Can The Truth Be “Racist”?

I’ve been involved in a most curious discussion that brought up some important issues. An online acquaintance of mine, very well educated, a UK citizen working in the Netherlands, claimed that foreigners with Residence Permits should be allowed to vote in local, not national but local, elections where they are residing.

That seemed crazy to me. Given the huge problems caused by the gigantic influx of Muslim refugees (and “refugees”) into Europe, I said that in such a situation he could find himself ruled by Muslims, who do charming things like throwing gay people off of rooftops to their deaths, and who bury women up to their necks and stone them to death.

Well, I could have heard his screams of “RACIST! RACIST!” all the way from the Netherlands …

I said “How can that be “racist”? It’s the TRUTH!”

It made absolutely no impression on him. I said it could be racist if it were not true, but was he really arguing the Muslims do NOT throw gay people off roofs and stone women to death?

Again … no change. Didn’t touch him. Instead, he went on a bizarre tangent claiming that Christians and other religions do those things too … really? I asked him for some evidence, as I’d never heard of a Christian country where the law prescribed stoning people to death in 2017, while that is indeed today’s current law in some Muslim countries.

Again, no response, just a reiteration that I was being “racist” by telling the truth.

After some consideration, I realized that I was seeing first-hand the pernicious effects of two very bizarre UK laws, the libel law and the “hate speech” law. I wrote about this question before, but this was the first time I’d come face to face with the consequences of those laws.

The UK libel law is very, very different from the US version. In the US, truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel. If you are telling the truth you cannot be charged with libel … but in the UK, that’s not the way it works. You can be put in jail for telling the truth. And if that doesn’t make your brain ache, it gets better.

Under the United Kingdom 2003 “hate speech” law, it is illegal to “annoy or impose anxiety” on someone on the internet. Have you ever heard a dumber law? You could arrest just about anyone with that crazy law. And it is not being ignored. At present about nine people per day are being arrested for being annoying, 3,395 arrested in 2016 alone.

This kind of prosecutorial discretion, where millions break the law daily and nine people get arrested, is a clear invitation for prosecutorial misconduct. The authorities can simply decide they don’t like you, find some instance where you said something controversial, and throw your sorry patootie into durance vile. And yes, I’m looking at you, my dear friend James Delingpole. You have an ugly and incredibly necessary habit of telling the very truths that annoy thousands of people … watch your six, my friend. Truly, with your AQ you could be done for a decade … “AQ”? That’s the “Annoyance Quotient”, which is calculated as the number of people you annoy with a given post, divided by the total readership of the post … and I’m sure James’s AQ is in the stratosphere.

But you don’t need to annoy people wholesale, as James fortunately does. Common people can play too, because you only have to annoy one person to get arrested… talk about legal sickness, that is truly one of the most idiotic laws I’ve ever heard of.

And once I’d reconsidered both of those astoundingly asinine laws, the libel law and the “hate speech” law, I could understand how my friend had been brainwashed into thinking that the truth can be racist … heck, if the truth is no defense again a charge of libel and it’s just fine to arrest people for being annoying, I can see how someone could think that the truth could be racist.

So to all of my friends across the pond in the UK and Europe, I gotta say you are not looking very good in this regard. The idea that the truth can be libelous is a sick joke. The fact that you can be put in prison for telling the truth is far worse.

And the fact that so many European countries have “hate speech” laws that e.g make it illegal to annoy people? Dear heavens, my friends, have you lost the plot entirely? I cannot imagine a stupider idea than putting people in jail for annoying someone!

In Sweden recently an old woman pensioner was charged with “hate speech” for posting on Facebook what she was witnessing right outside her window—Muslim immigrants rioting and defecating in the street. But oh, no, we’ve got to teach that old lady some manners, she can’t be allowed to tell the truth!

Here’s the ugly reality. In the UK and many European countries, you can now be arrested, have your civil rights taken away, and be thrown in jail for telling the truth!

You Europeans make it illegal to point out any problems with criminal immigrants, and then you wonder why immigrants are taking over your countries, assaulting women, defecating in the streets, and pissing on your laws?

It’s because they scorn you, and reasonably so. Why would anyone respect a country that muzzles its own citizens and won’t let them tell the truth? I know I don’t.

Finally, and tragically, this pernicious attack on freedom of speech is gaining currency in the US … here’s a deluded young person in Tucson, Arizona, who appears to have never read the First Amendment to the Constitution …

hate speech equals murder.png

Whatever happened to “Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me” that my mom drilled into us kids? I’m sorry, but there is no such thing in the US as “hate speech”. Doesn’t exist as a legal concept.

So no, “hate speech” not murder in any sense. If someone calls something “hate speech”, what they are saying is that it is free speech that they don’t like.

To close, here’s why I wrote this post—to pose a most important question for my UK and European friends. My question is, how do you justify these absurd laws?

Seriously, guys, you are cutting your own throats here. How do you explain to yourselves that it is perfectly OK to throw someone in prison for telling the truth?

My best to all,

w.

FURTHER READING:

As I said above, I’ve written at some length regarding this important issue …

Forbidden Words

Dec 12, 2016 – Hate speech? What the heck is that other than an excuse for the authorities to bust people they don’t like? You see, Wilders asking that question was ruled to be spreading hate of Moroccans … who decided that? How can I know if I’m over the line when the law is so vague that you can’t even ask questions …

Trademarked Hate Speech

Jun 20, 2017 – These European “hate speech” laws are being used in a very selective manner against anyone that the state wants to attack. Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen have both faced “hate speech” prosecutions. Meanwhile, virulent Islamists are allowed to say whatever they wish. It is that totalitarian selective …

Bright Line Distinctions

Mar 15, 2017 – Well, the Eurotrash section of the German Parliament, in league with the social justice warriors at the German Justice Ministry, are proposing that Facebook and other social networking sites be fined FIFTY MEGABUCKS if they don’t remove all so-called “hate speech” from their websites. And how, you may …

The UN Condemns Freedom of Speech

Mar 25, 2017 – I see that the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights is continuing its lunatic hegira to some imaginary perfect world. This time they are taking up the imaginary crime of “hate speech”. These days, “hate speech” accusations are most commonly used by a variety of governments and individuals to …

Orthodox Hate Speech

Mar 11, 2017 – Let’s take what is perhaps the clearest example of hate speech in the Koran, the Apostate verse. This verse is the reason that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with bodyguards. This verse is the reason that Muslims kill the Baha’i. This verse is why Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death. Here you go, roll the …

 

Advertisements

182 thoughts on “Can The Truth Be “Racist”?

  1. It is quite amazing Willis, but these are the same weak minded people who have to defend themselves, literally, with sticks and stones. Not us.

    Resistance is not futile, and we will not be assimilated like the sociocommunistas across the pond.

    Your friend would be speaking a different language right now if it were not for the first amendment supporters here in the good old US of A.

    Like

      • So what exactly do you stand for Fos? Do you even have that independence where you live? What does SjW even really mean?

        I can speak the truth where I live without hesitation or fear of false retribution. Can you?

        I am America!

        Like

      • I doubt it – this dates back to the ancient Greeks, if not a lot further. And the ultimate example in ancient histories remains the sack of Rome, if not – even earlier – the conquering of Egypt by the Romans. All the above basically lost themselves in their own definitions of – whatever – and stopped possessing the focus and fortitude to defend themselves in a world made more dangerous by their stopping dominating it.

        I visited Agrigento in Sicily, a very advanced (in its day) city with several mammoth temples. We were given a tour by a very old Sicilian gentleman who came up to us, walked us over the whole site, explained a great deal of its history in very good English and at the end – quite uncharacteristically – refused so much as a penny. One factoid that stuck with me was, shortly before Agrigento’s sack, there were ordinances in-place limiting the number of blankets and pillows the sentries on the walls could take-along on night watch duty.

        This sort of thing sickens me because it took a ten-year depression, a world war, the triumph of world communism (while it lasted) and hundreds of millions of deaths to snap us out of it, last time…

        Liked by 1 person

    • And the pleasant looking peace chick is from Tucson Arizona, which is, if I remember correctly, in the good old US of A. She looks like a typical American first amendment supporter to me…

      Like

      • fos,

        She is cute from outward appearance but what the education system and the media have placed between her ears leaves me a whiter shade of pale. As she matures a few years (it may take a lifetime) she may leave herself a ghostly shade of pale.

        Like

      • fos – Initially thought your post was a bit of sarcasm, but reading further down in this thread, see that you’re probably serious. As for the cute chick being a first amendment supporter, doubt that observation is correct, at least using the commonly accepted term’s definition. She’s equating Hate Speech with Murder, which is a crime in all jurisdictions. Crimes are punished.

        Like

  2. Oh, it’s worse that just that. They will also claim that only people they deem to be “the oppressors” (usually but not always whites) can be racist. “People of color” can’t be racist. You as a white maie of European descent are a-priori a racist. I seriously doubt that a Muslim disparaging Jews or Christians would be charged with a hate crime. We’ve gone past situational ethics and post normal science to post normal reality.

    When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I fully agree. The UK has a number of weaknesses which were once strengths, in a way. It still has an established church, the Church of England, of which the Queen is the head. While there is religious freedom, the privileged status of the C of E has been criticised, and in the ’90s there were proposals to protect legally all religions against “blasphemy”. Absurd: “Jesus is God incarnate” is blasphemy for Jews and Muslims; if a Buddhist says “There is no God or soul” (completely standard), the theists could shout “Blasphemy!” Fortunately, no such law has been passed, though there certainly seems to be special protection for Islam now. State schools (“public” in the USA) are usually of a religious denomination: this was a measure of tolerance, since minorities like Catholics and Jews could have their schools. However, there have been a number of cases of Muslims taking over schools and imposing their standards. Since the Anglicans bend over backwards to be “liberal” and “tolerant”, which was fine when the other main school denominations were Catholic and Jewish, they are basically helpless when faced with the intolerance and supremacism of Muslims. On your Brit friend: does he not understand that Islam is a totalitarian ideology, not a race?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Peter Lewis Hannan February 24, 2018 at 11:24 pm

      On your Brit friend: does he not understand that Islam is a totalitarian ideology, not a race?

      Thanks, Peter. Yeah, well, I thought of asking him that, but it didn’t seem like the right moment, he was all in a flutter.

      w.

      Like

      • When they are “all in a flutter” is exactly when you drive the stake home. Simply because someone believes fantastical horsesh*t is not a reason to go easy on them.

        Like

      • I was last in Britain in 2012, and didn’t get about much because of my brother’s serious operation. I aim to go this summer, and for the first time in my life I’m concerned about the thought police.

        Like

    • Among those other articles by Ibn Warraq is this intriguing one: “Virgins ? What Virgins?”
      http://ibnwarraq.com/virgins-what-virgins-ibn-warraq/

      He reports on the claims for 72 virgins for martyrs in the Koran and other works. That number does not appear in the Koran.

      Scholars have long pointed out that these images are clearly drawn pictures and must have been inspired by the art of painting . Muhammad or whoever is responsible for the descriptions may well have seen Christian miniatures or mosaics representing the gardens of Paradise and has interpreted the figures of angels rather literally as those of young men and young women . A further textual influence on the imagery found in the Koran is the work of Ephrem the Syrian [ 306-373 C.E.] , Hymns on Paradise , written in Syriac , an Aramaic dialect and the language of Eastern Christianity , and a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew and Arabic .

      Do I hear a claim of plagiarism or cultural appropriation?

      Luxenberg tries to show that many of the obscurities of the Koran disappear if we read certain words as being Syriac and not Arabic .

      And the virgins disappear too.

      Luxenberg ’s new analysis leaning on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian yields ‘ white raisins ’ of ‘crystal clarity ’ rather than doe-eyed , and ever willing virgins – the houris . Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offerred , and not unsullied maidens or houris .

      Like

  4. “In Sweden recently an old woman pensioner was charged with “hate speech” for posting on Facebook what she was witnessing right outside her window—Muslim immigrants rioting and defecating in the street.”

    By the millennial definition of racist, yes, the truth is racist.
    The other question is, is the hate speech law racist? Would the women have been charged with “hate speech” if the perps were “white”. Does ‘WASP’ have meaning in Sweden?

    It always amazes me how people can hold contradictory opinions. Take your common environmentalist, tell him about an invasive species that is dangerous and threatens to take over, he will be right there for no holds barred removal. But all kinds of people are equal and welcome except fascists and Christians and Republicans.

    Scandinavia is a weird place. They put black bars over the eyes of photographs of criminals or blur their whole face. Not just suspects, but criminals in the act.

    Recent case in Denmark. A man exposed himself to a woman’s 10 year old daughter and her girlfriend. The mother posted his photo on Facebook. The police used the same photos to arrest the man. The man was fined 2500 kr. The woman was fined 5000 kr. The boutique was also fined 5000 kr. for giving a private person access to the security camera photos.

    Like

    • Not only that,
      By the millennial definition of sexist, yes, the truth is sexist.

      The objective, biological truth of male and female has been millennified to 57 genders (and counting).
      If people of one of those other 55 genders feels that way, fine, they can have an alternative “truth”,
      but if they millennify “truth”, then there is no truth.

      http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-02-24

      Like

  5. I agree with you about the malign effect of hate-speech legislation, but your argumentation is deranged. You call the following rant ‘TRUTH’ (your caps):

    Given the huge [really?] problems [such as?] caused by the gigantic [really?] influx of Muslim [really? Why only Muslims? Homogeneity?] refugees (and “refugees” [economic migrants]) into [parts of] Europe, I said that in such a situation he could find himself ruled by Muslims [Why only Muslims? Homogeneity?], who [All of them? Some of them? How many?] do charming [sarcasm] things like throwing gay people off of rooftops to their deaths [ AFAIK no-one has been thrown off a rooftop in Europe], and who bury women up to their necks and stone them to death [AFAIK no-one has been stoned to death in Europe].

    I could extend your language in this paragraph to the malign influence of Black Power culture in the USA.

    There is a lot of hate in that paragraph – it’s not racist but unthinkingly islamophobic. It is certainly not ‘TRUTH’.

    You also miss your correspondent’s point. The residents in an area surely should have a democratic right to express their wishes at the ballot box. They pay everything the government demands of them and you as an American should be sympathetic to the idea of ‘no taxation without representation’.

    If a country is so stupid as to let itself by overrun by foreigners that does not justify switching off democratic principles in the emergency.

    Like

    • “The residents in an area surely should have a democratic right to express their wishes at the ballot box.”

      Democracy often gets confused with having a ballot box. Not so. Democracy is more than that, it also requires a free press and free speech, among other things.

      Democracy started with only male property holders having the right to vote. Modern thought has changed that, but only VERY recently. What the qualifications to vote should be is a difficult and interesting question, because if democracy is just another name for majority rule, it’s also just another kind of dictatorship, like Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat. Politically Correct thought is one step in that direction.

      Is the EU still a democracy?

      Like

    • fos February 25, 2018 at 12:22 am
      I agree with you about the malign effect of hate-speech legislation, but your argumentation is deranged. You call the following rant ‘TRUTH’ (your caps):

      Given the huge [really?] …

      Yes, really. Try this on for size:

      Record high number of rapes in Bergen and Oslo – Norway Today

      Jan 27, 2017 – 175 women, girls and men sought out rape clinics in Bergen last year, 14% more than the year before. Also in the capital city of Oslo there is a new dismal record. The clinic for abuse at the urgent care (legevakt) in Oslo has experienced an 18% increase, which is a new record from the 440 patients in 2015 …

      I could give you another hundred articles about the hundreds of problems caused by Muslim immigration into Europe.

      You continue …

      … problems [such as?] …

      I give up. If you have not heard of and cannot identify the problems caused by the huge influx of Muslims into Europe, you are deaf, dumb, and blind to current events, and far beyond my poor power to add or detract.

      w.

      PS—You say:

      There is a lot of hate in that paragraph – it’s not racist but unthinkingly islamophobic.

      Oh, good, the standard leftist attempt to guilt-trip Westerners, the “BUT IT’S ISLAMOPHOBIC” nonsense again … dude, that is hilarious that you’d pull out that old tired chestnut and think it would make a bit of difference to me. I spit on your accusation of “Islamophobia”.

      I’m sorry, but we are discussing a culture which has a thousand-year history of internal and external violence; a culture that keeps women as sex slaves in 2018 just as the Koran recommends; a culture that forcibly marries nine-year-old girls to fifty-year-old men; a culture that buries women up to their necks in the ground and stones them to death; a culture that punishes women with death for the heinous crime of being raped; a culture quite willing to settle internal religious disputes by bombing innocent women and children; and finally, a culture where leaving the religion carries a death sentence … and you think being afraid of such a culture is a “phobia”? Get real!

      A reasonable fear of such a barbaric culture is not a “phobia” of any kind. A “phobia” is an overblown and unreasonable fear. Fear of Islam is absolutely not unreasonable, as even the briefest glance at history would have told you. Islam is a very dangerous neighbor, no matter how many folks like yourself have been fooled by their “Religion of Peace” propaganda. Being afraid of what the Koran brings in tow is quite reasonable, as the women of Cologne and Oslo can tell you to their great cost.

      You really should get out more, fos. In the meantime, if you think telling the truth is Islamophobic, you’ll lose the plot over my post entitled “The Problem With Islam” … come for the facts, stay for the cartoons …

      Liked by 1 person

      • And fos, if you think the record number of rapes in Oslo doesn’t involve Muslims, think again:

        From a UNHCR summary, news of a culture clash with terrible consequences:

        A report released by the (Oslo) police on Wednesday states that all assault rapes during last year were committed by men with a non-Western origin. All the reported rapes during the last 5 years are done by men with a foreign origin. Police inspector Hanne Kristin Rodhe says the perpetrators often are unemployed, have been asylum-seekers during the last five years and come from a traumatized environment. She adds that their perception of women can be one of the motives behind the rapes.

        w.

        Like

      • My first two questions on your TRUTH sent you off into a spittle-flecked rant, leaving all the other points unanswered. That’s OK.

        But apart from just ranting about the problems, please tell me what you are going to DO about this ‘gigantic influx of Muslims’. Deport them? Under threat of violence? Round them up, men, women and children? Confiscate their property? And where are you going to deport them to? Or are you suggesting special camps?

        It appears that in your opinion Islam is fundamentally evil, beyond redemption. Not only that, you only have one category in your hate-filled head: the Muslim. No nuance, no differentiation. The Muslim Scandinavian rapist is the same as the Muslim running the corner shop in Britain. In the UK, France and Germany to my personal knowledge there are large populations of peaceful and law-abiding Muslims who have been there for several generations. Are you going to deport them, too? So now what? What are you going to DO about all these innately evil Muslims that are among us?

        Islamophobia – yes, in a previous century it was anti-semitism, hatred of people because of their religion or cultural heritage. What’s the difference between the two? Will your ‘final solution’ for the Muslim be the same as that other fella’s solution for the Jew?

        I’d have a little more respect for your opinions if you lived in Europe and could contribute your own experience, but you don’t and you can’t. You just bottom-feed from titbits extracted from languages I presume you don’t understand. Stick to California – there’s plenty for you to be enraged about there at the moment.

        Like

        • You know, fos, you’re hilarious. I thought about answering your bizarre and wildly untrue screed, then I remembered the first law of pig wrestling, which says:

          “Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.”

          So I’m gonna pass. But thanks for playing. Vanna White, what kind of gifts do we have today for our unsuccessful contestants?

          w.

          PS—Here’s a protip. If you dial back on the accusations and the aggro, you’ll get lots more traction. Better luck next time.

          Liked by 1 person

          • ‘bizarre and wildly untrue screed’
            Me? Aggro? I have been consistently polite and rational with you. Since you can’t cope with that your now resort to patronising name calling. Pro-tip: stick to climate, your other ideas are completely unhinged.

            Like

          • fos February 25, 2018 at 1:11 pm

            Answer the question: what are you going to DO about all these horrible muslims?

            Sorry, Mr. Troll, not interested in playing your sick games. You’re done in my world.

            w.

            Like

        • “Islamophobia – yes, in a previous century it was anti-semitism, hatred of people because of their religion or cultural heritage. What’s the difference between the two?”

          previous century? Anti-semitism is alive and well. Muslims don’t even hide it.

