Dutch politician Geert Wilders is going to be going on trial for ‘hate speech’ this January, on the 20th. His crime? Words, writings, a film. Defaming a religion; offending the wrong people, in the wrong country.
Some people might think that a man going on trial for his words is fitting in a modern, Western nation. Others, who may perhaps harbor more respect for the Western tradition of liberalism and freedom of speech, might find this idea abhorrent and repellent and repugnant.
If you are one who finds this idea – that a man can go on trial for his words – repugnant, then may I suggest that you email, or phone, or fax, or write the Dutch consulate nearest you, and say just that. Tell them that the Dutch government must free Geert Wilders from this political farce, this trial for spoken words and strongly-held opinions.
Here's a list of the Dutch Consulates across Canada, and the world. Below is the Calgary one.
Consulate Calgary, Canada
Lancaster Building
Suite 708
304 Sth Avenue S.W.
Calgary AB T2P 1C2
Canada
403-266-2710
403-265-0599
dutchcon@telus.net
h/t Walker Morrow
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Islam is
What? Google 'Islam is', and compare that to 'Judaism is' or 'Christianity is' or 'Buddism is'. Speculation on the reasons at Atlas Shrugs.
Islamaphobia is . . ... irrational, says Janet Keeping, ethics queen at SCF(not to be confused with BCF).
Janet states; “With careful thought we can sort the real threats to our peaceful, democratic way of life from what is harmless . . ….”
The problem is, many of those who follow islam subscribe to no such careful thought process. Almost every journalist in the world is so afraid of being killed by radical islamists that only a very few have published the cartoons of mohammed. Your article is so naive, containing no supporting references, that one wonders if you just woke up one morning with the thought, “Maybe today I’ll write about Islam!”
Your rationalizations of human rights gains elicit only laughter from the violent jihadists who cheered when the planes struck on 9/11, when 3,000 people died and the world woke up to the threat of radical islam.
Who’s really protecting women, gays, Christians and Jews equally from people like ‘Mr Exploding Underwear’? Not you, with your silly words and bright smile. A strong capitalist government, with free citizens who are independent of and respected by that government, who value and participate in real democracy, in times of both peace and war. That’s who protects the citizens of this nation. Real freedom is earned every day, and some of those days it’s earned the hard way; with blood, and tears. Our brave soldiers in Afghanistan can tell you that’s how they’re earning it. For all of us.
You say: “Some versions of islam are not anti-women.”
So what? Thousands of muslim clerics acquiesce in, and offer mendacious legal interpretations to support such offenses as wife-beating, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced marriage, forced divorce, and the Saudi practice of “tourist marriage.” (Saudi daily al-Watan claims that Saudis have spent $25 million over the past three years on this scam, in which Saudi men on vacation deceptively marry local women for a summer, then divorce them before returning to the kingdom. Some of this behavior is derived from local cultures, but it has been assimilated by Islamist ideology.)
Your comparision of islam with christianity is laughable. With no centralized control, any local ‘moderate’ mosque could morph into a center of radical islamic terrorism with a simple change in imam. The more mosques, the more places radical islam grows. The so-called ‘moderate muslims’ everyone refers to? They’re as frightened as the rest of us of the radical islamists, perhaps more so, as they see first hand how dangerous they are. Moderate muslims are sheep, like the rest of us infidels and kuffar, just food for the radical islamic wolves.
I’m not willing to give up my culture, my way of life, my freedom – in the name of your cultural diversity. The truth is that radical islam is inherently evil and dangerous, a death cult of psychotics containing thousands of members who will stop at nothing to impose strict sharia law across the globe – people like you crying ‘islamaphobia’ doesn’t change what is the truth.
The Swiss banning of minarets was real democracy in action, and the Swiss people, clearly the most heavily armed and free population on earth, have demonstrated great foresight in preventing the building of any more ‘bayonets of islam’ in their country. It is right and good to mitigate the growth of radical islam by moderating the cultural cancer it spreads. Continue to ‘baaaa: islamaphobia’ if you like, Janet. To radical islam, you’re lamb chops and stew meat.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas to you and your family, from our family here in Calgary.
