelet? I think that this goes right back to times when Sikhs were actively warring with Muslims - have a weapon on hand to kill the enemy, and be different so you know who he is.

The BBC website mentions at least one reason why Islam gets so hot under the collar about symbols of Allah. And from the extremely tame language in the Koran (chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him.") someone at some point blew things out of all proportion!

It's a new century people! Adapt!!! Apparently from the Koran it's easy to come with a society where women and men are equal and killing people over cartoons is even frowned on. Re-read the text and come up with something new as opposed to following Shi'ia Law, that after all is only interpretations by men and not god.

Maybe it's just me but some religions carry far too much dogma around with them, and find debate to be completely inimnical to themselves. I think that if something can't hold up to discussion it has to be deeply flawed.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Are we getting a bit desperate Adrian? The party leader is elected by the party members. The Queen invites the leader of the party with the most MP's to form a government. She doesn't appoint him.

---

Seeing your lack of knowledge of your own country's political system, I understand you must be totally confused by that of the EU.

The British Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen, all other ministers are equally appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

From the Official Website of the British Monarchy:

Until the end of the 17th century, British monarchs were executive monarchs - that is, they had the right to make and pass legislation. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarch has become a constitutional monarch, which means that he or she is bound by rules and conventions and remains politically impartial.

On almost all matters he or she acts on the advice of ministers. While acting constitutionally, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.

The Queen also has important roles to play in other organisations, including the Armed Forces and the Church of England.

It's the same in Denmark, Sweden and Norway I believe. All constitutional monarchies, indeed our gorvenments is appointed by the Monarch. Of course he/she only appoints a government when they have won an ellection and formed a coalition.

Totally off-topic:

What is this, testing:
TEST

TEST

TEST

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I stand corrected, Louis. Apparently, the ban on conspicuous religious symbols is just at schools receiving state funding. But that still doesn't invalidate my point. Children are required to attend school until age 16, and unless their parents can afford the tuition at an unsubsidized school, they may not wear any conspicuous religious symbols (such as a head scarf, a yamaka or a crucifix) for the duration of that time. That is a bit repressive.

---

Have to agree.

Quote:

---

As for the intolerant masses wanting to invade, ridicule and torch France, that's just because... well, you're France. Just kidding, mon ami.

---

France revels in being hated and threatened by everyone, just like Britain.

We just have a handy sea in the way and historically a formidable navy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

France revels in being hated and threatened by everyone, just like Britain.

---

Somebody gets it at last!:2thumbsup:

EU's Trade Commissioner is a public servant of the EU?

How many public servants get elected?

How many ambassadors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Seeing your lack of knowledge of your own country's political system, I understand you must be totally confused by that of the EU.

The British Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen, all other ministers are equally appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

From the Official Website of the British Monarchy:

Until the end of the 17th century, British monarchs were executive monarchs - that is, they had the right to make and pass legislation. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarch has become a constitutional monarch, which means that he or she is bound by rules and conventions and remains politically impartial.

On almost all matters he or she acts on the advice of ministers. While acting constitutionally, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.

The Queen also has important roles to play in other organisations, including the Armed Forces and the Church of England.

---

But they have to be elected first. Unlike the EU commissioners.

HAHAHA very good semantics Adrian.

The point is, that is the elected leaders of EU, the Council that appoints the leader of the commssion - and they are elected. It is very representative, and I wouldnt call it democratic, it can be argued both for and against. Personally Im against the current system as well.
The problem is that no one in the commission holds any responsibility towards anyone, hence the often screw ups and closed accounting.

Cartoon prompts kidnap

Quote:

---

THE rising tide of anger in the Palestinian territories over the publication of cartoons of prophet Mohammed took a sinister turn overnight with growing threats against European targets.

Gunmen in the West Bank briefly detained a German national amid the Muslim furore over the cartoons, some of which depicted the prophet as a terrorist, a militant group said.
Two masked gunmen seized the German from a hotel in the Palestinian town of Nablus "thinking he was French or Danish, and handed him over to police after realising their mistake," said a source from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

"The two men were acting to protest over the cartoons," he said.

---

Not nice.

Quote:

---

Palestinian gunmen besieged the EU headquarters in the Gaza Strip and scrawled "Closed Until Apology is Made to the Muslims" on the gate to the building, which had not opened for business for fear of violence.

"European provocations have placed the offices and European churches in our line of fire," the gunmen said.

"We give the Danish, French and Norwegian governments 48 hours to present their apologies."

The governments at the centre of the confrontation between the Muslim world and Europe have said the decision to publish the cartoons was the newspapers' responsibility.

But Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei said the European governments should formally condemn the cartoons.

"What has been published was an attack on Islam and it has affected the feelings of all Muslims," he said

---

So we have to give up free speech in our countries or be subject to terrorist attacks?

pfft no camel jockey will take my amendments. They seem to forget who there dealing with. People have a boiling point and you can only push them so far.

nm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

France revels in being hated and threatened by everyone, just like Britain.

We just have a handy sea in the way and historically a formidable navy.

---

America is getting the hang of that notion too. It's just much more fun being hated by the oppressed peoples (or should I say governments) of the world.