          What’s the difference between the two? You can’t find any other group which was hated so much and did so little to incur that hate, except be smart and prosperous. Muslims have done a lot of evil. Christians have done evil too, but have since reformed.

          Yes, there are a lot of Muslims who do not do evil themselves, but they tend to support the ones who do evil.

          Like

    • fos February 25, 2018 at 12:22 am

      You also miss your correspondent’s point. The residents in an area surely should have a democratic right to express their wishes at the ballot box. They pay everything the government demands of them and you as an American should be sympathetic to the idea of ‘no taxation without representation’.

      Nope. I don’t give guests in my house a vote on the wallpaper pattern, and I don’t give guests in my country a vote on what rules should govern us.

      But heck, if you want to let a bunch of random strangers from a totally different culture decide what’s best for you and your friends, be my guest … just leave me and the rational people out of it. That is a really, really dumb idea.

      As to “no taxation without representation”, you’ve got to be kidding, that’s not what it means. If I go to Europe as a tourist I pay taxes there with no representation … so freakin’ what?

      w.

      Like

      • Don’t be fatuous – no one is talking about tourists. We are talking about RESIDENTS: people who pay property and income taxes and work in a country. Why should they have no say in what is done to them?

        Like

        • fos February 25, 2018 at 12:25 pm

          Don’t be fatuous – no one is talking about tourists. We are talking about RESIDENTS: people who pay property and income taxes and work in a country. Why should they have no say in what is done to them?

          Because they are not citizens, duh. I lived and worked in Fiji for years, but that doesn’t mean I’m qualified to vote on Fijian issues, or that I even understand the nuances of Fijian politics. Fiji is THEIR native land, and they’d be nuts to let just anyone make important decisions on their behalf.

          But hey, like I said, if you want to let a bunch of random strangers from a totally different culture decide what’s best for you and your friends, be my guest … just don’t try it where I live.

          w.

          Like

          • Fiji? Didn’t they give the vote to incoming Indian workers, who voted when the natives couldn’t be bothered to vote resulting in an Indian takeover and then a putsch by the Fijian Army? Was that a good idea?

            Like

        • fos: “We are talking about RESIDENTS: people who pay property and income taxes and work in a country. Why should they have no say in what is done to them?”

          Willis: “Because they are not citizens, duh.”

          Fos wouldn’t understand that concept, apparently. I doubt explaining it would help. But for the record, no country can survive for long without a common understanding of what that country is and how it works, the culture that underlies the laws and customs of that country. If you grow up in that country, in that culture, it becomes part of you. Do they still teach civics and American History in school? If you immigrate, you need to learn it, and you probably never will completely, just like you probably will never lose your accent. To get citizenship in a new country you traditionally needed to take a test about it. Probably just a token test now.

          And that is also why democracy does not export. It needs to be built on a culture that can support it, and that culture takes many generations to develop.

          Even citizens don’t have that much say in “what is done to them”.

          Like

      • And you should also note that in many types of elections and referendums in the UK, citizens of other EU countries resident in the UK are allowed to vote (e.g. the Scottish referendumg, I think)

        Like

        • fos February 25, 2018 at 12:35 pm

          And you should also note that in many types of elections and referendums in the UK, citizens of other EU countries resident in the UK are allowed to vote (e.g. the Scottish referendumg, I think)

          Well, gosh, that convinces me! I mean, if the UK does it there couldn’t possibly be anything wrong with it …

          Dude, if you want to go over the waterfall in a canoe, that’s up to you, but it doesn’t make it a good idea …

          Anyhow, from the Beeb, emphasis mine:

          Three million citizens of other European Union countries live in the UK. How do they feel about a general election dominated by Brexit, in which they cannot vote?

          This shows just one of the many reasons it’s a bad idea to let non-citizens vote—their allegiance is NOT to the country they are residing in, it is to their home country. I don’t want US issues decided by people whose allegiance is elsewhere.

          And no, EU folks can NOT vote in the Scottish referendum, that’s just more of your endless false claims. From the gov.uk website …

          To vote in a referendum you must:

          be registered to vote
          be 18 or over on the day of the referendum (‘polling day’)
          be a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen
          be resident at an address in the UK or Gibraltar (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
          not be legally excluded from voting
          You make one choice between 2 options. Votes are counted for the whole of the UK, not by constituency.

          Nice try, though, I’m sure some people were fooled …

          w.

          Like

          • There is no such thing as ‘a’ referendum. Each voting procedure has a matrix of permissions about who can vote. I remember this was the case with the Scottish referendum because there was some upset that the many EU citizens resident in Scotland were allowed to vote. In the case of the EU referendum I know for a fact that EU citizens were specifically excluded from voting on that occasion for obvious reasons.

            Any idiot can quote wikipedia – you just have to quote the right bit:

            Under the terms of the 2010 Draft Bill, the following people were entitled to vote in the referendum:[15]

            British citizens who were resident in Scotland;
            citizens of other Commonwealth countries who were resident in Scotland;
            citizens of other European Union countries who were resident in Scotland;
            members of the House of Lords who were resident in Scotland;
            Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the British Armed Forces or with Her Majesty’s Government who were registered to vote in Scotland.

            Convicted prisoners were not able to vote in the referendum. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) earlier ruled that this restriction was unlawful, but Scottish judge Lord Glennie said that he believed the ECHR judgment would apply only to parliamentary elections.[30] Appeals against his ruling were rejected by the Court of Session in Edinburgh[31] and the UK Supreme Court.[32]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum%2C_2014#Eligibility_to_vote

            I’ll accept a grovelling apology graciouosly.

            Like

          • fos February 25, 2018 at 1:05 pm

            There is no such thing as ‘a’ referendum.

            Say what? Man, you’re losing it. I just quoted the regulations from the gov.uk site which say (emphasis mine):

            To vote in a referendum you must:

            You see the part where the UK Government says “a referendum”?

            So you’ll have to take up your nonsensical argument with the UK government … I’m not predicting that they’ll find in your favor, but heck, go tell them how wrong they are and report back on the results, ok?

            w.

            Like

      • “no taxation without representation”

        Should be ‘no representation without commitment’. Taxation pays for the infrastructure you choose to use.

        Like

  6. Well, your comment might have been a bit of a sweeping generalization. It did ignore the point that the Muslims fleeing the Middle East are mostly the saner ones. When I was in Israel years ago I talked with both Jewish and Muslim folks were looking to get away from Israel because they reckoned the inmates were taking over the asylum. Historically, Muslims have ALWAYS been easier on homosexual behaviour than doctrine demanded, much like Christianity and Judaism. Women were never universally treated in the manner that the conservative Muslims claim is legitimate. There’s far more social “texture” and “range” over there than the media shows us.

    We stayed in a kibbutz but preferred to deal with a Muslim/Christian business for computer needs. They dickered more cheerfully, screamed about supporting their family, and sealed the deal with really good coffee – and yes, the business was joint Muslim and Christian. Sadly the last year I was there (in Israel) the best Falafel and Schwarma shop in Nazareth was shuttered because a religiously-mixed family wound up in a blood feud (with each other over land and money apparently, rather than religion) and had to either run away (into exile as the locals put it) or spend time in prison. Basic Muslim practice requires them to respect “People of the Book:” Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. Most actually take that seriously and are far more likely to cut your throat because of perceived rudeness.

    As regards Christians advocating that kind of behaviour, look up the Dominionist movement which included folks right here in the US of A that advocated bringing stoning back for adultery. And some other really ugly Old Testament approaches to “justice.” They seem to have faded a lot, but were considerably more prominent in the ’80s and ’90s. For a while they sounded like wannabee Taliban with a cross. Besides, when DAESH are actually looking for the return of Jesus (no joke about this) it is rather unclear where the boundary really lies.

    Like

    • As regards Christians advocating that kind of behaviour, look up the Dominionist movement which included folks right here in the US of A that advocated bringing stoning back for adultery.

      Completely insignificant — you’re reading/watching too much fake news. Such “groups” number a few score here or there & present no danger. This “Look, a squirrel!” technique has been used by the left-media for decades.

      Like

    • Denis Rushworth February 25, 2018 at 5:55 am

      Does this law apply to Parliament?

      Of course not …

      Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties.

      w.

      Like

      • You are wrong on that, too. The conventions of parliamentary procedure govern what MPs can say in many different circumstances – debates, committees etc. MPs using ‘unparliamentary language’ or breaking the law would be shut up PDQ by the speaker and excluded for potentially long periods. Their political careers would be over.

        Like

        • fos February 25, 2018 at 12:30 pm

          You are wrong on that, too.

          BS. All I did was quote a description of the parliamentary privilege law, no part of which was wrong.

          Sure, there are conventions and other consideration, but those don’t change the fact that there is parliamentary privilege.

          Man, you are choosing some bizarre hills as being worth dying for … how about you try being FOR something instead of AGAINST everything?

          w.

          Like

          • You always descend to insults…
            One moment’s reflection will show you that it doesn’t matter whether you are gagged by law or gagged by the conventions of parliament – your still gagged – which is what Denis Rushworth was talking about. The office of an MP was raided by the police a few years ago – he had to resign recently.

            Like

  7. “RACIST! RACIST!”?

    Since when is religion, a race?

    On the other hand, it is bad form to attribute the attitudes of some members of a group to other members who may or may not hold those attitudes. It would be better form to address the specifics of those you wish to criticize.

    To be specific, one would point to behaviors and attitudes that have caused problem in England if one were criticizing Muslim immigration to England rather than behaviors that occurred elsewhere.

    Just say’n.

    Like

  8. To all on the political left ANYTHING(thought,word,deed) that goes against their ideology is a crime, and racism and hate speech are invaluable tools which the political left use to destroy any who oppose them or refuse to submit to them.
    Truth is truth.
    And the truth is anyplace muslims gather in numbers descends into violence, crime, rape and death. Those who willingly refuse to accept reality are just as big a problem as islam. Oh, and a bit more truth, islam is not a religion, it is a sociopolitical ideology designed to subjugate all cultures/societies it comes in contact with by sword, flame and genocide.

    To any who take issue with this, I leave you with this final and unequivocal statement. I do not submit.

    Like

  9. Sadly George Orwell and Aldus Huxley understood politics all too well. In the 50s and 60s “Animal Farm”, and “Brave New World” were required reading. I don’t think they are anymore.

    Like

      • No they are not forbidden. High school students still read and discuss them, even in Crazyfornia. It was eye-opening to those with any intelligence. Most teens I know are conservative, but keep their mouths shut to avoid trouble.

        Like

        • 10 years ago I was called to my son’s school and informed he had brought a banned book to school, the book in question was Brave New World. I asked if Animal Farm would be alright and was told no, he can read “that propaganda at home” because it is not allowed here. At that point we left, next day enrolled him in cyber school. This is in rural Pennsylvania, different places have different bans, clearly.

          Like

  10. How is calling you ‘racist’ itself not ‘hate speech’? I think you may have enjoyed the interaction too much to be ‘annoyed’ by it, but by his standards, your correspondent’s name-calling certainly puts him in violation of them. Let us know when he turns himself over to the nearest Bobby for suitable punishment.

    Like

    • fos, someone who takes pleasure in winding someone up is called a “troll”, and is widely and correctly agreed to be a despicable species of humanoid. Thanks for making your motives clear—you are self-confessed pond scum.

      I probably should ban you, but heck, your pathetic trolling was so unsuccessful that it couldn’t even convince me to wrestle with the pig, so I guess I’ll let it slide.

      w.

      Like

      • This is my farewell comment. I shall never darken the comments section on this website ever again. That will make most of you – and particularly the owner – very happy.

        ossqss February 25, 2018 at 9:13 pm asks: So what exactly do you stand for?

        I am a free-speech, free-trade, laissez-faire, small-state conservative. I believe that people should be able to get on with their lives in whatever way they wish as long as it does not affect others. I am a democrat [small ‘d’!] who regards democracy as the least-worst system. I am against mass immigration, particularly when it comes from cultures who are not going to accept the traditional cultural superiority of the West.

        ‘Winding you up’. Yes, I have been winding you up, since it is always interesting to explore the limits of those who shout ‘free’, ‘free-spech’ and call the USA the ‘land of the free’ (particularly when compared with European states.)

        Taking the last point first (strongly expressed by ossqss): I would just ask you to consider what the IRS did to various Tea Party members (behaviour that is as yet unpunished); what the FBI, seemingly at the bidding of the Clintons, did to Trump and Co. (behaviour… ditto) and the wonderful ‘administrative state’ you have; consider, too, the enormous closing down of free-speech that has taken place on University campuses throughout the US; consider the taste for using money to grind people down with long legal processes; consider the immigrant havens you have in the US.

        It is interesting to me how, simply because I have begged to differ, I have been so viciously and personally attacked by this blog’s owner. I shall let you review the comments yourselves, but please note, I have never been personally offensive or called anyone names – even ‘deranged’ described the argument, not the person. In return he has called me a pig rolling in the dirt, a troll, pond scum, pathetic and a number of other lovely things. Even when I proved him to be factually wrong over variable voting rights in the UK, he refused to accept my evidence, just called me more names. Repeatedly putting one clear question to him (‘what would you do’, February 25, 2018 at 12:21 pm) gets me called more names. I am still waiting for the answer.

        For that reason I will not visit this blog again. You can continue talk undisturbed amongst yourselves in Mr Eschenbach’s echo-chamber.

        Like

        • pos,

          As ossqss asks: “So what exactly do you stand for?” I ask the same thing verbatim.

          You seem to have two distinct personas. One seems to make sense and the other way out left-field and obvious trolling. You appear confused and don’t make much sense to me.

          Perhaps you got yourself all wound up.

          Like

  11. So I am on the stand having sworn to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Which would I prefer being put in jail for lying under oath or being put in jail for hate speech. This is just stupid.

    Like

  12. The core of the problem is a lack of tolerance. My friend Jenda has a proposal for it:
    Let’s declare a Day of Tolerance. Everybody failing to show enough Tolerance will be executed the next day.

    Like

  13. But you don’t need to annoy people wholesale, as James fortunately does. Common people can play too, because you only have to annoy one person to get arrested

    To be clear that one person doesn’t need to be the original target of the ‘hate speech’ it can be any third party that feels ‘anxious’.

    To close, here’s why I wrote this post—to pose a most important question for my UK and European friends. My question is, how do you justify these absurd laws?

    Most don’t. They are imposed and the ‘opposition’ party of the time will simply try to add their own, more draconian, measures to the bill not to seem to be out-done.

    Like

  14. My question is, how do you justify these absurd laws?

    Well, I’m not European but I’ve been stationed in Germany for a bit now so maybe I can offer a perspective.

    For the Germans, it’s quite simple. They’re sick and tired of being called Nazis. That, and you know the old saying “Once burned…”.
    Because they know darn well, better perhaps than most, that sticks and stones have nothing on some well placed rhetoric. That a speech dripping with hate delivered by the right person at the right time can cause the sticks and stones to do their dirty work and incite a genocide. Just ask the German Jews, if you can still find one.

    So, they’re careful now.
    As an American, I often find they’re overdoing it – 500 Euros (or thereabouts) fine for displaying a 3rd Reich war flag? C’mon…
    But who am I to tell them how to handle their own history? How to find a workable balance between freedom of expression and playing with matches in the Reichskanzlei? They know that words have power. They know how words can devalue, vilify, dehumanize an entire race until eradicating other human beings becomes no big deal. A good deed, even.
    And they paid for it. So, I’m not surprised they’re sensitive to certain words, certain turns of phrase, certain rhetoric now.

    Can the truth be racist?

    That’s perhaps an incomplete question. The truth is the truth.
    But can it be twisted, spun, used to blow one thing out of proportion and minimize another, can it be bent to fit an agenda, can it be subjective?

    Yes to all of the above.

    As for the woman in Sweden, all I could find was a case from 2015 in Vansbro, but details are sketchy and no record of any conviction anywhere (if you have a link reporting the actual events, I’d appreciate it).
    What is the truth in this case? I don’t know. But I have a strange feeling that whatever really happened was not quite so cut and dry as your statement made it seem.

    I’m quite sure if I walked through Stockholm on a frosty February day and yelled “That man there is defecating on the street and he looks like a Muslim!” the Polisen would not come to take me away. If however I yelled “That dirty Muslim is sullying beautiful Stockholm, into the freezing ocean with him!” they just might tell me to mind my manners, and rightly so.
    Because while both times I’d be telling the truth – commenting on something that’s actually happening, though with an assumption thrown in (how can I know for sure he’s a follower of the Abrahamic deity?) – there is a difference in how I’m saying it.

    This, I think, is where the European idea of hate speech, and laws regarding same, comes from. Throwing people into the harbor is just rude, never mind the old saying about two wrongs, and inciting others to do the throwing just causes paperwork. Noone likes paperwork.

    Are they overdoing it at times? I think so, but my perspective is obviously different, coming from across the pond. Is the situation as horrible and common-sense defying as I keep hearing and reading in (mostly) American outlets and blogs? Hardly.

    And that hyperbole to make a point … is that helping the truth? Or is it rather causing overreactions and fear, (and anger, and then hate, and we don’t need Master Yoda to tell us where that leads), and stupid counterpunches which miss the very real, very true danger? You know, those guys who actually do throw people off roofs and for whom hate speech is a useful tool?

    Like

  15. shiarrael, thanks for your thoughtful reply. However, I disagree strongly that:

    Because they know darn well, better perhaps than most, that sticks and stones have nothing on some well placed rhetoric. That a speech dripping with hate delivered by the right person at the right time can cause the sticks and stones to do their dirty work and incite a genocide. Just ask the German Jews, if you can still find one.

    If that were a real problem, America would have died long ago. We are perfectly free to give a speech dripping with any kind of hate, and guess what?

    We didn’t end up setting up extermination camps … the problem was not the speech dripping with hate. The problem was the Germans were dripping with hate.

    As for the woman in Sweden, all I could find was a case from 2015 in Vansbro, but details are sketchy and no record of any conviction anywhere (if you have a link reporting the actual events, I’d appreciate it).
    What is the truth in this case? I don’t know. But I have a strange feeling that whatever really happened was not quite so cut and dry as your statement made it seem.

    And me, I have a strange feeling that you didn’t look hard just so you could use that as an excuse to insult me:

    A 70-year-old Swedish woman in Dalarna is being prosecuted for hate speech after claiming on Facebook she saw migrants defecating in the streets and setting fire to cars.

    According to the prosecution, the woman “expressed a disparaging view of refugees” on Facebook. She stands accused of having taken to the social media website in early July 2015 to make the “derogatory” post, alleging that migrants “set fire to cars, and urinate and defecate on the streets”.

    Prosecutors in Sweden say the woman’s message violates the nation’s law on incitement to racial hatred (Hets mot folkgrupp, or HMF), a crime with carries a maximum penalty of four years.

    The accused admitted that she wrote the post but denied committing any criminal act. The evidence against her consists of a screenshot from Facebook, according to local media.

    I tell the truth as best I know how. You may not be familiar with folks like me. I can assure you, honest men such as myself don’t appreciate nasty attacks on our honesty from someone who doesn’t have the albondigas to even sign their own words …

    Is the situation as horrible and common-sense defying as I keep hearing and reading in (mostly) American outlets and blogs? Hardly.

    Damn right it is. Perhaps on your planet arresting an old woman for a Facebook post accurately describing what she saw outside her window is not horrible and merely expresses a common sense response … on my planet that is indeed horrible and common-sense defying. In Britain they arrest nine people per day under the 2003 hate speech law making it illegal to “annoy” anyone on the web. Heck, Marine Le Pen was busted for publishing photos of ISIS atrocities.

    Atrocities are fine, I guess, but telling people about the atrocities can get you busted … and you find this not horrible in the slightest, just common-sense …

    I fear that your comments leave me concerned. You seem like an intelligent guy. How can you believe it’s OK to bust granny for telling the truth? How can you think that arresting people because they are annoying is just fine?

    Best regards,

    w.