Remembering those who can't be with us this Christmas time. We pray for your safe return to Canadian soil.
God be with you and comfort you this Christmas.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Respect the Swiss decision - No Minarets!
*Update*
Gates of Vienna has a translated article from the Swiss periodical 'Winkleried' of the 'Ten Demands of Swiss Muslims' published just before the Swiss voted to ban minarets. It provides some useful background information on issues which may have helped the Swiss voters to make their decision.
---------------------------
Switzerland, the country with the lowest crime rate in the world.
500,000 working weapons, including assault rifles, exist in Swiss homes. These weapons are owned by citizens who were trained by the government in their use. Each year, the 'Tiro Federale in campagna', the largest sport shooting festival in the world, is held by the Swiss. Over 200,000 citizens participate, and the government picks up the tab for all of the ammo.
Stephen P. Halbrook wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 1998 "If there’s a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you’ll find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you’ll see men and women of all ages walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye".
Dr. Halbrook also identifies the Swiss early intolerance of the Nazi's in his book 'Target Switzerland: Swiss armed neutrality in World War II'. "While most of the world paid little attention to the disturbing nature of the new German regime, the Swiss were repelled by Nazism. On May 12, 1933, the Swiss Federal Council (the collective government of the country, from whose membership one Federal Councillor is selected to serve as Federal President each year) prohibited the wearing of "Hitlerite" uniforms and insignia and subjected violators to imprisonment or deportation."
So now the Swiss have banned minarets. These minarets are powerful symbols which tower over a city, broadcasting the 'call to prayer' 5 times a day in islamic controlled regions of the world. Kathy Shaidle shatters the comparison some have made that these 'Bayonets of Islam' are no worse that church steeples in western democracies. "Minarets are not the moral equivalent of church steeples. Minarets are the moral equivalent of burning crosses".
While local columnists cry "xenophobic hypocrites!", I'll go with Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she says the Swiss vote to ban minarets was a vote FOR tolerance and inclusion. (h/t BCF)
Ms. Ali, the author of 'Infidel', writes in the CSMonitor that in the battle of ideas, symbols are important. Political ideas all have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others. Ms Ali, who has broad experience as a former EU elected representative, states: "On controversial issues, the Swiss listen to debate, read newspapers, and otherwise investigate when they make up their minds for a vote."
Remember, Switzerland is a country without the same broad central government that other democracies have been reduced to, and their population is responsible enough, with enough civic virtue, to be both heavily armed and boast the lowest crime rate on the planet.
The Swiss are not intolerant, at least no more so now than they were in May of 1933. The majority of the Swiss population, 57% of the voting citizens to be exact, are simply farsighted enough to say 'No' to the building of minarets.
Gates of Vienna has a translated article from the Swiss periodical 'Winkleried' of the 'Ten Demands of Swiss Muslims' published just before the Swiss voted to ban minarets. It provides some useful background information on issues which may have helped the Swiss voters to make their decision.
---------------------------
Switzerland, the country with the lowest crime rate in the world.
500,000 working weapons, including assault rifles, exist in Swiss homes. These weapons are owned by citizens who were trained by the government in their use. Each year, the 'Tiro Federale in campagna', the largest sport shooting festival in the world, is held by the Swiss. Over 200,000 citizens participate, and the government picks up the tab for all of the ammo.
Stephen P. Halbrook wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 1998 "If there’s a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you’ll find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you’ll see men and women of all ages walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye".
Dr. Halbrook also identifies the Swiss early intolerance of the Nazi's in his book 'Target Switzerland: Swiss armed neutrality in World War II'. "While most of the world paid little attention to the disturbing nature of the new German regime, the Swiss were repelled by Nazism. On May 12, 1933, the Swiss Federal Council (the collective government of the country, from whose membership one Federal Councillor is selected to serve as Federal President each year) prohibited the wearing of "Hitlerite" uniforms and insignia and subjected violators to imprisonment or deportation."