    Like

    • Hello Willis,

      just to avoid any further misunderstanding – and I realize even the most mild mannered post on the internet can be mistaken for confrontational, what with there being no way to convey tone of voice, facial expressions etc – this was no personal attack. You asked a question and I gave it a shot, since I’m rather conveniently placed to offer a perspective. Boots on the ground, as it were.

      I’m also guessing you’re getting people who strongly disagree with you on your blog, and that often such debates become heated. So you might perceive any opposing or even just questioning viewpoint as a personal matter. Again, this was not intended. But this, too, is subjective.

      Asking “Are you sure about this?” to me is not an attack, nor is a request for more information and/or independent, verifiable sources, and I generally react by trying to clarify and/or point to sources I find reasonably reliable. Yet I rarely, if ever, claim to know the absolute truth. It’s possible you feel differently.

      Similarly, there is a big difference between saying “I’m not sure about your source, I tried to verify your statement but had trouble finding anything solid” and saying “You deliberately deceived me! Your statement is a lie and you’re dishonest!”

      The former assumes that a statement was made in good faith – the writer honestly thought/thinks it’s valid, verifiable, good information – but might have gotten bad, or incomplete, or shaky information. Maybe some bias made him/her inclined to believe and not research more, but none of us are free from bias.

      The latter assumes intent. Which, incidentally, I did not. If that was not clear, I apologize.

      That said:

      We didn’t end up setting up extermination camps … the problem was not the speech dripping with hate. The problem was the Germans were dripping with hate.

      Which is why I mentioned rhetoric at the right (or wrong) place and time, by the right person. The climate was ripe, the words incited the firestorm. Or Blitz, if you like.

      Yet to say we have been spared would be a grave error, I think. We may not have had “Untermenschen” and concentration camps but we had internment camps for Japanese Americans. We had, and still have, the KKK. We had our own genocide, twice over, and though I’ll hesitate to draw firm parallels to Nazi Germany (each situation, each circumstance is unique and besides, it’s overused to the point of being tiresome) – certain similarities stand out.
      The devaluing of the undesired. The vilifying of the’Other’. The hateful speeches and writings calling for, and justifying the killing of the red man, the black man, the Jew…

      In the president’s own words; “Do you think we are so innocent?” …

      And me, I have a strange feeling that you didn’t look hard just so you could use that as an excuse to insult me:

      Well no, I didn’t scour the internet for 2 hours with the energy and determination of a bloodhound on the scent 😉
      I did invest a good half hour to dig through Google and Bing results, weeding through blog posts and clickbait in search of a reasonable news source.

      The one I found at last happens to be the same that YMMV posted – the Swedish original. You’ll forgive me if I dismiss Breitbart on the same grounds I dismiss Occupy Democrats and Natural News – apart from their heavy bias and penchant for cockamamie conspiracy theories, they play fast and loose with the facts on a regular basis. It gives me migraines.

      (Concerning facts: I googled the exact words YMMV suggested, and got 1760 results. Were the 17,000 a typo? Among the top ten results were Breitbart, Infowars, newnationalist, jihadwatch, and my personal favorite, Daily Stormer. I sense a theme, but I see no reliable, verifiable, independent, factual, unemotional, reporting of what actually happened. I want to know what happened, not opinions, blogs, clickbait.
      Thus, the Swedish article. It is disappointingly brief, but has the unrivaled virtue that it sticks to the facts as known at the time. And, as I mentioned above, there is no indication of any conviction, any serious consequences for the lady in question. I spent another half hour trying to locate a follow up, find out what happened to her. Dug through more Swedish outlets, despite my abysmal skills in that language. Even searched for the original facebook screenshot. No luck. So I repeat my honest request: If anyone knows what happened to her, has any reliable information, I’d appreciate it.)

      I tell the truth as best I know how.

      This, at least, we have in common, then.

      You may not be familiar with folks like me. I can assure you, honest men such as myself don’t appreciate nasty attacks on our honesty from someone who doesn’t have the albondigas to even sign their own words …

      I questioned your source, not your good faith in using it. I’ll gladly apologize if my phrasing was unintentionally ruffling your feathers, but I stand by my assertion that as best as I can tell with the information available to me now your source doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

      As for the albondigas (great usage of the word by the way) – there’s a reason for that. Not that anyone should have to justify a personal choice, especially in the age of cyberbullying.

      In Britain they arrest nine people per day under the 2003 hate speech law making it illegal to “annoy” anyone on the web.

      Again, I’m having some small trouble with your source. I’m vaguely familiar with the Communications Act in the UK, and I think it’s one of the ‘overboard’ examples mentioned in my earlier post. Even if the road to hell was paved with good intentions here, being as it was meant to “…tackle online harassment, stalking and repeated ‘trolling’..” (Source: Dailymail.uk, legislation.gov.uk).

      A man teaching his dog to do a ‘Sieg Heil’ salute after he says “gas the Jews’ is in horribly bad taste (Source: Dailymail.uk), but being an American I’d probably just thank him for outing himself as a right bastard rather than send the Bobbies to take away his tea and crumpets. But it’s up to the Brits how they want to deal with this kind of thing.
      I might shake my head at their pouring out the baby with the water and then tossing the tub … but I’m suspicious of claims that it’s a horrible conspiracy to suppress the truth.

      Atrocities are fine, I guess, but telling people about the atrocities can get you busted … and you find this not horrible in the slightest, just common-sense …

      This is where I think you misunderstood me again, possibly on account of ruffled feathers.

      No, atrocities are not fine. I could take umbrage at the suggestion you think I feel otherwise, but then we’d really have feathers flying. So, I choose to not take this as a personal insult.
      Reporting atrocities is not just fine but necessary, even and especially in the face of opposition.

      If, and I say if because if you’re brutally honest you’ll concede neither of us knows for sure (unless you have information I lack), the old lady in your example was punished for accurately telling about vandalizing migrants, that’s not just stupid but plain dangerous to a functioning democracy.
      But knowing the Swedes a bit and given the scarcity of solid information, I am reasonably sure there’s more to the story.

      As for Madame Le Pen – I have no issue with her publishing the photos, though I’d appreciate a “not safe for children” warning for such content (different issue altogether, I know). My beef, and I’m guessing I’m not alone with that opinion, is that she uses the suffering of ISIS victims for her political agenda, and that said agenda does so like to pour gasoline on a flaming heap of dung. Not helpful. Not doing a blasted thing to confront and combat the real danger.

      Yes, I’d like some common sense in addition to reliable, reasonable information. I’d like the ISIS butchers being confronted directly and effectively, instead of politicians courting votes by making people afraid of their own shadows. Or worse, turning neighbors against each other in their frenzied carpet bombing.

      How can you believe it’s OK to bust granny for telling the truth?

      I don’t. If that is what happened.
      I’m not sure we have all the facts.

      How can you think that arresting people because they are annoying is just fine?

      I don’t.

      Though there are days when I would gladly advocate a legally prescribed “swear jar” of sorts, where people who act like right sons of female canines are visited by the cops to pay a hefty fine. I’ll take “Kill the Jews” for $500, Alex.
      Alternately, I’d propose a granny squadron to wash out mouths with soap.
      What, I can dream, cant I? …

      Lacking jars and soap I’d settle for some healthy suspicion and inquisitive minds seeking facts where grandiose claims of mass arrests for silly infractions are concerned, and a bit of aplomb in discussing controversial issues.

      Like

      • Thanks for the reply, shirrael. Your defense of those laws leaves me dumbfounded. You say that allowing demagogs to speak freely is a huge danger to society. And when I point out that that can’t be true, we’ve had freedom of speech without extermination camps, your counter-example is the temporary Japanese internments during WWII … seriously? You’re claiming that we interned the Japanese because of freedom of speech? Say what? You’ll have to explain to me how that works.

        Then you claim that the story of the woman in Sweden is not believable. Not because of any real reason, but because you don’t like where it was published … dude, a simple google search finds over 70,000 articles on the subject, take your pick, but stop the nit-picking.

        You raise the same objection to the statement that 9 people per day are busted in the UK under the 2003 law, you don’t like the source. But again, you can get the same info all over the web. Here’s the London Times on the subject, are they good enough for you?

        So I’m sorry, but you don’t get to airily wave your hands and claim that things you don’t like aren’t true. There are multiple sources for both stories … and those are a mere two of the hundreds of similar stories.

        Next, after saying:

        Is the situation as horrible and common-sense defying as I keep hearing and reading in (mostly) American outlets and blogs? Hardly.

        you took umbrage at my pointing out that Marine Le Pen was busted for showing photos of ISIS atrocities. Now you say that busting her is, in fact, horrible and common-sense defying … please make up your mind, I’m having a hard time with the high-speed 180° turns.

        Finally, those are just two of the many, many stories of the misuse of “hate speech” laws in Europe. Look at what happened to Geert Wilders … oh, wait, you don’t believe anything but what you want to. However, read about Geert, you might find that the unbelievable actually happens. And in Spain, the “hate speech” laws are working just as intended, protecting the government from its political opponents. Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, Beatrix von Storch, all opponents of their respective governments, all busted under “hate speech” laws. Coincidence? You be the judge.

        I don’t get it. Please tell me, why do you approve of “hate speech” laws? And please tell me how to define “hate speech” so I’ll know it when I see it. Because here in the US, there is no such thing as “hate speech”, it is a non-existent crime.

        Thanks for your comments and thoughts,

        w.

        PS—See also my post on “Bright Line Distinctions“, and “Orthodox Hate Speech“.

        Like

      • “We didn’t end up setting up extermination camps … the problem was not the speech dripping with hate. The problem was the Germans were dripping with hate.”

        Who is “we”? The problem was some Germans were dripping with hate and the rest of them went along with it. There weren’t even that many Jews in Germany. And it wasn’t just the Germans, the French didn’t come out smelling so good either, and the same for lots of other countries.

        Camps were set up for the Japanese, but not for Germans. Racist? Or just easier? Justified or not, the Japanese in them were not treated as humanely as they should have been.

        BTW, the word “concentration camp” originated with the British in South Africa during the Boer War. The Boers were doing guerrilla warfare against the British who were still lining up in red coats like toy soldiers. Kitchener responded by rounding up all the Boer women and children and starving them to death. I’ve expressed this too brutally, but in fact it was brutal.

        “Concerning facts: I googled the exact words YMMV suggested, and got 1760 results. Were the 17,000 a typo?”
        No, it was not a typo, not that I trust that number. Google hits depend on your search history, perhaps on where you are, and who knows what else. It’s a mystery or trade secret.

        “Thus, the Swedish article. It is disappointingly brief, but has the unrivaled virtue that it sticks to the facts as known at the time. And, as I mentioned above, there is no indication of any conviction, any serious consequences for the lady in question. I spent another half hour trying to locate a follow up, find out what happened to her. Dug through more Swedish outlets, despite my abysmal skills in that language. Even searched for the original facebook screenshot. No luck. So I repeat my honest request: If anyone knows what happened to her, has any reliable information, I’d appreciate it.”

        Disappointingly brief, true. I wonder why that is? No outrage expressed. Does that mean it’s too much “dog bites man” news for Sweden? And they never identify the person, so that it makes it very hard to search for old and new information about a particular case. This case is probably still in the works. The Facebook screen shot wouldn’t be shown, because that would be a crime too. If you want generalities, yes they do get convicted, sometimes a fine, sometimes jail. Some of the “insults” I wouldn’t repeat, others are PG, some are just G rated. There are lots of them:
        http://www.dt.se/taggat/Hets%20mot%20folkgrupp

        There are better ways of dealing with “hate speech” than laws and the “justice” system. It’s an “easy” solution to a hard problem. Hate speech laws don’t work and they are probably even counterproductive.
        Hate speech laws are a use of overwhelming force (rather than persuasion), more fascist than liberal.

        The expert on hate speech laws is Mark Steyn; his blog is worth following.
        https://www.steynonline.com

        Like

        • Hello YMMV,

          First of all sorry for the confusion – the initial quote was by Willis, I simply had forgotten to put it in italics. Which doesn’t mean your response doesn’t make sense, we’ve just muddled the context a bit.

          Yes, the Germans were using their Jewish population as a scapegoat (one among many), and if we went into the roots of that hatred we’d probably be having a fantastic debate but we’d be at it for weeks o_O
          Just as they didn’t go ‘only’ after their own Jews, but the ones in every country they occupied. But again, a tangent.

          The point was that old Adolf and his ilk used an already present sentiment and distilled it, if you will. Took the scattered forces of hate, focused them, and then lit the match. And it was done with words. With speeches, books, pamphlets. The Nazis knew and used the power of words. If words didn’t hurt them, why did the White Rose kids have to die?

          It’s why today’s Germans are so jumpy about the subject and why (as actual natives have explained to me, often in fascinating detail) they have those laws. Are they all in full agreement? Of course not. Am I in full agreement? Hell to the no.
          But I understand. Or try to.
          And I certainly don’t go and tell my German, Danish or Swedish friends that the American way is the solution to all their woes.

          Racist? Or just easier?

          My guess would be a mix of both. Combined with the root of the problem, which was fear. Japan had actually attacked us. The Germans were not only more familiar and thus less scary to the European dominated US, they also rather had their hands full already. Fueled by rhetoric, this fear did great damage. To actual people, and to us as a nation.

          BTW, the word “concentration camp” originated with the British in South Africa during the Boer War.

          I believe I’ve read that before, but I didn’t remember the Boer connection. Thank you for elaborating!

          Google hits depend on your search history, perhaps on where you are, and who knows what else

          That makes sense. It was the similarity in numbers that caused me to wonder.

          Disappointingly brief, true. I wonder why that is? No outrage expressed. Does that mean it’s too much “dog bites man” news for Sweden?

          I would sincerely hope that the latter is not the case.

          But I honestly prefer news outlets to leave the outrage out of their reporting and stick to the “What When Where”, possibly with a “Who and How” added. Emotions are for comments and opinions, not for serious news.

          Perhaps I’ve been spoiled by my stay in Europe, where this kind of non-sensational, calm and objective reporting has not quite gone out of style yet. Where the actual events are presented without fuss, and no one tells me what to think, what to be outraged about, what to protest against, what I should deem important and what fake. Just the facts, ma’am, thank you. I’ll make up my own mind.

          Thus my mistrust for the outlets that run on outrage and find fact-checking a cumbersome and unimportant detail.

          This case is probably still in the works

          A sensible assumption. I’d guess the same, based on what you said and my own failure to find out more.

          Still, based on personal observation in Germany and a passing familiarity with Sweden, I’m also guessing that unless the lady actually spewed dangerous incitements to violence, not much will come of it. “Much ado about a Nothingburger” as it were.

          I’m rather more concerned about some of the other cases (thank you for the link, BTW. I had come across the Oredsson case, but not some of the others).
          There are several instances of the “Baby-bathwater” situation. Words, ironically, being given undeserved power in an attempt to douse the flames. The exact thing that our 1st Amendment tries to prevent by creating a level field.

          There are better ways of dealing with “hate speech” than laws and the “justice” system. It’s an “easy” solution to a hard problem.

          I’m with you on the “Better Ways” part. Though I’ll be damned if I know what those might be 😛
          I also agree there is no easy solution, and that running to the courts for every perceived slight is not merely beyond silly, it can be dangerous (though we Americans do so love to trouble our courts because – who knew! -coffee is hot…)

          The issue I think is “Where do we draw the line?”
          Denying that words have power, that they can do real harm, is just as unreasonable as demanding censorship for rudeness and pure stupidity.

          The right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, but what if I convinced my friend to break your nose because you’re a mean hateful being who stole my lollipop? Am I less culpable than him? More? Should the judge just dismiss my role in the matter because of Free Speech?

          Hate speech laws are a use of overwhelming force (rather than persuasion), more fascist than liberal.

          Fascist might be a strong word in this context, but I get your drift. The danger of censorship is no less real than the danger of hate preachers.

          And with my back against the wall, I’d defend the rights even of a bastard calling for the extermination of other humans rather than accept censorship. Doesn’t mean I’d like it. Doesn’t mean I’ll condemn the Germans and the Swedes and whoever else feels otherwise.

          The expert on hate speech laws is Mark Steyn;

          I’m familiar with him, though not in-depth. I’ll check out the link, see what I can see 😉

          Like

        • @YMMV
          “Camps were set up for the Japanese, but not for Germans.”

          Actually, not true. Here’s the Wikipedia article but there are 150,000 reference from google. The US even interned nationals from the Axis countries from Latin America. Ironically, the Japanese in Hawaii were not interned. Just too many of them and they were integral to the economy there. The West coast is a different story since laws were even passed limiting Japanese immigrationprior to the war.

          Like

        • Bear, thanks for the camps info. You learn something new everyday … but I didn’t expect that.
          shiarrael, you are right, words are power. “In the beginning was the word”, just to quote one example.

          The issue I think is “Where do we draw the line?”

          Good question. What if no line can be drawn, bright or otherwise? Well, anybody can draw a line, but there is no one line that will satisfy everybody, possibly not even satisfy a majority of reasonable men (and women).

          The line used to be drawn on actions, not words, not thoughts.

          Historical reference: “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” or maybe the king said “What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?”. In any case, nudge nudge wink wink, and the deed was done.
          In modern times, a good lawyer can always come up with an alternate explanation of any words, making them entirely innocent. Ensuring that some guilty will be freed and some innocent will suffer. The law is a very blunt instrument.

          What the Swedish woman said that got her in trouble could have been said like this: “There are immigrants outside who are violating Swedish laws”. Would that have been as bad? I’m sure there are lots of Swedish pensioners who are offended by the behavior of youths, especially foreign ones, and who go by traditional values, such as “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” and “my house, my rules”.

          Back to racism and the truth. We’ve touched on “truth”, now “racism” needs to be examined. There’s a problem. Different races or ethnic groups have different skin, hair, and other visual differences. No doubt there are invisible differences too, differences which could be advantages in certain circumstances, and also differences which could make no difference. But those different groups also have different cultures, traditions, religions, morals, attitudes, etc. Those things can be very important, but I would say talking about those cultural differences is not racism. Even on Facebook.

          Like

  16. Hi Willis. A thought provoking article, as always.

    I totally agree that it is not racist to talk about how some aspects of the Muslim faith are practiced around the world. People are way too quick to throw the word “racist” around. As a result, no-go areas for political debate have developed, and the word racist has become devalued, imho.

    A few of points of detail from your post.

    You say, “The UK libel law is very, very different from the US version. In the US, truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel. If you are telling the truth you cannot be charged with libel … but in the UK, that’s not the way it works. You can be put in jail for telling the truth.”

    Speaking narrowly about libel and truth as a defence, no. In the UK, the Defamation Act 2013 (which covers libel) has a section on Defences. The first of these says his that:

    “It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.”

    See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted

    Also, defamation in the UK is a civil matter, not criminal. As such you cannot be imprisoned for it. You can be “taken to the cleaners” in damages, though.

    You also reference a “United Kingdom 2003 “hate speech” law”. I don’t think we actually have one of those.

    The nearest one that I can find to that description is the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. This says that ,”A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.” The bit about intent is obviously a very important caveat.

    Another alternative is the Communications Act 2003. This includes in para 127 that, “A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he— (a)
    sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false, (b)
    causes such a message to be sent; or (c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network”. Again, the intent element (“for the purpose”) is important.

    So maybe our (UK) laws aren’t quite as daft as you thought. Well at least in this respect. I make no comment on the rest of Europe’s laws. Trying to keep track of ours is bad enough.

    Anyway, that’s enough from a very chilly London (by our standards). Keep up the good work,

    Cheers

    Keith

    Like

    • After I wrote my first contribution I had a nagging feeling that there was another aspect to UK law which I hadn’t referenced, and there is. It is whether an offence is racially aggravated. And the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is involved in this.

      I have just found a very good summary of the current UK criminal legislation on racist behaviour by the Crown Prosecution Service. This explains things much better than I can. See https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance#a06

      Cheers

      Like

    • Thanks, Keith, but saying that truth is “a defense” against a charge of defamation is very, very different from it being an absolute defense against such a charge. Also it invokes a most bizarre idea which is that something can be “substantially true” … WTF does that mean? How does “substantially true” differ from “somewhat true” or from “partly true”? I DESPISE this kind of candy-assed waffling language in laws … where is the bright line as to what’s what?

      And yes, I was speaking of the Communications Act 2003 making it against the law for someone to annoy someone. You say it only effects someone who does that “on purpose” …

      Please explain to me how you can prove that I annoyed someone on purpose? Suppose that I say to someone “You’re a con man!” … am I saying that to annoy them, or am I making a simple statement designed to protect others? Before answering, remember that they are arresting NINE PEOPLE PER DAY under this most Kafkaesque of laws.

      And please explain how you define “annoyance”. I ask because I’ve seen people not just get annoyed but totally lose the plot in annoyance over some trivial bullshit … these days there is what I call the “professionally offended class” whose job is to get annoyed by everything and anything.

      Finally, please explain why somebody or other getting annoyed is worth throwing someone in jail over? EVERYBODY GETS ANNOYED, how on earth can this be a crime? Do you truly believe that this is a good use of scarce police resources?

      I find this kind of vaguely defined so-called “crime” to be a tragic joke, and I’m amazed that Brits put up with this kind of shoddy lawmaking.

      Thanks for the London view.

      w.

      Like

      • Hi Willis

        Totally agree about the language used in laws. Laws should be written so that people have certainty whether their actions are legal or not. Maybe the problem is that laws are written by lawyers for lawyers?

        I am personally relaxed about the “substantially true” in this particular context. If you didn’t have substantially or similar as a qualifier, then the allegedly defamatory statement(s) would have to be entirely true in all respects to be a defence. In this instance “substantially” works for free speech and against people suing for libel.

        I was also surprised about “annoy”. This really is too low a threshold for the reasons you gave. In practice, however, things are better because of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is fully incorporated into UK law. This states that, “”Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers …”. According to the CPS, “Accordingly, no prosecution should be brought under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (Category 4 cases) unless it can be shown on its own facts and merits to be both necessary and proportionate.” Of course it would be much better if the Communications Act were amended to be compliant with Article 10.

        Why do we put up with this? I guess because it generally works, somehow, so few people are concerned. And no, that really isn’t good enough. Also, I suspect that very few people read the laws themselves. At least UK law is now online and freely accessible, rather than being effectively the private preserve of lawyers, which should help in time.

        Cheers

        Keith

        Like

        • Thanks, Keith, good points all. My only concern was with the claim that:

          “According to the CPS, “Accordingly, no prosecution should be brought under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (Category 4 cases) unless it can be shown on its own facts and merits to be both necessary and proportionate.”

          There are nine people PER DAY being done under the Communications Act 2003 and I have a huge difficulty believing that all of those are “necessary and proportionate” …

          My best to you,

          w.

          Like

  17. Google “A 70-year-old Swedish woman in Dalarna is being prosecuted for hate speech” and get 17,000 results. Including
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/14/pensioner-charged-migrants-burning-cars/

    which then leads to the original newsreport, in Swedish:
    http://www.dt.se/blaljus/brott/kvinna-atalas-for-hets-mot-folkgrupp-efter-inlagg-pa-facebook

    “I inlägget ska kvinnan ha uttalat sig nedsättande och påstått att människor av utländsk härkomst “eldar upp bilar och kissar och bajsar på gatorna”.”

    You can use Google to translate that, but the English translation above is mostly good enough.
    Instead of ‘migrants’, a more literal translation of “människor av utländsk härkomst” would be “people of foreign descent/origin/ancestry”, but then using “migrants” is probably better.

    The “facts” in this case are in a screenshot of a Facebook page.

    With all the Bad Things “migrants” are doing in Sweden recently, look for lots more of these cases.
    This case is from early July 2015 in Vansbro. Actually, there already are many more (in Swedish):
    https://www.flashback.org/p63336393

    Like

  18. Having lived in Europe for a little less than a Decade, I can say that there is still an undercurrent of of anti-semitism in Germany, France, and other countries. The French say “Les Juif”, the Germans “Die Juden,” and all too frequently not in a pleasant tone. That tone is now used more frequently for the muslim migrants, and you can see much of the EU reaching a boiling point – not in the politicos, but in the populous. In the past, these kinds of situations haven’t worked out well for the upper casts.

    Like

  19. As a Dutchman, I’d like to give a little context on the original subject.

    The local elections are just for city council. The folks who can vote are: The Dutch, EU citizens, or those with another passport *and at least 5 years legally in the Netherlands* (source: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/verkiezingen/vraag-en-antwoord/wanneer-mag-ik-stemmen-bij-verkiezingen , in Dutch).

    Those folks all have to pay (local) taxes, so why wouldn’t they be allowed to vote? In fact, given that they also pay national taxes, one could argue that it’s actually unfair that they can’t vote nationally. (This goes also for the EU citizens resident in NL, somewhat surprisingly).

    Am I afraid of the stuff you’re describing? Not really. None of the parties that anyone can actually vote for are even remotely interested in barbaric practises. And in fact, the majority of Muslims in the Netherlands just vote for the regular (mostly left-wing) parties (so no “Muslim parties”).

    Like

    • Thanks for the contribution, Frank. Yes, I understand that Holland is committing political suicide as you so eloquently describe.

      You say you’re not afraid of “hate laws”, so I guess you’re happy with what happened to Geert Wilders. The truth is that “hate speech” laws are designed so that the government of the day can bust basically anyone who disagrees with them … so I would guess that you are NOT a supporter of Wilders.

      Instead, it appears that you’re a man who thinks that it’s OK that the thought police arrest your neighbor, because you’re serene in your belief that they’ll never come for you … good luck with that. You think that feeding the alligator is a good plan, but it just means you’ll be eaten last …

      Next, the fact that someone “pays taxes” is far, far from enough justification to give them the vote. I lived for nine years in Fiji and paid local taxes. But if you think that gave me enough knowledge of Fijian customs, traditions, and laws to vote, you don’t understand Fiji … allowing me to vote would have been an insult and likely caused damage to actual citizens of Fiji.

      Finally, why should a temporary overseas visitor like myself in Fiji be allowed to vote on things that will affect those who live there for the rest of their lives, but that I can walk away from? Makes no sense at all.

      Man, I’m starting to see why the power of Europe and European thought is in such decline … you’re willing to let any random dickhead who doesn’t speak your language, doesn’t understand your fears and desires, and knows nothing of your customs to vote in your elections.

      Like I said, political suicide …

      w.

      Like

      • First off: I tried (but evidently failed) to make clear I was commenting on the voting subject, and what effect it could have to let non-residents vote. None of what I wrote was supposed to pertain to “hate speech” laws, which is a different subject altogether.

        I respect your opinion on voting in Fiji, because indeed what little I do know of Fiji is from your posts. However, if “understanding customs, traditions and voting laws”, to a higher degree than you know the Fiji customs (which I think is actually pretty high), are all supposed to be requirements, I’m sure that quite a number of American citizens would also not be allowed to vote. And to put your argument in historic perspective: how many Americans know about the Native American customs?

        By the way, Holland does in fact require learning the language, history and culture for those seeking a resident status (“inburgeringsexamen”), so your argument is mostly moot.

        As to the walking away argument, those that seek a resident status are normally here to stay. If they weren’t, there would only be less reason to fear their influence on our society. Moreover, I myself can walk away at any time as well; should I lose my voting rights if I’m thinking of emigrating?

        Although I do think that immigration is a problem in our over-populated little country (and a better solution is to help people in the region that they come from), treating the ones that were legally admitted as second-class citizens is not the right thing to do. Yes, they might have an influence on our society, but as the Buddhists say: nothing is permanent.

        Like

      • As to the hate speech subject, although I am not a Wilders supporter, and I didn’t *like* that he (indirectly) called for “less Moroccans” in our country, I do not think he should have been prosecuted for this. I am therefore content that the court, while finding Wilders guilty of “insulting and inciting discrimination against the Moroccans as a group”, did not sentence Wilders to any punative measures.

        Like

        • Frank de Jong February 28, 2018 at 3:51 am

          As to the hate speech subject, although I am not a Wilders supporter, and I didn’t *like* that he (indirectly) called for “less Moroccans” in our country, I do not think he should have been prosecuted for this. I am therefore content that the court, while finding Wilders guilty of “insulting and inciting discrimination against the Moroccans as a group”, did not sentence Wilders to any punative measures.

          I see. You’re perfectly content with someone being arrested, booked, and indicted for an imaginary crime, having his life turned upside down, and being pilloried in public for doing well … nothing … as long as after months of public harassment and abuse, they didn’t throw him in jail.

          Got it … you’re obviously a man of deep compassion for the troubles of others.

          You’re content that someone got screwed over, as long as they didn’t screw him over to the fullest extent. Care to guess how bizarre that point of view looks from this side of the pond?

          I’m sorry to be so harsh, Frank, but y’all have a 250-year example of how allowing the citizens freedom of speech just strengthens the country. You are studiously avoiding the elephant in the room. The US is not nasty and vindictive about people speaking their minds freely like you guys are. You’re content that Wilders got done, and for what?

          Have the hate speech laws prevented the continued existence of neo-nazi and skinhead groups in Europe? Don’t make me laugh. Have they caused the citizens to get along better? Have they reduced internal friction? Please … do you think that arresting Wilders caused people to suddenly feel better about Moroccans, or just pissed a lot of people off?

          And where is the upside? Where are all the scientific studies that show that arresting people for what they say improves your society in any way?

          The problem is that you don’t trust your citizens to make up their own minds as to other people’s ideas. And I gotta say … after hearing your ideas on the subject, I can see why … but that still doesn’t make it right. What is there about freedom of speech that scares you so much?

          w.

          Like

          • “You’re perfectly content with someone being arrested, booked, and indicted for an imaginary crime, having his life turned upside down, and being pilloried in public for doing well … nothing … as long as after months of public harassment and abuse, they didn’t throw him in jail.”

            Err no? I said I think he should NOT have been prosecuted and that I was content that the court did NOT sentence him to any punitive measures.

            Like

          • Frank? If you are against removing muslims from you country you ARE the problem. They are simply using their anti-human ideology to f*ck you, if you can’t see that you deserve what happens to you.

            Like

          • Frank de Jong February 28, 2018 at 10:43 am

            “You’re perfectly content with someone being arrested, booked, and indicted for an imaginary crime, having his life turned upside down, and being pilloried in public for doing well … nothing … as long as after months of public harassment and abuse, they didn’t throw him in jail.”

            Err no? I said I think he should NOT have been prosecuted and that I was content that the court did NOT sentence him to any punitive measures.

            Thanks, Frank, but it seems you miss my point. As you say, you didn’t want him prosecuted, but you didn’t say ONE DAMN WORD about him being “arrested, booked, and indicted for an imaginary crime, having his life turned upside down, and being pilloried in public for doing well … nothing”.

            You seem perfectly fine with that, you’re just glad he wasn’t prosecuted … in fact HE WAS PROSECUTED AND FOUND GUILTY! And Al Jazeera couldn’t contain their happiness at the outcome, check out their coverage of the guilty verdict … they’re laughing at you Dutch suckers all the way to the bank. You’re doing their bidding, my friend …

            Here’s the real problem, Frank. The hate speech laws keep people from asking the important questions. For example, Wilders had his life turned to shit with your tacit approval because he asked:

            “Do you want more or less Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?”

            … that’s some dangerous, dangerous hate speech there all right, you wouldn’t want children listening to that kind of virulent rampant hatred … wait, what? Do you see what I mean about how vague laws allow ANYTHING to be prosecuted?

            Now to me, that’s a very important question for any country—what kind, quantity, and type of people do you want to allow into the country? After all, you the taxpayer will be expected to pick up the bill for these people, they come with a cost to society. And they will be affecting the social and political life of your country into the future. Isn’t that worth discussing?

            But instead of thanking Wilders for engaging with this most important issue, you’ve charged him with a crime and shut down all discussion of the subject.

            Brilliant work, Frank! You’ve just prevented your politicians from asking very, very important questions, questions that affect the future of your country. Now, you’ve backed yourself into a corner where ANY questions about immigration are suspect.

            Do you see how your political correctness is really political suicide? You’re forcing yourselves to ignore all kinds of information about potential immigrants to preserve their (and your) tender feelings.

            Like I said … no surprise that Europe’s star is dimming—you’re killing yourselves with this stupidity while your enemies laugh themselves silly at your foolishness.

            Best regards,

            w.

            Like

          • Willis said:

            “Thanks, Frank, but it seems you miss my point. As you say, you didn’t want him prosecuted, but you didn’t say ONE DAMN WORD about him being “arrested, booked, and indicted for an imaginary crime, having his life turned upside down, and being pilloried in public for doing well … nothing”.

            You seem perfectly fine with that, you’re just glad he wasn’t prosecuted … in fact HE WAS PROSECUTED AND FOUND GUILTY! And Al Jazeera couldn’t contain their happiness at the outcome, check out their coverage of the guilty verdict … they’re laughing at you Dutch suckers all the way to the bank. You’re doing their bidding, my friend …”

            Err, this is getting awkward now, especially since you are always reminding people that they should respond to what has actually been said. You say “You’re just glad he wasn’t prosecuted”, while I said, twice now, he shouldn’t have been. Wut?

            Furthermore, why would I have to explain that apart from being against the prosecution, I was also against the arrest, booking, etc.etc.? Come on, you can’t be serious? Have you ever heard someone say: this guy should be arrested for X, but he should not be prosecuted. Seriously?

            On a side note, and I might be wrong, but I actually think he was in fact never “booked and arrested”, as the DA only indicted him 9 months after the speech and the court case started 2 years (!) after the speech.

            Honestly, I don’t get why I (and all my fellow “Dutch suckers”) am getting attacked here, while I was actually just agreeing with you to a pretty large degree.

            Anyway, I’ll just refrain from commenting here from now on. Thanks anyway for your entertaining tales and interesting climate work.

            Like

          • Frank de Jong March 3, 2018 at 10:42 am

            Willis said:

            “Thanks, Frank, but it seems you miss my point. As you say, you didn’t want him prosecuted, but you didn’t say ONE DAMN WORD about him being “arrested, booked, and indicted for an imaginary crime, having his life turned upside down, and being pilloried in public for doing well … nothing”.

            You seem perfectly fine with that, you’re just glad he wasn’t prosecuted … in fact HE WAS PROSECUTED AND FOUND GUILTY! And Al Jazeera couldn’t contain their happiness at the outcome, check out their coverage of the guilty verdict … they’re laughing at you Dutch suckers all the way to the bank. You’re doing their bidding, my friend …”

            Err, this is getting awkward now, especially since you are always reminding people that they should respond to what has actually been said. You say “You’re just glad he wasn’t prosecuted”, while I said, twice now, he shouldn’t have been. Wut?

            Frank, my apologies for my misunderstanding. However, what you actually said was:

            As to the hate speech subject, although I am not a Wilders supporter, and I didn’t *like* that he (indirectly) called for “less Moroccans” in our country, I do not think he should have been prosecuted for this. I am therefore content that the court, while finding Wilders guilty of “insulting and inciting discrimination against the Moroccans as a group”, did not sentence Wilders to any punative measures.

            While I feel bad about the misunderstanding, here’s the problem. When you say that you are content with the fact that a man has been arrested, tried, and found guilty but not punished, I fear you leave yourself open to all kinds of interpretation. One very reasonable interpretation is that you liked the fact that he was arrested, tried and found guilty in order to send a message to others doing the same, but you were glad that he wasn’t personally punished …

            What you did not say, as I pointed out, was that it was a major miscarriage of justice for him to even have the police question him, much less arrest him, and convict him. To the contrary, you said that you were content with the outcome … gotta tell ya, I am not “content” with that outcome in the slightest. A mans life has been turned upside-down, he has been tried and found guilty, and you are “content” with that??!?

            Really?

            Now, you say after my objections that:

            Furthermore, why would I have to explain that apart from being against the prosecution, I was also against the arrest, booking, etc.etc.? Come on, you can’t be serious? Have you ever heard someone say: this guy should be arrested for X, but he should not be prosecuted. Seriously?

            Why would you have to explain? Because you said you were content with the outcome. Why on earth would you be content with that outcome? It is a total miscarriage of justice.

            Now I understand from your latest comment that that was not your meaning, and I accept that … fine, but don’t bust me because I took you at your word. Next time don’t say that you are “content” with a man being screwed over by the government, it’s far too easy to misunderstand your meaning when you say that …

            Honestly, I don’t get why I (and all my fellow “Dutch suckers”) am getting attacked here, while I was actually just agreeing with you to a pretty large degree.

            Since I’m not “content” in even the tiniest measure with what happened to Wilders and the kangaroo-court laws that enabled it, no, near as I can tell you weren’t “agreeing with [me] to a pretty large degree”.

            And why are “Dutch suckers” being attacked? Because you stupidly arrest and persecute people for disagreeing with the government and for asking important but uncomfortable questions … was I somehow not clear about that? The government persecuting people for saying things that the powers that be don’t like is a recipe for national suicide …

            Anyway, I’ll just refrain from commenting here from now on. Thanks anyway for your entertaining tales and interesting climate work.

            Frank, if you want to walk away from the discussion and not continue to contribute and defend your ideas, that’s your right and your choice. But it’s also both your loss and our loss. Every voice is important. I invite you to put all this behind us and to continue to express and explain your ideas.

            My best to you, whichever you choose,

            w.

            Like

          • Alright Willis, I do appreciate the extended hand, so I’ll give it another go.

            I fear my use of the ambiguous word “while” might have been my part in the misunderstanding. I meant it as in “while I hate cheese, I like Gouda”, i.e. as “although” or “even though”. So, concluding, I did not like anything about the process, except for the fact that he did not receive any punishment. I hope we can leave that subject now.

            However, the discussion brings up an interesting question: where *does* the right to say what you want end? Since even the US law makes exceptions to the freedom of speech, e.g. “defamation”, “fighting words”, “inciting crime”,etc.,, it shows that even in the US it’s not a black and white issue. In every case, the rights of the speaker and the spoken-about must be weighed by the judge(s).

            And even though the US judges seem to give more weight to the “freedom” than European judges, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Dutch “stupidly arrest and persecute people for disagreeing with the government and for asking important but uncomfortable questions”. Believe me, there is plenty of room for political discussion in NL, and it happens on the streets, in the media and in parliament. One judgment (currently under appeal) isn’t going to change that.

            Like

  20. Hi Willis, most interesting to read this discussion. I’ve travelled widely in Muslim majority countries and also worked in a couple of them (Morocco and Libya).
    I’m sure you will be horrified to know that one Muslim majority country (Albania, already a NATO member) is starting the process of applying to join the European Union (EU). Bosnia-Herzegovina (currently about 40% Muslim) may follow sometime in the future, but the Muslem sector may first have to split from its federation with the Orthodox Christian (Serb) part.
    You’re right about UK libel laws. It is difficult to defend a libel action started by a wealthy enough plaintiff. The onus is on the defendant to prove the truth of the supposedly libellous statement. This can be impossible when attribution of motive is involved, as in the case of ‘The picture that fooled the world’. https://fbreporter.org/2015/07/12/the-picture-that-fooled-the-world/ Use of this phrase resulted in a libel case which closed down the magazine that printed it. Otherwise the statement is assumed by the court to be false. There have been minor reforms but there’s still a long way to go.
    Re ‘hate speech’: it gets to be a problem when powerful agencies such as governments, major political parties and mass media start using or accepting it. I’m thinking for example of minorities in the UK such such as the long-term disabled or workers from Poland & Lithuania. Ministers of the British government now regard me and people like me as ‘traitors’ because we want to minimise, or reverse, the adverse effects of Brexit. This in itself is a trivial matter, but still worrying. I will not hate to order!

    Like

  21. “During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.”
    https://www.steynonline.com/8242/bray-new-world

    Like

  22. shiarreal, we seem to be getting lost in side issues, so let me ask you a simple question.

    For me, one of the huge problems with these laws is there is no “bright line” to tell me if I’m committing a crime. As someone said, “your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose”. That’s a bright line, you know when you’ve gone over it.

    Now, take the British law making it illegal to “annoy” someone, or other laws saying people can’t “disparage” someone’s religion. At what point does an honest opinion backed by facts become “disparaging” someone?