So now the Swiss have banned minarets. These minarets are powerful symbols which tower over a city, broadcasting the 'call to prayer' 5 times a day in islamic controlled regions of the world. Kathy Shaidle shatters the comparison some have made that these 'Bayonets of Islam' are no worse that church steeples in western democracies. "Minarets are not the moral equivalent of church steeples. Minarets are the moral equivalent of burning crosses".
While local columnists cry "xenophobic hypocrites!", I'll go with Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she says the Swiss vote to ban minarets was a vote FOR tolerance and inclusion. (h/t BCF)
Ms. Ali, the author of 'Infidel', writes in the CSMonitor that in the battle of ideas, symbols are important. Political ideas all have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others. Ms Ali, who has broad experience as a former EU elected representative, states: "On controversial issues, the Swiss listen to debate, read newspapers, and otherwise investigate when they make up their minds for a vote."
Remember, Switzerland is a country without the same broad central government that other democracies have been reduced to, and their population is responsible enough, with enough civic virtue, to be both heavily armed and boast the lowest crime rate on the planet.
The Swiss are not intolerant, at least no more so now than they were in May of 1933. The majority of the Swiss population, 57% of the voting citizens to be exact, are simply farsighted enough to say 'No' to the building of minarets.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
HRC Boissoin decision ridiculed by Queen's Bench
*Update*
Wondering if I'll ever be as clear, succinct and brave as Kathy Shaidle.
"Why should I be thrilled that some dude in a high chair and a black robe has been sufficiently cowed by people like me bitching at him, that he's now going to "grant" us something that is rightfully ours anyway?"
"The significance of (their) oversights cannot be overstated", quoted from page 7 of the decision by Justice E.C. Wilson. (h/t BCF)
Gerald Chipeur, lawyer for Stephen Boissoin, provides his summary analysis of the judgement here, at Freedom Through Truth. Mr. Chipeur writes "The decision of the Alberta Human Rights Commission to withdraw from the case suggests that the Commission learned from Dr. Lund's mistake."
For background watch Ezra Levant, (himself a victor over the HRC) explain the issue on the Michael Coren show, and at a fundraising dinner which my wife and I attended at the ECP Center in Calgary earlier this year.
"This is an incredible victory for freedom of speech and for all Albertans who want to share their opinions on the social and moral issues of our day," said Boissoin in the Calgary Herald.
Darren Lund, who originally filed the action against Stephen Boissoin almost 7 years ago, had this to say: "If our human rights laws say that writing like this is OK, that is very detrimental to creating safe communities, we are trying to create inclusive communities and this takes away the tools at our disposal and puts very vulnerable people at greater risk. It makes you wonder what are the reasonable limits on hate speech in Alberta?"
It seems pretty clear, the limits of hate speech are found in the Criminal Code, not in any HRC workbook. As Freedom Through Truth observes, the HRC initiative was 'ultra vires' (beyond their powers) regarding this case, or any of the others like it.
Hey Darren, these safe communities you're worried about are built by responsible, involved citizens. Safe communities are not built by the leftist elite sitting on commissions exercising over-arching powers that were granted in error by idiot burearcrats with no respect for the people they serve.
Wondering if I'll ever be as clear, succinct and brave as Kathy Shaidle.
"Why should I be thrilled that some dude in a high chair and a black robe has been sufficiently cowed by people like me bitching at him, that he's now going to "grant" us something that is rightfully ours anyway?"
"The significance of (their) oversights cannot be overstated", quoted from page 7 of the decision by Justice E.C. Wilson. (h/t BCF)
Gerald Chipeur, lawyer for Stephen Boissoin, provides his summary analysis of the judgement here, at Freedom Through Truth. Mr. Chipeur writes "The decision of the Alberta Human Rights Commission to withdraw from the case suggests that the Commission learned from Dr. Lund's mistake."
For background watch Ezra Levant, (himself a victor over the HRC) explain the issue on the Michael Coren show, and at a fundraising dinner which my wife and I attended at the ECP Center in Calgary earlier this year.
"This is an incredible victory for freedom of speech and for all Albertans who want to share their opinions on the social and moral issues of our day," said Boissoin in the Calgary Herald.