    The dictionary definition of “disparage” is “regard or represent as being of little worth.” Now many people think that religion itself is of little worth … is that an arrestable crime? How about if I say “People who choose to live on welfare when they could work are of little worth to society”? Indictable?

    And to make things worse, the truth is no defense. Even though it may be possible to factually prove beyond doubt that something is of little value, it is STILL a crime to say it.

    And the law against “annoying” someone? My experience on the web has proven one thing—no matter what I say, someone always gets annoyed.

    That’s the part I’d like you to defend. The problem with these laws is that they are so broad, and so all-encompassing, and so damnably vague, that we all break them all the time. This means that the authorities are free to use them for political ends … and by God, you can bet they’ll do just exactly that. In spades. Why do you think Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen were busted under these laws? They said nothing worse than thousands of others have said, including myself. Do you think they were chosen for persecution prosecution at random?

    So please, I’d like to hear you defend the validity of laws that are so vague that nobody can even tell if they are breaking them or not. A law against “annoying” someone? Get real! I know when I’ve committed theft, or I’m trespassing, but how on earth can I possibly I tell if I’m “annoying” someone in an illegal manner, as opposed to when I’m just being my normal annoying self?

    Thanks for the continuing discussion,

    w.

    Like

  23. There are two types of laws.

    There are garden variety laws, meant for everybody, which are enforced to varying degrees. And also obeyed to varying degrees. If you think that the answer to a problem is more laws, look at how many laws are ignored. The ones against smoking pot for example. I’m always entertained by “do not litter” signs along the highways. The penalties are up to thousands of dollars in some places. Does anyone think that cuts down littering? There are people who don’t smoke pot and there are people who do not litter. My guess is they have other reasons than that it’s against the law.

    Then there are the special laws, the ones few people know about, not even the cops. But if somebody, especially the cops, decides they don’t like you, they will find these laws and use them against you. The fact that many others also break these laws is not a good defence. This is a perfect place for racism to fester.

    Hate speech laws belong in the second category. People may know about them, but what they don’t know is that the speech they thought was innocent can spring the trap on them. There is no yellow flag, no warning tape, no bright line. If there is a line at all, it is constantly moving.

    In today’s news, a singer in Egypt gets 6 months in prison for saying the Nile River is polluted. The Nile may not have been offended, but Egypt was mocked. Welcome to the future.
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/28/egyptian-singer-and-voice-star-sherine-abdel-wahab-sentenced-to-6-months-in-prison-for-nile-river-joke.html

    Throughout history, the theme has been that the state or the king owns you. The US has been the exception, where the state is subservient to the citizens. It made America great. Place your bets on the future. Hate speech laws are on the dark side of the future.

    If you want to get rid of massacres, the knee-jerk reaction is to ban guns. The better reaction is to deal with the psychopaths, which is somewhat easier. For example, in the recent Parkland shooting, there were many hints and clues as to what could happen. Some of those were the murderer’s own words. The words were not the crime. The same thing with hate speech. It’s fair to take note of those who preach hate and follow up as appropriate, but banning “hate speech” is a simple-minded solution which will not work. No more than banning rope and white sheets to get rid of the KKK.

    If you want to punish people, make a law. If you want to change attitudes and behavior, change the culture.

    Like

    • So you agree with me. There has been enormous change in Western culture in the last 70 – 100 years (not so much in the Muslim world), and very little of it was done by changing the laws. The laws did change, and were necessary, but first the culture changed. Women’s rights, race relations, treatment of gays, and so on. Culture moves, and is still moving. Not enough for some, too much for others. Writing down the legal code got us out from under the whims of kings, a good thing. Taken too far, laws too out of step with the culture puts us back under the whims of the state.

      The other side of the coin is letting outsiders change your culture for you. History is full of Muslim examples, but Europe has plenty of its own too. Romans and Celts, Goths and Romans, British Empire, …

      Like

      • “The other side of the coin is letting outsiders change your culture for you. History is full of Muslim examples, but Europe has plenty of its own too. Romans and Celts, Goths and Romans, British Empire, …”
        I’m not clear on the intent of this historical comparison: are you saying, with a relativist view, “Hey, it’s happened loads of times, why not accept it now?”? If that’s the case, here’s the answer: something changed, radically, in Europe first, with the rise of science, the Reformation, the English Revolution (1642 – 1649), the Enlightenment, and the gradual extension of democracy and equal rights for all as citizens, along with limiting the power of religion. This has given unprecedented freedom and security to people regardless of sex, race, ability or sexual preference, as well as unprecedented scientific, technological and economic innovation. It would be a disastrous betrayal and loss to allow this culture to be significantly influenced, or worse, taken over, by the fascist, anti-scientific, anti-semitic, democracy-hating, freedom-hating, gay-killing, girl- and woman- hating and mutilating and killing system of islam.

        Like

      • I’m not clear on the intent of this historical comparison: are you saying, with a relativist view, “Hey, it’s happened loads of times, why not accept it now?”?

        No. It’s happened loads of times, so it could happen again; watch out.
        The rest of your response is very good, so I’ll quote it again:

        If that’s the case, here’s the answer: something changed, radically, in Europe first, with the rise of science, the Reformation, the English Revolution (1642 – 1649), the Enlightenment, and the gradual extension of democracy and equal rights for all as citizens, along with limiting the power of religion. This has given unprecedented freedom and security to people regardless of sex, race, ability or sexual preference, as well as unprecedented scientific, technological and economic innovation. It would be a disastrous betrayal and loss to allow this culture to be significantly influenced, or worse, taken over, by the fascist, anti-scientific, anti-semitic, democracy-hating, freedom-hating, gay-killing, girl- and woman- hating and mutilating and killing system of islam.

        And here’s an American historical example to add to the European sample. When America was “discovered”, it was already populated. The new immigrants proceeded to wipe out some tribes and push the rest into land that they did not covet … yet. Sometimes the line between immigration and conquest is not clear at the time. Or maybe it was then, but now there are many who apparently do not see it. A little diversity and immigration is a good thing, as a general rule; but you can have too much of a good thing.

        Another analogy… say in business … growth is a good thing, but businesses which grow too fast end up in trouble. Too fast, and things get out of control.

        Like

  24. Seems like there may be a problem, depending on your perspective. Merkel lets the cat out of the bag, as if every else didn’t already know. Germany has no-go zones due to migrants or invaders depending on your perspective. Will she be charged for hate speech for finally telling the truth. Or should she be charged for other crimes for refusing to tell the truth?

    Anyway, these no-go zones would be a great place to choose from for other bleeding heart countries to offer diversity to their culture and populace from these wounderful people. Merkel would possibly help with relocation expenses, bless her heart.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/01/angela-merkel-admits-that-no-go-zones-exist-in-germany.html

    Like

  25. I am from across the pond and, for the record, totally agree that developments in Europe are very worrisome, for all the reasons you eloquently state. At the root seems to be a lack of appreciation of and confidence in the value of western civilisation. I don’t know where that came from, but the ‘march through the institutions’, most importantly through the educational systems, of cultural marxism since the 60’s may have a lot to do with it. The SJW themes work very well – muslims are one of the many underprivileged groups. True statements concerning underprivileged groups can very easily be ‘hate speech’. The brainwashing of the population may have gone too far for a return to sanity by democratic means.
    I’m very glad that the USA at least changed tack in the nick of time.

    Like

    • JdJ

      “….. The SJW themes work very well – muslims are one of the many underprivileged groups. True statements concerning underprivileged groups can very easily be ‘hate speech’……”

      ======

      Please cite examples where muslims are underprivileged. There was a recent court award in the US of over $150,000 because arresting agency required females’ Islamic garb be removed for photo/booking with arrest (which I believe was for assault). Underprivileged? As an American I can be arrested for simply wearing a mask in public and I can guarantee you a religious claim will get me nowhere, except probably 30 days.

      Like

    • Jan de Jong March 1, 2018 at 3:36 pm

      True statements concerning underprivileged groups can very easily be ‘hate speech’.

      NO THEY CANNOT! They are TRUE, and therefore they cannot be “hate speech”. That’s just more of the European sickness that is leading to the death of European culture. If I say someone is a bank robber and they ARE a bank robber that cannot be “hate speech”, because it is true.

      w.

      Like

    • I think Jan is making a distinction between hate speech and ‘hate speech’, the first being actual real true hate speech and the second being anything that some snowflake or wanna-be victim says is hate speech, and I would not take his/her/their/its word for it. It would be confusing if it wasn’t that almost all so-called hate speech is in the second category.

      Like

      • YMMV March 2, 2018 at 4:41 pm

        I think Jan is making a distinction between hate speech and ‘hate speech’, the first being actual real true hate speech and the second being anything that some snowflake or wanna-be victim says is hate speech, and I would not take his/her/their/its word for it. It would be confusing if it wasn’t that almost all so-called hate speech is in the second category.

        Thanks, YMMV. I, on the other hand, keep pointing out that in the US, there is nothing in the law called “hate speech”. So I fear that your claim that there is something called “real true hate speech” is simply not true. It does not exist here as a separate category of speech distinct from plain old average everyday speech.

        w.

        Like

      • YMMV’
        What is the difference between pain and “pain”? Words or action, reality or perception, like or dislike, safe or threatened, laughing in a positive/funny sense or laughing as in ridicule, etc., etc…..
        or maybe saying someone is like a snowflake ? What if you said that someone will be brain dead by they time they finish their state education. Would that qualify as a threat on their life?

        Can analogies, metaphors, satire, adabsurd um, simile, etc. be used at risk of not offending the professional offendees (don’t whine about the use of new word)?

        Like

      • “real true hate speech”. We live in a world full of color and many shades of gray, and yet everybody (*) wants to make everything binary or *absolute. On a scale of one to ten, serious calls for genocide I’d give a ten. (Germany, Ruanda). If that isn’t hate speech, legal or not, nothing is. Saying someone is a snowflake, I’d rate a zero. Where does the line go? Ten, five? Attempts to draw that line, especially in a law, are doomed. The law can hardly handle libel and defamation. But they will try, and we won’t like it.

        Can analogies, metaphors, satire, adabsurd um, simile, etc. be used at risk of not offending the professional offendees?

        offendees, good word. The answer is no, and no jokes.

        Like

        • YMMV March 2, 2018 at 11:13 pm Edit

          “real true hate speech”. We live in a world full of color and many shades of gray, and yet everybody (*) wants to make everything binary or *absolute. On a scale of one to ten, serious calls for genocide I’d give a ten. (Germany, Ruanda). If that isn’t hate speech, legal or not, nothing is.

          Nope. It’s not “hate speech”. Instead, it is a very separate, distinct, and well-defined category called “Incitement to Violence”, and it’s spelled out clearly in US law

          Perhaps the most famous argument for limiting First Amendment rights was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s 1919 opinion that even the most stringent free speech protection would not cover a man who deliberately and falsely shouted “fire” in a crowded theater. For Holmes and the unanimous Supreme Court, speech whose aim is to cause violence or damage could be restricted.

          Subsequent decisions tightened the tests for what might be considered incitement to violence. Guidelines spelled out in 1969 added three factors: to be subject to restriction, speech must have the intent and the likelihood of causing imminent violence.

          Note the three-part test—to be subject to restriction the speech must have the INTENT and the LIKELIHOOD of causing IMMEDIATE violence … so merely standing up and calling for genocide is protected speech unless it fulfills those three factors.

          And most speech doesn’t come anywhere near meeting all three of those factors.

          But even if a given speech meets those three criteria, none of that turns it into “hate speech”. You don’t seem to get it. There is no such thing as “hate speech” in US law. It doesn’t exist.

          So yes, despite your claim, it IS binary—either “hate speech” exists under US law or it doesn’t … and it doesn’t. Seems binary to me.

          My best to you and thanks as always for your interesting comments,

          w.

          Like

          • “Incitement to Violence” And there it is. “hate speech” is a construct of leftists used to silence all opposing views.

            Like

          • Oh, I get it. “There is no such thing as “hate speech” in US law.” At this moment. My point is that there is pressure to have such a law, and going by the hate speech laws, existing and proposed, in other countries, that is a bad idea. Like the anti-gun sentiment going around now, pressure like that is hard to resist, it seems so reasonable to the masses…

            Good point about Incitement to Violence.

            So about hate speech, I mean speech filled with hate, that does exist and comes in mild to extreme versions. From people dissing each other to racism to bullying. Take bullying for example, victims often commit suicide, a few other victims go postal. For those not acquainted with that somewhat old phrase, it basically means commit massacres such as school shootings. Hate is dangerous. Maybe there should be a law against it. (sarc)

            Like

          • Social media are not waiting for a hate speech law, or are acting in expectation of a law. For example:

            YouTube
            https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801939?hl=en

            Facebook
            https://www.facebook.com/help/135402139904490?helpref=uf_permalink

            Posted by Facebook Safety on Tuesday, May 28, 2013

            In a way, social media is more powerful than a law; they enforce their policies whereas with laws it’s hit and miss.

            Like

  26. Looks like those who believe in “hate speech” have been successful in persecuting their enemies in France …

    Marine Le Pen faces three years in prison after being charged with tweeting ISIS images
    Far right National Front leader tweeted picture of ISIS beheading James Foley
    Charges came after complaints including from the parents of the US journalist
    She tweeted picture along with caption ‘This Is Daesh’, the Arabic name for ISIS
    Messages sent to journalist whom she accused of likening her party to jihadis

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5450311/Marine-Le-Pen-facing-prison-tweeting-ISIS-images.html

    You Euro guys are preventing discussions of ISIS atrocities … near as I can see, this brilliant plan ONLY helps ISIS. Nobody else is being helped. Again, can anyone defend this?

    w.

    Like

  27. Frank de Jong March 4, 2018 at 5:03 pm

    Alright Willis, I do appreciate the extended hand, so I’ll give it another go.

    And my thanks to you in turn.

    I fear my use of the ambiguous word “while” might have been my part in the misunderstanding. I meant it as in “while I hate cheese, I like Gouda”, i.e. as “although” or “even though”. So, concluding, I did not like anything about the process, except for the fact that he did not receive any punishment. I hope we can leave that subject now.

    Thanks, that’s clear. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

    However, the discussion brings up an interesting question: where *does* the right to say what you want end? Since even the US law makes exceptions to the freedom of speech, e.g. “defamation”, “fighting words”, “inciting crime”,etc.,, it shows that even in the US it’s not a black and white issue. In every case, the rights of the speaker and the spoken-about must be weighed by the judge(s).

    Well, no. In the US the underlying assumption is that you can say any damn thing you please unless it will get people immediately killed or injured. And if you tell lies about people that cause them damage you could face a civil suit.

    That’s pretty black-and-white in my world, particularly since I can count on one hand the times folks have been convicted for incitement to violence.

    And even though the US judges seem to give more weight to the “freedom” than European judges, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Dutch “stupidly arrest and persecute people for disagreeing with the government and for asking important but uncomfortable questions”.

    Sorry, Frank, but when you arrest someone for asking how many immigrants a country should have, you are indeed stupidly arresting and persecuting people for disagreeing with the government and for asking important but uncomfortable questions. Asking about immigration policy is not a “hate crime”, that is a critically vital question for any country to publicly discuss and decide …

    Believe me, there is plenty of room for political discussion in NL, and it happens on the streets, in the media and in parliament. One judgment (currently under appeal) isn’t going to change that.

    Not true in the slightest. As long as those inane and dangerous laws are on the books and are enforced, it has a chilling effect on speech. For example, how many people are publicly asking Geert Wilders’ question about how many immigrants should Holland admit, and what kind should they be? That question has gotten a man’s life turned upside down, and the Dutch citizens are not so foolish as to want to see if they can get away with asking it themselves …

    This, to me, is the main problem with “hate speech” laws—they prevent or discourage the citizens from asking the important questions. Sure, as you say, there is “plenty of room for political discussion in NL, and it happens on the streets, in the media and in parliament” … but in Holland there are also plenty of rooms in that discussion with a big “VERBOTEN” sign on the door.

    I’ll believe that there is room for political discussion in NL when someone stands up in public and asks Geert’s question again … and so far, I’ve seen absolutely no sign of that happening.

    Gosh, I wonder why?

    Meanwhile, in France, Marine Le Pen is facing prison for “hate speech” … and guess what? Just like Geert Wilders, she’s a well-known political opponent of the Government … coincidence?

    Here’s what happened. Someone accused Ms. Le Pen of being just like ISIS. In response she Tweeted photos of ISIS atrocities to point out the difference … and for that heinous crime she was arrested and convicted of “hate speech” …

    I cannot tell you how sick that is, or how damaging it is to public discussion of real issues like ISIS atrocities or immigration questions. EVERYTHING that Le Pen said was absolutely true … but noooo, in France, as in Holland and far too many other countries, truth is way past its use-by date—it’s far too 20th century for anyone to pay attention to or value …

    Instead, we’re all supposed to value the feelz and nothing else, and to be sure not to insult someone or some group for the paltry crime of chopping someone’s head off, that’s “hate speech” and “Islamophobia” …

    Frank, I hope that you are starting to see how bizarre this looks from a country where we can speak our minds freely … I’m truly sorry you don’t live in one.

    My thanks again to you for continuing the conversation,

    w.

    Like

  28. Another European winner …

    “Last year, Peter Springare, 61, a veteran police officer in Orebro, published a furious Facebook post saying violent crimes he was investigating were committed by immigrants from “Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown country, unknown country, Sweden.” It was shared more than 20,000 times; Mr. Springare has since been investigated twice by state prosecutors, once for inciting racial hatred, though neither resulted in charges.”

    Note that all he did was to tell the truth about the perpetrators of the crimes he was investigating …

    w.

    Like

  29. Willis,
    I suspect your Netherland friend felt that it was your *fear* that the Muslims *may* take over the country, and *may* impose Sharia law is the racism they are railing against, not Muslims as people. It sounds like they want to be compassionate but they do not want *fear* of what *may* happen to dictate how they should act as a country. I think in a futile attempt to articulate that it is the *fear* of a Muslim takeover is the racism, he fell into the trap of first, denial of such extreme atrocities in a relatively small portion of the majority Muslim states, and second, failing that, tried to create an equivalency to the atrocities linked to the fighting among Christian religions i.e., Spanish Inquisition, the persecution of Protestants in France, and the persecution of Catholics in England and Scotland centuries ago, and possibly the Green/IRA vs the Orange in Ireland as late as last century.

    In reality, that racist *fear* manifests itself in the USA in the form of, for example, a white crossing the street to avoid a group of young black men, the fear the Mexicans are trying to take over the Western USA, and among blacks that no white is ever to be trusted.

    It is only nature, not only human nature, to divide them from us, the weak from the strong. There’s a pecking order among birds, the killing of bees and ants not belonging to the hive, and all our civilized sports are based on that them vs us natural instinct. Intellectual and absolute compassion is trying to deny nature itself. *Fear* of *them who are not us* against a minority population is racist by definition. I’ve been told minorities cannot be racist for the fact that minority has no power.

    Like

    • fxk,

      your comment made as much sense as jhhgljkhsdlkjhsdflkhsdfb lccb ihciyewriucsdjiujxjdsjzs, sjkhdhsh dfmuyeduydfsb dfslkuidfui

      Like

    • fxk March 5, 2018 at 8:46 am

      Willis,
      I suspect your Netherland friend felt that it was your *fear* that the Muslims *may* take over the country, and *may* impose Sharia law is the racism they are railing against, not Muslims as people. It sounds like they want to be compassionate but they do not want *fear* of what *may* happen to dictate how they should act as a country.

      Possible, although if that is the case, it’s dumb as a bag of ball bearings. Why should we not consider our fear of what might happen if we open the Muslim floodgates, given that the fear of Islam is perfectly reasonable and is totally historically justified? All the Netherland folk have to do is look around them to see the amount of joy, social progress, and general happiness that has accompanied the Muslim infiltration of European societies …

      In reality, that racist *fear* manifests itself in the USA in the form of, for example, a white crossing the street to avoid a group of young black men, the fear the Mexicans are trying to take over the Western USA, and among blacks that no white is ever to be trusted.

      Whoa, whoa. Again you fail to distinguish between racism and valid concern. In a country where young black men commit crimes at a rate far, far above the rates of the general population, crossing the street may be a perfectly valid response to a correct judgment of the odds of an attack. Fear is your friend, honed over millions of years of evolution … ignore it at your peril.

      I am SOOOO tired of valid concerns being airily dismissed as “racism”. Islam has come very close to taking over the whole planet in the past. It is a violent “religion” which lays the duty of “holy war” on its adherents, kills people who try to leave the religion, has no problem killing those of other religions, keeps captured female civilians as sex slaves, executes women for the heinous crime of being raped, and buries women up to the neck and stones them to death.

      And if you are not afraid of that charming ideology, you’re not following the story, and that’s an amazing move of deliberate blindness.

      “Racism”, my okole …

      w.

      Like

      • In a country where young black men commit crimes at a rate far, far above the rates of the general population, crossing the street may be a perfectly valid response to a correct judgment of the odds of an attack.

        Exactly. Even Jesse Jackson said: “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved….. ”

        I am SOOOO tired of valid concerns being airily dismissed as “racism”. “

        The term is just thrown around to cow the opponent the same way fascist is. The left has become adept at twisting language to stop discussion. If you say you’re opposed to quotas they’ll claim your against affirmative action and you’re racist even if you just don’t like quotas. They’ve also decided that minorities “can’t be racist” because they don’t have power. Didn’t know that was part of the dictionary definition. I wonder how they’ll spin what’s going on in South Africa right now with black Africans oppressing white Africans.

        Part of the problem with Islam is that it covers many people who call themselves Muslims but know little or nothing about the religion they profess. Similar to say a person who is Catholic but doesn’t go to mass, doesn’t understand the theological meaning of “blood and body of Christ” and uses birth control. People point to these when they refer to Islam but they’re really only Muslim in name only or just superficially so. Islam was founded by a warlord so it’s very easy to find support for violence and conquest. Supposedly there were only 10,000 brown shirts and 100,000 Bolsheviks when they took over. With a billion Muslims if even 1% are radicals thats 10 million fanatics.

        Like

        • Dingdingding!! We have a winner! Especially seeing as the 1% are financially, materially and ideologically supported by the other 99%. The founding of islam was predicated upon taking what their neighbors had, by force, and killing said neighbors. Those not killed were taken as slaves, up until the rest of the neighbors got their fill of it and fought back. The entirety of a culture/society does not have to participate in the crimes committed in its name, only a tiny percentage is needed. Nazi German is the clearest example of that, Pol Pot in Cambodia is yet another, and lets not forget the Central Africa genocides of the last 30-40 years.

          islam is drenched in blood throughout its existence. Anyone who refuses to accept reality deserves what they are going to get at the hands of muslims.

          Like

  30. I believe it was Germany where an old man from his balcony was observing terrorists in the act of killing and wounding people. He yelled at them and used some insults. He was investigated–not sure what happened to him–for hate speech.
    Given the history of Germany, I can understand a little more why they are afraid to let hate speech get out of control, but England and France have no excuse for going so bonkers. People trying to stop the grooming of children in Rothamsted (sp?) were arrested for hate speech. The blurring of photos of criminals sure makes it hard to arrest them, eh?
    As to online: anyone can be annoyed about anything and therefore everyone who speaks is in danger of a complaint–of course they don’t arrest those calling for death to Jews or for riots against speakers at a campus or death to white people or men. It is just a wee bit lopsided.

    Like

    • The city that’s most notorious for muslim grooming / rape gangs and years of inaction by authorities is Rotherham, but there are more.

      Like

  31. Here’s the latest moonbattery from Sweden …

    A 32-year-old woman from Gothenburg could be locked up for 2 years after making some Facebook jokes about Islam, Swedish newspaper Friatider reports.

    According to police reports, the woman is charged with “talking in a negative or threatening way about a group of people” after she posted cartoons about Islam on Facebook.

    You want cartoons of Islam? Here are mine, at the end of that post, and I invite the Swedes to indict me.

    Madness …

    w.

    Like

  32. In an attempt to gain some insight into the Dutch thoughts on this, I scanned the Dutch news.
    I did find this image, relating to Skating Under The Ice. The photograph was taken by a skater on one of the canals recently frozen over of a bird not quite managing to skate on the underside of the ice:

    View this post on Instagram

    Bevroren ijsvogeltje onder het ijs gevonden

    A post shared by christoph van ingen (@christoph_v_i) on

    sad and beautiful

    The Dutch have laws against insulting their king or other heads of state. (have/had/will have had)

    I have the feeling (still a just feeling, not yet an idea) that the key here is the Dutch self-identity — that they see themselves as a tolerant people. Like other people who think themselves tolerant, they are intolerant to intolerance.

    it was your *fear* that the Muslims *may* take over the country, and *may* impose Sharia law is the racism they are railing against, not Muslims as people

    I find (so far) that neither of these statements are the whole truth. There is also the fear that Muslims will cause the end of their beloved tolerance. And there are complaints about Muslims as people, not just their religion.

    So if you say anything against Muslims, your crime is not just that, but also that you have gone against the national identity myth of tolerance.

    Webpages on Dutch tolerance are interesting. They have had a mixed history on that. First they had a huge empire consisting of Muslim countries. There were periods in 17th, early 18th, late 20th centuries which featured tolerance. “the Dutch practice of tolerance derived from a culture of lenient permissiveness and was rarely principled in character.” The Dutch had an “each to its own” attitude, which might be compared to “separate but equal” in the US but without the ‘equal’, and modern events have eroded that foundation of society.
    https://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/315-the-dutch-myth-of-tolerance

    Like

    • I fear for my country and all Europe. My parents and millions of others including our American, Australian, Kiwi, Canadian, Indian, Polish and French friends (and many others) fought to stop nazism and to defend freedom and democracy. Now we’re ceding to fascislam without any principle or love for what our culture has achieved?

      Like

  33. […] a UK citizen working in the Netherlands, claimed that foreigners with Residence Permits should be allowed to vote in local, not national but local, elections where they are residing.

    and not just in the Netherlands…

    https://www.steynonline.com/8511/the-new-house-of-peers

    For example, not so long ago it was broadly accepted that the right to participate in choosing the government of your society was a privilege of allegiance to that society. Yet now Californians and many others are proposing the extension of voting rights to non-citizens – by which they mean not even lawful immigrants but persons whose very presence in the land is an act of lawbreaking that mocks the very concept of fealty. If you step back for a moment, that’s extraordinary: millions and millions of Americans who support such alien-voting proposals have abandoned, in the blink of an eye, the defining attribute of citizenship.

    The new identity politics supplants not just old, essential concepts of identity – such as citizens, equal before the law – but also core western liberties, such as freedom of expression.

    “The dictatorship of the identitariat is spreading rapidly, as all bad ideas do, way beyond loony campuses.”
    Mark Steyn, ibid.

    Like

  34. Well said and rather well argued may I say.
    I myself, though not UK born, have always held a British passport but, like you, I find several British laws to be risible. This is perhaps not the proper forum for an extended debate concerning liberal elites, Brexit and one’s preference for small government over overbearing, overweening big government but it’s beyond question that if you wish to take profitable legal action against anyone who irritates you, the UK is the place to file suit!

    Like

  35. I said that in such a situation he could find himself ruled by Muslims, who do charming things like throwing gay people off of rooftops to their deaths, and who bury women up to their necks and stone them to death.

    Well, I could have heard his screams of “RACIST! RACIST!” all the way from the Netherlands …

    I said “How can that be “racist”? It’s the TRUTH!”

    Yes and no. While it is true that some muslims in some other places do those things, what your assertion seems to imply (that allowing muslims to choose local authorities put the place in danger of seeing those behaviours allowed or promoted) is absolutely misleading. No local authority can promote or simply allow behaviours that violate constitutional laws or any other law of superior reach.

    Like

    • Truth is truth. muslims murder, sodomize and enslave anyone who refuses to submit to their anti-human ideology. They openly sodomize any children they get their hands on. You are okay with all that. Okey dokey.

      Like

    • Nylo March 10, 2018 at 5:28 pm

      I said that in such a situation he could find himself ruled by Muslims, who do charming things like throwing gay people off of rooftops to their deaths, and who bury women up to their necks and stone them to death.

      Well, I could have heard his screams of “RACIST! RACIST!” all the way from the Netherlands …

      I said “How can that be “racist”? It’s the TRUTH!”

      Yes and no. While it is true that some muslims in some other places do those things, what your assertion seems to imply (that allowing muslims to choose local authorities put the place in danger of seeing those behaviours allowed or promoted) is absolutely misleading. No local authority can promote or simply allow behaviours that violate constitutional laws or any other law of superior reach.

      Look, Nylo, in many places immigrant Muslims are demanding Sharia Law, and in some jurisdictions they’ve gotten it already. Since Sharia Law commands Muslims to do things like kill people for leaving the religion, and to kill women for the heinous crime of being raped, you’re in dreamland to think that it will be stopped by “constitutional laws” … particularly since many countries don’t even have a constitution. Here’s the situation in Londonistan:

      London Mayor Sadiq Khan banned advertisements that promote “unrealistic expectations of women’s body image and health”. Now Berlin is planning to ban images in which women are portrayed as “beautiful but weak, hysterical, dumb, crazy, naive, or ruled by their emotions”. Tagesspiegel’s Harald Martenstein said the policy “could have been adopted from the Taliban manifesto”.

      and in Britain (emphasis mine)

      40% of British Muslims want at least some aspects of sharia law to be enforced in the UK. There are over 3 million Muslims living in the UK right now, making 1.2 million Muslims who have some kind of support for sharia. Unregulated sharia courts already exist in the UK and are supported by Islamic activists such as Abdullah al-Andalusi, co-founder of The Muslim Debate Initiative. The number of these courts has been growing steadily, and although it’s hard to tell just how many are operating, it’s estimated there are over 80.

      So yes, allowing Muslims to choose local authorities absolutely puts the place in danger of seeing those behaviors allowed or promoted

      Here’s the problem in a nutshell.

      When Muslims are in the minority, they’re all about “minority rights”.

      When Muslims are in the majority, there are no minority rights.

      This has been the situation now for about 1400 years … and those who don’t remember history are condemned to repeat it.

      Thanks for your comment,

      w.

      Like

      • Willis:
        So yes, allowing Muslims to choose local authorities absolutely puts the place in danger of seeing those behaviors allowed or promoted

        I really cannot follow your logic. Although I find them extraordinary I will not dispute any of your previous claims, i.e. that there are 40% of British Muslims at least partially in favour of Sharia, and that there exist an estimate of over 80 unregulated Sharia courts already. But how is any of that related to non-nationalised Muslims choosing or not choosing city mayors? No Muslim mayor could possibly make an unregulated sharia court become legal. The spread of these unregulated courts is related to the spread of delinquence, and not to the power that they have for electing mayors, which is none. So what are we talking about? Laws are not made in city councils. The ammount of regulations that a city coucil manages is very reduced and can never be against the law. They all deal mostly with giving a rational use to the resources of the city. Within the law. I would totally understand that you said that it is a risk to allow them to participate in national, legislative elections. No way, never. That’s for the nationals and the nationals only. But the local elections are something quite different.

        I don’t know how schools work where you live, but here in Spain the parents of the students have an association in every school with representatives that are democratically elected among them (all of them, national or not), to represent them at school meetings and in school decisions. I can only compare your fear about a muslim mayor with the fear about a muslim president of the parents association in the school. It does not worry me even a little bit that people who are possibly favorable to the Sharia may have a vote to elect this person at my child’s school. Because there is not the slightest chance of the Sharia being implanted in the school even if a future president of the parents association happened to favor the Sharia. It is simply not within his power to cause such a change. He cannot go against the law.

        Like

        • Also, Nylo, I didn’t understand your term “non-nationalized Muslims” … what does that mean?

          And as you are from Spain, where the Muslim armies came in, killed your citizens, forced the Spanish to either convert or pay the dhimmi tax, and ran your country as an Islamic state for over 700 years! … I find your apathy on the question most remarkable. Of all people, the Spanish should understand the dangers of the Islamic crusade for world-wide dominance.

          Although I suppose from another point of view, Islam had 700 years to brainwash the citizenry of Spain in favor of Muslim barbarity, so perhaps your point of view is not surprising …

          w.

          Like

          • Non-nationalised muslims, I mean those muslims that do not have yet the citizenship of the country that they are living in and therefore have no voting rights in the country. I mean those who you would rather avoid ever having voting rights for local elections as well. The ones under discussion basically. Unless I understood you wrong and you think that those that already acquired citizenship should also not be allowed to vote because of them following a dangerous cult and all that.
            The Muslims that did all that you say in Spain, they did not do so thanks to laws allowing them to vote for city mayors. If you tell me that having too many muslims in a western country is a risk, I will agree. But not because of them voting or stoping to vote for city mayors. If Muslims ever take over, it will not happen through the mechanisms of democracy and neither because of them.

            Like

          • Nylo March 11, 2018 at 6:38 pm Edit

            Non-nationalised muslims, I mean those muslims that do not have yet the citizenship of the country that they are living in and therefore have no voting rights in the country. I mean those who you would rather avoid ever having voting rights for local elections as well. The ones under discussion basically

            Call me crazy but the idea of allowing random people to vote just because they happen to live in the area seems like total madness. In general, they won’t understand the local issues. I lived for nine years in Fiji, but the idea that therefore I understand the issues and the values that Fijians vote on well enough to take sides on the personalities and the issues is a sick joke.

            Unless I understood you wrong and you think that those that already acquired citizenship should also not be allowed to vote because of them following a dangerous cult and all that.

            No, you’re right, I said no such thing.

            The Muslims that did all that you say in Spain, they did not do so thanks to laws allowing them to vote for city mayors. If you tell me that having too many muslims in a western country is a risk, I will agree. But not because of them voting or stoping to vote for city mayors. If Muslims ever take over, it will not happen through the mechanisms of democracy and neither because of them.

            Dear heavens, Nylo, you need to keep up with current events. See Londonistan and its Muslim mayor for an excellent example of Muslims taking power via the mechanisms of democracy …

            “London is more Islamic than many Muslim countries put together”, according to Maulana Syed Raza Rizvi, one of the Islamic preachers who now lead “Londonistan”, as the journalist Melanie Phillips has called the English capital. No, Rizvi is not a right-wing extremist. Wole Soyinka, a Nobel Laureate for Literature, was less generous; he called the UK “a cesspit for Islamists”.

            “Terrorists can not stand London multiculturalism”, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan said after the recent deadly terror attack at Westminster. The opposite is true: British multiculturalists are feeding Islamic fundamentalism. Above all, Londonistan, with its new 423 mosques, is built on the sad ruins of English Christianity

            Sadly,

            w.

            Like

          • Willis,
            Dear heavens, Nylo, you need to keep up with current events. See Londonistan and its Muslim mayor for an excellent example of Muslims taking power via the mechanisms of democracy …

            Londonistan is not worse now because of the mayor being a Muslim. London indeed has a problem, far too many muslims and far too little control of them. But this happened WITHOUT a Muslim mayor, and I am afraid it would continue to happen if the current mayor was Christian.

            I also have to say that a Muslim mayor is not an excellent example of Muslims taking power, unless you can tell that the Mayor didn’t receive votes from anyone but muslims, or that no muslim voted for a different candidate, or if at least you think too that a Christian mayor would be an excellent example of Christians taking power. Was Obama an excellent example of black people taking power? I could go on. Is the London mayor making his own “muslimness” the center of all of his decisions? Some? Did he get elected because of something that he said he would do to spread Islam? THAT could perhaps be a good example. I don’t think it was the case, but I don’t follow London affairs much.

            My best wishes always, Willis, I respect your opinions a lot and I envy the wisdom that you display around most topics. I share your fears about Islam too. Just not about them possibly electing local authorities of any kind. Consider this: thanks to the very hate speech laws that you talk about in your post, this makes it extremely difficult for an extremist to reach a position of power. He would need to disguise his extremism a lot.

            Like

          • Nylo March 11, 2018 at 7:32 pm

            Willis,

            Dear heavens, Nylo, you need to keep up with current events. See Londonistan and its Muslim mayor for an excellent example of Muslims taking power via the mechanisms of democracy …

            Londonistan is not worse now because of the mayor being a Muslim. London indeed has a problem, far too many muslims and far too little control of them. But this happened WITHOUT a Muslim mayor, and I am afraid it would continue to happen if the current mayor was Christian.

            The question is not whether it would “continue to happen if the current mayor was Christian”. The question is whether it is being actively advanced and encouraged by a Muslim mayor, and the answer to that is clearly “Yes”.

            I also have to say that a Muslim mayor is not an excellent example of Muslims taking power, unless you can tell that the Mayor didn’t receive votes from anyone but muslims, or that no muslim voted for a different candidate, or if at least you think too that a Christian mayor would be an excellent example of Christians taking power. Was Obama an excellent example of black people taking power? I could go on. Is the London mayor making his own “muslimness” the center of all of his decisions? Some? Did he get elected because of something that he said he would do to spread Islam? THAT could perhaps be a good example. I don’t think it was the case, but I don’t follow London affairs much.

            I don’t care whether he was elected by mostly Muslims or in the good Chicago style, by the votes of dead people. A Muslim mayor was elected, and he does NOT have the best interests of the citizens at heart, he has the best interests of Muslims at heart. He claims that “Trump sounds like ISIS”, when in fact Trump has been instrumental in the defeat of ISIS … which obviously must rankle Sadiq Khan mightily, since he’s trying the old “black is actually white” argument re Trump and ISIS. Look, ISIS keeps sex slaves and cuts the heads off of their captives on video. Claiming that Trump is like that is a clever lie designed to make Islam more palatable by playing down ISIS’s blood lust and sexual viciousness.

            And there are more problems …

            In 2016, London elected their first ever Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan. Since then, violent crime rates have skyrocketed to unprecedented levels, here is a look into Sadiq’s London.

            Since his election, a lot of problems have arisen, from “no-go zones” popping up, similar to what we saw in Sweden, to a rise in crimes like burglary, car theft, homicide, knife violence, gun violence, and more. Many predicted that Khan becoming mayor would present these sorts of problems, but in many European countries, it has become more than taboo to speak up against any such thing, as it would be considered racist.

            Similar to the fight against “white nationalism” in America, but worse, it is not okay to have any sort of voiced opinion against someone or something that would be considered ‘offensive’ to someone else. This is what many say led to the election of Sadiq, which eventually led to the rise of violent crime. Now, with the numbers in and nowhere to hide, Sadiq will have to answer to why it is these crimes have increased so much.

            According to Breitbart London, these are the percentages of increased crime in London since Sadiq took office:

            Homicide- 27% increase
            Youth Homicide- 70% increase
            Robbery- 31% increase
            Home Burglary- 18.7% increase
            Knife Crime- 31.3% increase
            Gun Crime- 16.4% increase
            Rape- 18.3% increase

            London is now the acid attack capital of the world. Here’s the scope of some of the problems

            London has lost just 1,000 officers in the past year, 3% of the force, reducing it from 31,343 to 30,379.

            The strain has been made greater by police forces taking officers off the streets to search instead for online social media ‘hate speech’.

            Prior to Khan’s disastrous tenure as London Mayor, the Conservatives had reduced the number of deaths of young people from 30 to between 10 and 15 per year – a more than 50% reduction.

            Since Conservative mayors didn’t take coppers off the beat to fight “hate speech”, which is code for “Islamophobia”, which in turn is code for “telling the truth about Islam”, I hold that electing Khan has indeed made things much worse.

            My best wishes always, Willis, I respect your opinions a lot and I envy the wisdom that you display around most topics. I share your fears about Islam too. Just not about them possibly electing local authorities of any kind. Consider this: thanks to the very hate speech laws that you talk about in your post, this makes it extremely difficult for an extremist to reach a position of power. He would need to disguise his extremism a lot.