Darren Lund, who originally filed the action against Stephen Boissoin almost 7 years ago, had this to say: "If our human rights laws say that writing like this is OK, that is very detrimental to creating safe communities, we are trying to create inclusive communities and this takes away the tools at our disposal and puts very vulnerable people at greater risk. It makes you wonder what are the reasonable limits on hate speech in Alberta?"
It seems pretty clear, the limits of hate speech are found in the Criminal Code, not in any HRC workbook. As Freedom Through Truth observes, the HRC initiative was 'ultra vires' (beyond their powers) regarding this case, or any of the others like it.
Hey Darren, these safe communities you're worried about are built by responsible, involved citizens. Safe communities are not built by the leftist elite sitting on commissions exercising over-arching powers that were granted in error by idiot burearcrats with no respect for the people they serve.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Calgary MEC protest - weak!
Dear Israeli MEC protesters,
Thank you for the informative brochure. It conveniently listed all of the Israeli made products Mountain Equipment Co-op has available for purchase. As a member of MEC since the early '90's, I was not aware how many different, quality Israeli made products they sold!
I purchased some 'MEC brand' seamless underwear and a 'Source-Vagabond' water bottle. Upon leaving the store I spoke briefly with the lady with the big sunglasses who had handed me the pamphlet, and showed her the items I had purchased.
She said, "It's amazing how all of you people who support Israel are compelled to come up and insult me by showing me the products you bought when you leave the store."
I explained that I felt insulted that she would approach me with her pamphlet telling me what I shouldn't buy. Her fellow protester walked away during the discussion, and the woman herself said she didn't want to discuss it with me any further.
How is it, that you can hand out pamphlets, and then refuse to discuss the issue? It was heartening to hear that there have been many like me purchasing Israeli made products and then stopping to discuss the purchase with the protesters. The police who were present were very polite, maintaining their sense of humor while acknowledging that the protesters do have the right to free speech, something that I support as well. 
So to close, we'll all look forward to your next protest, and view it as another opportunity to support Israel with our attendance and purchase of the many fine products which are made in Israel. I'll also be voting to support Israel at the next election of board members for MEC.
Thank you for the informative brochure. It conveniently listed all of the Israeli made products Mountain Equipment Co-op has available for purchase. As a member of MEC since the early '90's, I was not aware how many different, quality Israeli made products they sold!
I purchased some 'MEC brand' seamless underwear and a 'Source-Vagabond' water bottle. Upon leaving the store I spoke briefly with the lady with the big sunglasses who had handed me the pamphlet, and showed her the items I had purchased.She said, "It's amazing how all of you people who support Israel are compelled to come up and insult me by showing me the products you bought when you leave the store."
I explained that I felt insulted that she would approach me with her pamphlet telling me what I shouldn't buy. Her fellow protester walked away during the discussion, and the woman herself said she didn't want to discuss it with me any further.
How is it, that you can hand out pamphlets, and then refuse to discuss the issue? It was heartening to hear that there have been many like me purchasing Israeli made products and then stopping to discuss the purchase with the protesters. The police who were present were very polite, maintaining their sense of humor while acknowledging that the protesters do have the right to free speech, something that I support as well. 
So to close, we'll all look forward to your next protest, and view it as another opportunity to support Israel with our attendance and purchase of the many fine products which are made in Israel. I'll also be voting to support Israel at the next election of board members for MEC.Friday, November 27, 2009
BUYcott Israel
Anti-Israel activists in Canada will be picketing MEC stores (Mountain Equipment Co-op), a 2.9 million member strong retail cooperative, that sells outdoor gear and clothing tomorrow (Saturday November 28) while supporters of Israel hit back with increased efforts to promote a "buy-cott" of Israeli goods.
I'll be at the Calgary location at 1pm, picking up some 'made in Israel' products, like seamless underwear and hydration packs - great for cycling and hiking! Jonathon Narvey has an excellent column in the National Post (Full Comment Section) with an interview of a protester who has said, "If I were in Gaza right now I'd be a suicide bomber." Lovely. Going shopping, anyone? See you there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