            Of course he’d “disguise his extremism”, just as CAIR does, just as Hamas does, just as Yasir Arafat did … but that is not “extremely difficult”, it is ridiculously easy. Just keep repeating that Islam is the “Religion of Peace” and keep mouthing platitudes about “moderate Muslims” and warning about “Islamophobia”, and you too can be elected Mayor. Politicians learned long, long ago to never reveal their true feelings, it’s in their DNA … well, except for Trump, who always says what he believes.

            Heck, the Koran specifically says that it’s perfectly fine to lie to Jews and Crusaders in order to advance the faith, and if you don’t think Muslim politicians take that Koranic injunction to heart, you’re not keeping score …

            Thank you for your kind words, and I admire your perseverence,

            w.

            Like

      • Nylo March 11, 2018 at 1:42 am

        Willis:
        So yes, allowing Muslims to choose local authorities absolutely puts the place in danger of seeing those behaviors allowed or promoted

        I really cannot follow your logic. Although I find them extraordinary I will not dispute any of your previous claims, i.e. that there are 40% of British Muslims at least partially in favour of Sharia, and that there exist an estimate of over 80 unregulated Sharia courts already. But how is any of that related to non-nationalised Muslims choosing or not choosing city mayors? No Muslim mayor could possibly make an unregulated sharia court become legal.

        Thanks, Nylo, but you seem totally unaware that one of the dangers of a democracy is called “tyranny of the majority”. And as to whether local bodies can make illegal things legal, please spend a moment googling the phrase “sanctuary cities”.

        The amount of regulations that a city council manages is very reduced and can never be against the law. They all deal mostly with giving a rational use to the resources of the city. Within the law.

        See above re: sanctuary cities.

        “Because there is not the slightest chance of the Sharia being implanted in the school even if a future president of the parents association happened to favor the Sharia. It is simply not within his power to cause such a change. He cannot go against the law.”

        Goodness, I do wish that I had your optimism … however in the US we face things like this:

        … a coalition of San Diego Patriotic organizations, families of San Diego City School students, San Diego registered voters in the Democrat and Republican parties, leaders of the Christian & Jewish communities, members of Veterans Organizations, retired Law Enforcement Officers, Women Volunteers In Politics, retired military personnel, and the Combat Veterans For Congress PAC came together to support The Freedom of Conscious Defense Fund (FCDF) Federal Law Suit filed by Charles S. LiMandri, Esq. against the San Diego Unified School Board to oppose its partnership with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to indoctrinate impressionable young students in the San Diego City Schools in Islam and Sharia Law.

        Nylo, you seem to think that Islam is just Christianity in funny hats. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the most misogynistic, woman-hating organization on the planet. The Koran specifically supports the taking of female prisoners of war as sex slaves, and keeping them enslaved forever … and that particular barbarity was practiced by Mohammed himself. Nor is it some historical deal, it is being practiced today as we are discussing this.

        So no, I do NOT want Islam anywhere near my schools, whether or not the School Board thinks it’s a hunky-dory idea.

        See my post entitled “The Problem With Islam“, you seem to be in deep denial about the true nature of the so-called “religion”. (I say “so-called” because any group that in 2018 both advocates and practices stoning women to death and keeping sex slaves and killing people for leaving the group is not a religion at all in my book.)

        Thank you for your contribution,

        w.

        Like

        • Willis,
          Re Sanctuary cities: thanks for the tip. From what I found in wikipedia, we are talking about cities not willing to prosecute foreign people just for being there without the right papers. It is a totally different thing from not wanting to prosecute Sharia-related crimes or any other serious legal offenses, so I’m sorry if I don’t find it a valid comparison, especially because of the reasons given to look other way: “[…] so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school”. I would rather have a muslim willing to report other muslims’ crimes without fear of being deported himself, than otherwise. I would rather also have a muslim sending his children to my public school rather than dealing with their education himself.

          Re the San Diego thing: without seeing what the deal between the San Diego Unified School Board and the Council on American-Islamic Relations really was, I cannot opinate, but guess. And I am guessing that it was an agreement to teach Islam as one of many extra-curricular options in the school, to those students whose parents wanted them to receive such education and willing to pay for it. I would be really surprised if the agreement was to make it compulsory and I would totally share your outrage if it was. Perhaps you can clarify. Meanwhile, in my opinion if a father wants his kid to receive islamic education, he will find the way, and I would rather help him to get it within the boundaries of the school where things can be more or less controlled, rather than who knows where with who knows who. But hey, that’s me. And it is not because I consider Islam to be Christianity with funny hats. I don’t like Christianity either and I am not educating my child on any religion. It is because if we can ever get Islam to be “like Christianity with funny hats”, then we should start by controlling who teaches what.

          Like

          • Nylo March 11, 2018 at 7:02 pm

            Willis,
            Re Sanctuary cities: thanks for the tip. From what I found in wikipedia, we are talking about cities not willing to prosecute foreign people just for being there without the right papers. It is a totally different thing from not wanting to prosecute Sharia-related crimes or any other serious legal offenses, so I’m sorry if I don’t find it a valid comparison, especially because of the reasons given to look other way: “[…] so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school”. I would rather have a muslim willing to report other muslims’ crimes without fear of being deported himself, than otherwise. I would rather also have a muslim sending his children to my public school rather than dealing with their education himself.

            Nylo, your claim was that cities could not defy the government. So the issue was not whether you thought it was a good idea or not. The question is, can municipalities tell the Federal Government to get stuffed?

            To begin with, no, it’s not about “being there with the right papers”. Last week the Mayor of Oakland warned the illegal alien criminals, including rapists, child molesters, and murderers, that the Federal Government was coming in two days to arrest them … so of course they all went and hid. Whether you approve of that or not is irrelevant—it is clear evidence that you are wrong about whether municipalities can defy the government. They not only can, they do.

            Re the San Diego thing: without seeing what the deal between the San Diego Unified School Board and the Council on American-Islamic Relations really was, I cannot opinate, but guess. And I am guessing that it was an agreement to teach Islam as one of many extra-curricular options in the school, to those students whose parents wanted them to receive such education and willing to pay for it. I would be really surprised if the agreement was to make it compulsory and I would totally share your outrage if it was. Perhaps you can clarify.

            The main problem is not teaching Islam. The problem is that CAIR is an organization that was started by Hamas and supports terrorists, and as such has no business in any school anywhere.

            Meanwhile, in my opinion if a father wants his kid to receive islamic education, he will find the way, and I would rather help him to get it within the boundaries of the school where things can be more or less controlled, rather than who knows where with who knows who. But hey, that’s me.

            Perhaps you are unaware that publically financed schools here in the US are NOT permitted to teach any religion, be it Christianity or any other. In fact, the Constitution itself requires a separation of church and state. So no, I don’t want Islamic, Hindu, Christian, or ANY religious indoctrination done with my tax dollars. And I especially don’t want an organization that supports terrorists anywhere near our children.

            CAIR helped the San Diego Unified School District develop an anti-bullying program. But five local families and two community groups sued last spring, claiming the program elevated Muslim students above others. The school board agreed to stop working with CAIR in July, acknowledging that CAIR is a religious group and the partnership may cross the line on church-state separation.

            The ligation continues, however, and the school board asked the court last month to strike references to CAIR’s anti-Israel positions and its connections to Hamas from the case, saying they were irrelevant.

            The Anti-Defamation League, which took over the anti-bullying program after the board broke with CAIR last summer, has cited CAIR’s “long record of anti-Israel activity,” a response filed Friday by the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) said. CAIR and its founders were part of a Hamas-support network in the U.S. during the 1990s, records seized by the FBI show.

            You might be OK with a Hamas-founded terrorist organization with a long line of anti-Semitic positions and an enduring hatred of Israel teaching your kids … me, not so much.

            My point endures. Muslims are trying by any means fair or foul to convert the US to an Islamic state, and they’d be happy to indoctrinate our children. I am not amused.

            And it is not because I consider Islam to be Christianity with funny hats. I don’t like Christianity either and I am not educating my child on any religion. It is because if we can ever get Islam to be “like Christianity with funny hats”, then we should start by controlling who teaches what.

            We will NEVER get Islam to be “like Christianity with funny hats”. People have tried that for fourteen centuries now, and they still hold on to sexual slavery and stoning women to death and killing people who leave the religion. And any group that both allows and encourages those barbarities in the 21st century is a vile perversion of “religion” which should not be taught at all.

            Seriously, I don’t understand your defense of Islam. It is a clear indication to me that you have neither read the Koran nor the Hadiths, and that you are innocent of much knowledge of the brutal history of this so-called “religion”. It is the most misogynistic big organization in the world, and yet you seem to think it is just another religion … not sure how you explain that to yourself, but from out here, it seems totally contradictory.

            Let me recommend again that you read my post entitled “The Problem With Islam“, which backs up all of my assertions with a host of facts, quotations, and citations. Don’t forget the cartoons at the end …

            Best regards, and thank you for being willing to explain your positions. I may disagree with them, but I salute your willingness to defend your ideas.

            w.

            Like

          • Willis:
            “To begin with, no, it’s not about “being there with the right papers”. Last week the Mayor of Oakland warned the illegal alien criminals, including rapists, child molesters, and murderers, that the Federal Government was coming in two days to arrest them … so of course they all went and hid. Whether you approve of that or not is irrelevant—it is clear evidence that you are wrong about whether municipalities can defy the government. They not only can, they do”

            I’m not familiar with this Oakland thing. What was the reason why the Federal Government was coming in 2 days to arrest them? Was it because of them being rapists, child molesters and murderers, or was it based solely on not having the papers? If it was the first, the Mayor is a criminal himself and you should prosecute him.
            To my knowledge, that I admit is not great, the defying of the government that you are talking about as described in wikipedia’s sanctuary cities entry is being done without breaking any law. They are just not asking inconvenient questions when they are not needed, in order not to have to inform the federals about the inconvenient replies. If you want to force them to ask those questions (where are you from, show me your papers), even at the entrance of the bus, create the corresponding law.

            “The problem is that CAIR is an organization that was started by Hamas and supports terrorists, and as such has no business in any school anywhere”.

            I would agree to that, but not with generic teaching of Islam as an optional activity outside official school hours.

            “Perhaps you are unaware that publically financed schools here in the US are NOT permitted to teach any religion, be it Christianity or any other. In fact, the Constitution itself requires a separation of church and state. So no, I don’t want Islamic, Hindu, Christian, or ANY religious indoctrination done with my tax dollars. And I especially don’t want an organization that supports terrorists anywhere near our children”.

            Good for you. I would like things to be that way here too, but here religion is one more subject that they can study in school hours, although optative (either that or “civic education”). However I was not referring to that kind of teaching but to extra curricular activities that are organised at the school premises but are not tought by the school’s teachers but by external people, with external financiation (in other words, not with your tax dollars). This is very, very common here in Spain, because of how convenient it is for the kids and the parents not to have to go/take the kids somewhere else after school to receive such classes of whatever: sports, dancing, music, theatre, other foreign languages… So yes, at school, but no, not by school personel and not included in what you pay for the school if anything. You pay such classes separately (and not even to the school). The school just allows them to use their premises, I guess that in exchange for some money as well.

            “My point endures. Muslims are trying by any means fair or foul to convert the US to an Islamic state, and they’d be happy to indoctrinate our children. I am not amused”.

            I am sure many Muslims would want that. I don’t think it is true for the majority of muslims in your country.

            “Seriously, I don’t understand your defense of Islam”.

            I do not defend Islam, it is horrible. I do feel the need to defend some Muslims and not throw all of them under the same bus. I did read your “The Problem with Islam” a long time ago, when you published it, and I agree with perhaps 99% of it, if not all of it. The ideology is BAD. People however can be “any colour” and have lots of internal contradictions. In a previous comment of yours you were mentioning 40% muslim people in UK favoring at least partially the Sharia. Well, this means that 60% of them DO NOT want the Sharia, regardless of what Koran can say, so even if the whole UK turned muslim, presumably there would still be no Sharia. I also read the part where you talked about the “Satanic verses” of Koran. That some muslims hold that view is proof that not all of them are a danger for you and your people. I don’t like the ideology, but the world is full of muslims that are otherwise peaceful people not threatening human rights. True, it is also full of muslims that ARE a threat. But I don’t want to regulate what other people are allowed to believe in. I prefer to regulate only what they are allowed to do about it.

            Best regards.

            Like

      • Here’s the problem in a nutshell.

        When Muslims are in the minority, they’re all about “minority rights”.

        When Muslims are in the majority, there are no minority rights.

        Exactly. Mark Steyn has explained several times that Muslims start to take over well before they get a majority. This quote tries to quantify that.
        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/sri-lanka-joins-the-muslim-issues-group/

        Gives the Muslim percentage as about 9.7% now “2012 census”, (up from 7% in 1971 census). As usual, the “war of the womb” being run for slow population replacement. It looks like about the 10% to 20% level is where “issues” start to kick in. Getting dramatic in th 30% to 40% range, then with overthrow of secular government at the 50%+ level (given the history of other nations, in particular “Christian Lebanon” as it crossed over the 50% line, had a civil war, and became the Muslim Lebanon of today).

        Like

  36. No local authority can promote or simply allow behaviours that violate constitutional laws or any other law of superior reach.

    Following the sanctuary city events much? ‘Promote’ might get involve a discussion of semantics, but ‘allow’ is common enough, now and in the past.

    Like

  37. Nylo March 11, 2018 at 10:38 pm

    Willis:

    “To begin with, no, it’s not about “being there with the right papers”. Last week the Mayor of Oakland warned the illegal alien criminals, including rapists, child molesters, and murderers, that the Federal Government was coming in two days to arrest them … so of course they all went and hid. Whether you approve of that or not is irrelevant—it is clear evidence that you are wrong about whether municipalities can defy the government. They not only can, they do”

    I’m not familiar with this Oakland thing. What was the reason why the Federal Government was coming in 2 days to arrest them? Was it because of them being rapists, child molesters and murderers, or was it based solely on not having the papers? If it was the first, the Mayor is a criminal himself and you should prosecute him.

    It was the first, but the Mayor will probably skate. Like I said, your claim that municipalities can’t defy the Feds is simply not true.

    To my knowledge, that I admit is not great, the defying of the government that you are talking about as described in wikipedia’s sanctuary cities entry is being done without breaking any law. They are just not asking inconvenient questions when they are not needed, in order not to have to inform the federals about the inconvenient replies. If you want to force them to ask those questions (where are you from, show me your papers), even at the entrance of the bus, create the corresponding law.

    Whether or not they are “breaking the law” they are releasing murderers, rapists, and the like back on the streets without notifying the Feds so that they can be arrested.

    “The problem is that CAIR is an organization that was started by Hamas and supports terrorists, and as such has no business in any school anywhere”.

    I would agree to that, but not with generic teaching of Islam as an optional activity outside official school hours.

    Again, you don’t seem to understand our laws. You can’t have Catholic indoctrination in a school even if it is “an optional activity outside official school hours”. It’s still against the law.

    “Perhaps you are unaware that publically financed schools here in the US are NOT permitted to teach any religion, be it Christianity or any other. In fact, the Constitution itself requires a separation of church and state. So no, I don’t want Islamic, Hindu, Christian, or ANY religious indoctrination done with my tax dollars. And I especially don’t want an organization that supports terrorists anywhere near our children”.

    Good for you. I would like things to be that way here too, but here religion is one more subject that they can study in school hours, although optative (either that or “civic education”). However I was not referring to that kind of teaching but to extra curricular activities that are organised at the school premises but are not tought by the school’s teachers but by external people, with external financiation (in other words, not with your tax dollars). This is very, very common here in Spain, because of how convenient it is for the kids and the parents not to have to go/take the kids somewhere else after school to receive such classes of whatever: sports, dancing, music, theatre, other foreign languages… So yes, at school, but no, not by school personel and not included in what you pay for the school if anything. You pay such classes separately (and not even to the school). The school just allows them to use their premises, I guess that in exchange for some money as well.

    Sports, dancing, music, theatre, no problem with them being extracurricular activites … religious indoctrination, not legal.

    “My point endures. Muslims are trying by any means fair or foul to convert the US to an Islamic state, and they’d be happy to indoctrinate our children. I am not amused”.

    I am sure many Muslims would want that. I don’t think it is true for the majority of muslims in your country.

    Poll results:

    From October 22 to October 26, 2012, Wenzel Strategies polled 600 U.S. Muslims of high socio-economic status. They were asked:

    Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?
    Regarding this most fundamental U.S. right, 58% replied “no.”

    No criticism of Islam or Muhammad permitted … then there’s

    Indeed, oblivious to U.S. constitutional law as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed with the following:

    [T]hose who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges.

    As someone who has drawn cartoons of Muhammad, I find it shocking that almost half of US Muslims think I should go to jail … perhaps that doesn’t concern you, but Muslims are a big worry for cartoonists around the world.

    In June of 2015, data from a survey of another 600 U.S. Muslims conducted by the respected political pollster Kellyanne Conway revealed:

    51% … agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharia.
    Perhaps most frightening, 25% of those polled agreed:

    [V]iolence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.

    In other words, sorry, you’re wrong. A majority of the Muslims DO want sharia law.

    Forty years ago, Husayn al-Quwatli — director general of Dar al-Ifta, the center of spiritual authority for the Sunni community of Lebanon, and author of the treatise Islam, the State, and Secularism (1975) — candidly elucidated the Muslim Sharia supremacist mindset which perhaps best validates Trump’s moratorium:

    Either the ruler is Muslim and the rule Islamic, then he will be content with the state and support it, or the ruler non-Muslim and the rule non-Islamic, then he rejects it, opposes it, and works to abolish it, gently or forcibly, openly or secretly.

    You go on to say:

    “Seriously, I don’t understand your defense of Islam”.

    I do not defend Islam, it is horrible. I do feel the need to defend some Muslims and not throw all of them under the same bus. I did read your “The Problem with Islam” a long time ago, when you published it, and I agree with perhaps 99% of it, if not all of it. The ideology is BAD. People however can be “any colour” and have lots of internal contradictions. In a previous comment of yours you were mentioning 40% muslim people in UK favoring at least partially the Sharia. Well, this means that 60% of them DO NOT want the Sharia, regardless of what Koran can say, so even if the whole UK turned muslim, presumably there would still be no Sharia. I also read the part where you talked about the “Satanic verses” of Koran. That some muslims hold that view is proof that not all of them are a danger for you and your people. I don’t like the ideology, but the world is full of muslims that are otherwise peaceful people not threatening human rights. True, it is also full of muslims that ARE a threat. But I don’t want to regulate what other people are allowed to believe in. I prefer to regulate only what they are allowed to do about it.

    Yes, there are Muslims who are peaceful people who are not threatening human rights. Care to know what they are called by Orthodox Muslims? Apostates. Care to know what the punishment for apostasy is in the Koran? Death. Well, actually a choice of execution, crucifixion, or having a foot and a hand cut off on opposite sides of the body. Think this is some ancient tradition that is no longer followed?

    I’d advise you not make that claim to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has to live with full-time bodyguards because she’s an apostate …

    I don’t have a problem with Muslims, I have a problem with Islam. Until there is an actual Islamic Reformation, the Koran and the Islamic schools will continue to churn out people who believe in the barbaric savagery that is not just condoned but required by the Koran … and yes, as both a cartoonist and a thinking human being, that concerns me greatly, whether there are “moderate” Muslims or not.

    Finally, you say:

    But I don’t want to regulate what other people are allowed to believe in. I prefer to regulate only what they are allowed to do about it.

    Since in general peoples’ actions are determined by and follow their beliefs, I fear this is a difference without a difference. It’s crazy to blithely allow people to teach their children to hate and want to kill Jews, as the Palestinian Muslims do, and then believe that those children won’t act on those teachings, and then to have to capture, imprison, and kill those who do act in just the way that they’ve been taught to believe. That way lies madness …

    My very best to you, as always,

    w.

    Like

      • 2hotel9, Nylo may be many things, but I am certain that she or he is neither a troll nor a pro-muslim a$$wipe. You do your own cause (and mine) great damage with this kind of vitriolic hatred …

        w.

        Like

        • Nothing vitriolic about it, you are being trolled. They will dance you around in circles forever. Anyone defending islam is not a friend of the human race. I have seen this with my own eyes. Smelled it with my own nose. Picked up the results of their actions and put it in bodybags with my own hands. Anyone defending isalm is NOT a friend of the human race. They will use any method at their disposal to deceive, obfuscate, and lie to infidels. You and I are infidels, they are fully justified in lying about any and everything according to “allah”.

          Like

          • Oh, please, 2hotel9, give it a rest. Nylo is not an apologist for anyone. Nylo has said many times that she (he) is no fan of Islam. Your fear and anger is blinding you to the fact that not everyone who disagrees with you or with me is a troll. Nylo is as far from an apologist for Islam as can be found.

            I say again, your vitriolic hatred is not doing your own reputation a damn bit of good. Every time you start up with this kind of bitter nonsense again, you sink lower in my estimation. You need to follow the first rule of holes, which is that when you find yourself in a hole … stop digging …

            I say this in friendship and in a perhaps doomed attempt to get you to dial back on the hatred … we can all learn things, even from trolls … which Nylo is not.

            Finally, I don’t care about whether someone is trolling or not. I’m not writing for them. I write for the lurkers, those who read a lot and say little. Whether or not I can convince Nylo is way down on my list of priorities. I want to convince the lurkers who have not made up their own minds, who are on the fence. So your claims about trolls are meaningless to me.

            Regards,

            w.

            Like

  38. PS—Nylo, I don’t understand your concern with whether a majority or a minority of Muslims believe in Islamic barbarities. Yes, only 45% of US Muslims think cartoonists who draw the Prophet should be jailed … but with 3.3 million Muslims in the US, that means that there are no less than A MILLION AND A HALF PEOPLE IN THE US WHO WANT TO SEE ME THROWN IN THE PMITA SLAMMER BECAUSE OF MY CARTOONS.

    I fear that I fail to attain your blasé tranquility about that fact … I find it quite terrifying, actually, and your earnest and well-meant words about the existence of 55% of “moderate Muslims” do nothing to reduce that fear.

    w.

    Like

    • I bet that if everybody in the US learned about your “heretic” climate views, you could find more than a million and a half wanting to see you thrown in the PMITA slammer. We have seen lots of examples of alarmists publicly fantasizing with such things and receiving a general applause in response. But it’s a different thing wanting something done and being willing to do it yourself. Specially if it is something illegal. I care about actions, not so much about ideas. Most people have their own collection of crazy ideas.

      I also care about people spreading some ideas that can lead other people to commit horrible actions: hate speech. But you seem to be totally fine with hate speech, go figure. I am so against hate speech that, if it depended on me, I would forbid private possession of Koran books containing the satanic verses. I would only allow such books to exist in libraries with controlled access. And that’s also true for some of the books of the Bible, despite nobody takes them seriously anymore. That’s how mad I am at hate speech. But then, I know that not every muslim takes the Koran teachings literally. The book may have evil parts, but not everyone who claim to be following the book are evil, many can distinguish right from wrong as perfectly as you and me. They just focus on the non-evil parts of the book.

      You can have a poll asking muslims in general in western countries about the Sharia and have a significant ammount of support to it. But then if you ask specific questions about specific parts of the Sharia or the Koran which are particularly cruel, I think that you will find much less support. This is what I believe to be true, and despite I have no evidence about it, I have never found convincing evidence to the contrary either.

      Best regards.

      Like

      • Nylo March 12, 2018 at 1:00 am Edit

        I bet that if everybody in the US learned about your “heretic” climate views, you could find more than a million and a half wanting to see you thrown in the PMITA slammer. We have seen lots of examples of alarmists publicly fantasizing with such things and receiving a general applause in response. But it’s a different thing wanting something done and being willing to do it yourself. Specially if it is something illegal. I care about actions, not so much about ideas. Most people have their own collection of crazy ideas.

        Total number of skeptics killed by climate alarmists.

        Zero.

        Total number of people killed by Muslim fanatics.

        Hundreds of thousands.

        Total number of cartoonists killed by Muslims.

        A couple of dozen.

        As both as skeptic and a cartoonist, guess which one I’m concerned about, climate alarmists or Muslims?

        I also care about people spreading some ideas that can lead other people to commit horrible actions: hate speech. But you seem to be totally fine with hate speech, go figure. I am so against hate speech that, if it depended on me, I would forbid private possession of Koran books containing the satanic verses. I would only allow such books to exist in libraries with controlled access. And that’s also true for some of the books of the Bible, despite nobody takes them seriously anymore. That’s how mad I am at hate speech.

        “Ideas that can lead other people to commit horrible crimes”??? Could you possibly be more vague? How can you advocate for something as mushy as that to be a law? And of course, wherever these laws exist, because they are so vague the authorities use them to persecute their opponents.

        I’m not “totally fine” with hate speech, quite the opposite—I don’t believe that such a thing exists. For example, suppose someone goes out and bombs an abortion clinic, and when questioned they say “I did it because Mike Pence has spoken out strongly about the evils of abortion”. According to your definition, Mike Pence is spreading ideas have led that person to commit a horrible crime, so Mike Pence is clearly guilty of your vague handwaving crime that you call “hate speech”. Lock him up!

        You don’t get it. In the US, there is no such thing as hate speech. It simply doesn’t exist. It is a peculiarly European fantasy. So how could I be “totally fine” with something that doesn’t exist?

        But then, I know that not every muslim takes the Koran teachings literally. The book may have evil parts, but not everyone who claim to be following the book are evil, many can distinguish right from wrong as perfectly as you and me. They just focus on the non-evil parts of the book.

        I’m sorry, but you don’t understand Islam. It’s not like Christianity, where people are free to ignore say the Old Testament saying that people should be killed for working on Sunday. Islam is an all or nothing deal, in for a penny, in for a pound. You don’t get to say “I’m good with giving money to the poor, but fasting is soooo Seventh Century I’m gonna give it a pass”. You cannot be a good practicing Muslim and do that.

        You can have a poll asking muslims in general in western countries about the Sharia and have a significant ammount of support to it. But then if you ask specific questions about specific parts of the Sharia or the Koran which are particularly cruel, I think that you will find much less support. This is what I believe to be true, and despite I have no evidence about it, I have never found convincing evidence to the contrary either.

        Actually, there is very convincing evidence to the contrary. The Pew worldwide poll of Muslims found deep support for say stoning women to death for adultery, even in “moderate” Indonesia. 46% of the Muslim respondents supported that worldwide. And 36% supported killing people for leaving Islam. So I’m sorry, but while your beliefs that Muslims don’t support this bestiality does credit to your heart … it is totally at odds with the facts. When a third of your “religion” supports killing people for leaving the religion, that is a very scary thing, one which we are ignoring at our own peril.

        I also find these:

        Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed
        http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

        ONE THIRD!

        And more worrying to a cartoonist like myself who has published cartoons of the Prophet:

        NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons;
        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
        http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

        THREE QUARTERS!

        and this:

        ICM Poll: 11% of British Muslims find violence for religious or political ends acceptable.
        http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

        and this:

        Terrorism Research Institute Study: 51% of mosques in the U.S. have texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% have texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% have no violent texts at all.
        http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/sharia-adherence-mosque-survey/html

        and this:

        Pew Research (2013): 19% of Muslim Americans believe suicide bombings in defense of Islam are at least partially justified (global average is 28% in countries surveyed).
        http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

        Heck, here’s a bunch of them at once:

        Die Presse (2013): 1 in 5 Muslims in Austria believe that anyone wanting to leave Islam should be killed.
        http://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/survey-on-islam-in-austria-18-of-muslims-support-death-sentence-for-apostasy-21-9-oppose-democracy/

        Motivaction Survey (2014): 80% of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with Holy War against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters.
        http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/11/young-dutch-turks-radical-views-worry-mps-call-for-more-research/

        BBC (2015): Following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, 27% of British Muslims openly support violence against cartoonists. Another 8% would not say, meaning that only 2 of 3 surveyed would say that the killings were not justified.
        http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31293196

        The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 24% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified against those who “offend Islam” (60% disagree).
        http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-Polling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf

        The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 29% of Muslim-Americans agree that violence against those who insult Muhammad or the Quran is acceptable (61% disagree).
        http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-Polling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf

        So please, save the platitudes about how when we get down to brass tacks about specific injunctions there is “much less support” for violence, and give up the idea that there is “no evidence about it”. Three-quarters of British Muslims think I should be thrown in jail … that may not concern you, but it scares the excrement out of me …

        My best to you, as always,

        w.

        Like

        • Willis, yes, Islam is all or nothing, I agree. Islam is bad. Please understand that I am establishing a distinction between Islam (the evil ideology) and Muslims (people). Islam is all or nothing, but then you are showing me examples of polls among Muslims that show that not even half of them support some of the things clearly stated in the Koran. How is that an all or nothing? Koran may say that whoever leaves Islam should die, but less than half of the actual Muslims agree with it. I correct myself: less than half SAY that they agree with it. You cannot discard a likely significant ammount of muslims that will say that just for fear from fellow Muslims if they dare say something against Koran, but who don’t actually believe what they said.

          Even good people may end up doing evil things (by omission) if they are surrounded by other people that they think support evil things. That is the big danger of Islam. Put too many muslims together and they can get the worst of themselves, just for the need to feel integrated. If nobody dares to talk bad about certain things in Koran because they know for sure that some around them will not tolerate it, in the end by not talking everybody ends up believing that everybody around them support those evil things. How could they all be wrong? And then they start to rationalise evil. We saw it happen with the nazis, no muslims involved, just good old germans. Or with communism in the darkest times in Rusia. It’s the pernicious effect of the mob, and happens with any ideology that claims that those opposing it deserve punishment. If you are made to believe that many people around you would think you deserve punisihment if you talk against, you don’t talk against. And the more people take the decision of not talking, the more unanimous the evil thought looks. Many people becomes most people and then all people. Suddenly you have a lot of people saying and tolerating things that they don’t really like, for the sake of surviving or having a relatively normal life. But they are just people like you and me. Take them out of their group, make them feel safe, and the evil disappears, except for those that are actually evil. But that’s a minority in any society.

          Anyway, I understand (not share) your position, you understand (not share) mine, we agree to disagree. I don’t think it makes sense to continue the debate much longer.

          Best wishes.

          Like

          • Nylo March 12, 2018 at 3:36 pm Edit

            Willis, yes, Islam is all or nothing, I agree. Islam is bad. Please understand that I am establishing a distinction between Islam (the evil ideology) and Muslims (people). Islam is all or nothing, but then you are showing me examples of polls among Muslims that show that not even half of them support some of the things clearly stated in the Koran.

            I still don’t understand this objection. Yes, only 78% of the British Muslims think I should be thrown in jail for my cartoons … this is supposed to make me feel better?

            How is that an all or nothing? Koran may say that whoever leaves Islam should die, but less than half of the actual Muslims agree with it. I correct myself: less than half SAY that they agree with it. You cannot discard a likely significant ammount of muslims that will say that just for fear from fellow Muslims if they dare say something against Koran, but who don’t actually believe what they said.

            Nylo, folks will find loopholes wherever they can. I see that as the triumph of humanity over one of the most repressive “religions” on the planet, not as a plus for Islam.

            Even good people may end up doing evil things (by omission) if they are surrounded by other people that they think support evil things. That is the big danger of Islam. Put too many muslims together and they can get the worst of themselves, just for the need to feel integrated. If nobody dares to talk bad about certain things in Koran because they know for sure that some around them will not tolerate it, in the end by not talking everybody ends up believing that everybody around them support those evil things. How could they all be wrong? And then they start to rationalise evil. We saw it happen with the nazis, no muslims involved, just good old germans. Or with communism in the darkest times in Rusia. It’s the pernicious effect of the mob, and happens with any ideology that claims that those opposing it deserve punishment. If you are made to believe that many people around you would think you deserve punisihment if you talk against, you don’t talk against. And the more people take the decision of not talking, the more unanimous the evil thought looks. Many people becomes most people and then all people. Suddenly you have a lot of people saying and tolerating things that they don’t really like, for the sake of surviving or having a relatively normal life. But they are just people like you and me. Take them out of their group, make them feel safe, and the evil disappears, except for those that are actually evil. But that’s a minority in any society.

            I say again, 82% of British Muslims want to throw me in jail for my cartoons, and that’s NOT a minority. That’s a god-damned crime, and you want to paper over it. You are looking for excuses. And now, we have the latest Muslim grooming scandal in the UK, where OVER A THOUSAND BRITISH GIRLS WERE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AND ENSLAVED BY MUSLIMS. What is your excuse for that? According to you, are they grooming girls because of social pressure from others … say what?

            So please … stop with the complex excuses. There are indeed good Muslims, I’ve known some. But how good can the bulk of Muslims be when they say NOTHING about these endless assaults on our Western society? The ugly truth is, they think Islam is far superior to the West. And I don’t mind that, but if so, why the hell are they moving to and living in Britain and the US? Here, far too many Muslims bitch endlessly about things like the lack of halal food in the US school cafeterias … if they want halal food, there are dozens and dozens of Islamic countries where they can be welcomed by their halal brothers and sisters in Islam.

            Anyway, I understand (not share) your position, you understand (not share) mine, we agree to disagree. I don’t think it makes sense to continue the debate much longer.

            My profound thanks to you for a most interesting discussion,

            w.

            Like

          • This reply is to Nylo, not you Willis, wordpress won’t list it that way for some reason.

            “establishing a distinction between Islam (the evil ideology) and Muslims (people).” muslims(people) embrace islam(the evil ideology) and hide their intentions through al-Taqiyya. They say one thing whilst doing the EXACT opposite. A very small portion of muslims commit the evil acts seen around the world because a vast majority of muslims support them financially, politically and IDEOLOGICALLY. And to make it totally clear, al-Taqiyya; deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies. Ignore reality at your peril.

            And yes, I do know muslims, been working the last few days slaughtering and butchering lambs and calves in the close company of two families of muslims, they came to America in the 1970s to escape the evil consuming the Middle East(and now Europe) and are absolutely appalled to see people who refuse to accept the reality of mainstream islam. Two of their sons and five grandsons have and are serving in US military for the express purpose of defeating islam. Contradictions? Hell yes, they struggle with them every day. Several of them over the last 3 decades have renounced islam entirely, others try to reconcile their beliefs to reality, and they all denounce shar’ia and work against islamic supremacy in America. They are Americans before all else.

            Like

  39. If nobody dares to talk bad about certain things in Koran because they know for sure that some around them will not tolerate it, in the end by not talking everybody ends up believing that everybody around them support those evil things.

    Could that be what’s happening in England right now?

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/12/right-wing-journalist-lauren-southern-denied-entry-to-uk-purportedly-over-criticism-islam.html

    Canadian right-wing journalist and activist Lauren Southern was barred from entering the United Kingdom on Monday, purportedly over a poster she distributed about Islam in February — making her the latest international right-wing figure to be denied entry to the U.K. after criticizing the religion.

    The U.K. Home Office confirmed to Fox News that Southern was refused entry to the U.K. at the border in Calais, France on the grounds that her entry was not “conducive to the public good.”

    […]

    Southern said she was detained for six hours at the Calais border port, had her phone taken from her as she was held in a detention center and questioned for four hours in a line of interrogation she described as “bizarre.”

    “They asked me if I’m a Christian extremist, asked me how I feel about running over people with cars,” she told Fox News. “They asked me about Tommy Robinson, asked how I would describe myself politically, asked me how I would describe nationalism.”

    Southern said a notice of refusal of entry she was given cited a prior “distribution of racist materials” in February in Luton, which the document said “represents a threat to the fundamental interests of society and to the public policy of the United Kingdom.”

    Both Southern and Robinson told Fox News that the material being referred to was a social experiment in which they passed around a fake “LGBT for Islam UK” poster that said: “Allah is Gay, Allah is Trans, Allah is Lesbian, Allah is Intersex, Allah is Feminist, Allah is Queer, Allah is All of Us.”

    https://www.steynonline.com/8516/speakers-cornered

    some stories are just ongoing, day by day, remorselessly. For example, free speech is now so imperiled in much of the “free world” that simply scheduling a debate on a controversial subject will attract the attentions of the mob – and by “controversial subject” I don’t mean Islam or abortion or gay marriage or climate change; a debate on the subject of free speech is now so provocative that, as I noted the other day, the “progressive” thugs will descend to break it up, throw smoke bombs, smash the windows of ancient listed buildings, and put the security guards in hospital.

    As repulsive as these goons are, the reaction of officialdom is worse: They take the side of the mob, and thereby incentivize them. For example, Martin Sellner (of the Austrian wing of the European “hipster-right” movement Generation Identity) was originally scheduled to speak at a British free speech conference organized by UKIP’s youth branch. However, this was canceled “due to security threats from the far left”.

    That’s disgraceful: the heckler’s veto turned pre-emptive and given official sanction.

    So, instead, it was arranged for Herr Sellner to give a speech at Speakers’ Corner at Hyde Park in London. Speakers’ Corner has been a global symbol of free speech for a century and a half: Marx and Lenin both spoke there, and George Orwell and Marcus Garvey, and the first generation of African nationalist leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah. If I recall correctly, the only form of speech prohibited there was “insulting the Queen”, but in a 1999 court decision Lord Justice Sedley removed even that genteel restraint.

    Nevertheless, flying in from Vienna to give a speech on the very subject for which Speakers’ Corner is famous – freedom of expression – Herr Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone were detained upon the arrival of their flight on Friday. After twelve hours of separate detention at Luton Airport, the UK Border Force then moved them at 1am on Saturday to the main detention facility at Heathrow.

    […]

    Appeasement is evil and corrupting. And so officialdom, so useless in restraining those who would destroy us, grows ever more comfortable in shutting down freedom of expression, freedom of movement and freedom of association in the doomed cause of maintaining social tranquility.

    And more details on that from outside the system:
    https://www.rt.com/uk/421030-free-speech-martin-sellner/
    Strange, nothing about this on the BBC site!?

    Like

  40. I wonder why Spain doesn’t support diversity the way they did years ago. They diversified Central and South America and a large portion if what is now western USA as well as Texas. Let’s not forget the Caribbean Islands. It was not a conquer, just a diversification respecting local culture.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire

    Now it seems that Spain, being so much into diversification, should have at least 20% Islamic population especially due to close proximity to North Africa’s Islamic population. Who would know more of the grand effects of diversification.
    http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/spain-population/

    I realize that being from the USA I should keep my nose out of Spain’s domestic affairs but where can I write to remedy Spain’s current lack of diversification? Less than 2% of their population is Islamic. This is the 21st century so they should be like the rest of the EU. I’m with Spain on their need for diversification! Let’s go for 35% Islamic and show how great Spain can be!

    Like

    • Hilarious, eyesonu.

      The reason that there’s only 2% Muslims in Spain, as you likely know, is that Muslim armies conquered Spain in the year seven hundred and mumble, and ruled it quite savagely until the last of them were driven out in 1492.

      As a result, the Spanish do not have good memories of Islam … it took centuries to uproot the Muslim invaders and throw them back to Africa, and the Spanish are not keen to repeat history.

      w.

      Like

    • Spain already did the muslims in charge thing, they responded with “I do not submit.” Took awhile, lots of Jews living in Spain had to die, and yet Spaniards collectively came to the same conclusion, “I do not submit.”. Exactly why do muslims have such a problem comprehending that very simple sentence?

      Like

  41. A Republican senator challenged Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook’s hate speech policies during his congressional testimony Tuesday, asking the Facebook boss if he could define it.

    Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) said he worried about policies that are “less than First Amendment full-spirit embracing in my view.”

    “I worry about a world where when you go from violent groups to hate speech in a hurry,” Sasse told Zuckerberg. “Facebook may decide it needs to police a whole bunch of speech that I think America may be better off not having policed by one company that has a really big and powerful platform.”

    “Can you define hate speech?” he asked.

    Zuckerberg said it would be hard to pin down a specific definition, and mentioned speech “calling for violence” as something Facebook does not tolerate.

    In other words, “I’ll know it when I see it”. Not very promising for the Rule of Law. So Facebook has thousands of employees policing “hate speech” but no company definition or directives on that?

    Like

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s