You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2015.
Here are several of my tweets concerning the Charlie Hebdo affair and the many fundamental issues it touches upon. I’ve been sad about so many horrible things happening in our world that the Charlie Hebdo incident just highlighted for me in such a stark way.
As I had said in a recent post, I’ve so busy reading so many great tweets (phrases and pictures) and articles and comments on the Charlie Hebdo affair, that I had no time left to say much. So many wonderful discoveries. I wanted to list some of the best ones here for future reference. See my previous post for more:
Finally, finally, finally – a social conservative guy (Bill Jack) in Colorado had the very bright idea to walk into a homosexual agenda bakery and ask for a few cakes with some anti-homosexual agenda messages on them. He was refused service. He lodged a complaint. Liberals are going bezerk saying that no one should be compelled to bake a cake with a message they don’t like, you must have a right to discriminate! Yes, those liberals that were screaming to fine, jail, and destroy anyone, especially Christians, who would not submit to their nasty homosexuality “wedding” farce and provide their services to this end in other bakeries, wedding photographer services, you name it. Complete hypocritical flip.
Here’s a recap on what I had said before regarding these cases – search my blog for more.
Question of the day:
Two lesbians walk into a Christian bakery and demand that the baker bake a cake saying 2+2=5.
If Winston, the baker, refuses, should he be fined thousands of dollars for not submitting to the demand of the two lesbians? Should the two lesbian women hold up four fingers of their hand and ask repeatedly how many fingers they are holding up? Should Winston be forced to close down his bakery is he refuses to answer 5? Should he be tortured until he replies 5?
In what kind of a society can two lesbians use the power of the state to coerce a decent human being to state that 2+2=5, because no one can refuse their demands, no matter how deformed, dysfunctional, or unethical?
Wiser social observers in our society have realized some time ago that so-called anti-discrimination laws and rules are being used to shove the liberal homosexuality agenda down the throats of social conservatives in the name of progress and civil rights. I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint. The provider is refusing to provide service because they would be serving a destructive political and social agenda. These are freedom of conscience cases, much more than freedom of speech. Everyone has a most fundamental right to discriminate based on sexual ideology and behavior. On a completely unrelated note, did anyone get the license plate of that giant truck carrying away all of our liberty?
Lastly, if we are all equal before the law, there is no such thing as special, arbitrary “protected” categories – as when some people have the protection of a law, and others don’t.
The most surprising bit about this case, aside from the fact that finally a socon got up and fought back, is that ADF, yes ADF, is defending Azucar! Hah! I want to see them entangle these stupid “non discrimination” bodies in their decision, whichever way they decide. And hopefully we’ll finally be able to use the outcome to show: a) how destructive and farcical these “sexual orientation discrimination” laws are and push for their repeal, b) how hypocritical liberals are regarding fundamental rights of conscience, religion, and speech.
Update Jan 25, 2015
Look at what a smart set of questions by a commenter elsewhere:
by Scott Creighton
Last month, a new anti-terrorism bill went through the French parliament which many fear will change the landscape of the internet in that country as well as threaten all sorts of dissenters with all sorts of unconstitutional measures.
The translated version of the bill can be found here.
During the afternoon, Bernard Cazeneuve refused any change in his position, and all alerts coming from the civil society. The Bill was voted with all its dangerous provisions: ban from leaving the country, creation of individual terrorist enterprise offense, administrative blocking of websites, substantial changes to the criminal procedure beyond terrorist actions.
Even worse, the French Senate commited a serious violation of the equality principle before criminal law by reintegrating into the Bill the Article 4 concerning the glorification and provocation to terrorism into the press law of 1881 unless it is commited on the Internet. In the spirit of the Minister and few senators, the Internet is a danger in itself that needs derogatory measures: the vote of this amendment introduces a serious inequality between the Internet and other medias, a serious confusion between mean and content. This inequality has already been condemned by the Constitutional Court2. La Quadrature
And another view of this contentious law:
Anti-terror laws have been used in various countries around the world to prosecute individuals for their speech about unpopular ideas. In the United States, the prosecution of Tarek Mehanna—a young Muslim who translated and posted material referred to by prosecutors as “Al Qaeda propaganda”—involved the use of conspiracy and so-called “material support” laws. In Ethiopia, anti-terror laws have been used to silence journalists and are currently being used to prosecute the dissident Zone9 Bloggers. And the list goes on.
France’s attempt to “cleanse” the Internet of terrorist content isn’t a first in the EU either. In 2012, a leaked document showed that the European Commission sought to make use of private Internet companies to remove terrorist content, without oversight or accountability. EFF
Some of you may recall, right here in the states even directly after the attacks of 9/11, the USA Patriot Act was meeting with serious resistance both in congress and in the general public, including various news publications.
Suddenly there was the anthrax attacks. The “terrorists” once again displaying the worst timing, decided to sent anthrax to offices of congressmen and journalists who OPPOSED the Patriot Act. The bill was quickly rushed through and signed in the aftermath.
Turns out, the anthrax came from a DoD contractor and not Saddam as we were told. The story quickly dropped off the radar as more and more evidence showed it was a false flag attack designed to generate an atmosphere in which no one could possibly vote against the bill.
This French bill apparently went into effect on the 1st of this month. Or it’s about to be signed into law. Whatever the case may be, anyone posting information about this event which calls it into question, in France or elsewhere, will now be subject to having their website blocked by the French government. And this highly public trip down the streets shooting Ak-47s and tossing flashbangs will certainly provide ample justification for doing so.
What tawdry manipulation. Hundreds of thousands of people holding up little pens in a demonstration chanting support for free speech while simultaneously creating a fascist state with no civil liberties? That is particularly sad.
I don’t know much about either the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo or the shows by this controversial black performer called Dieudonné. But people haven’t even gone back home from the historic march and the govt is wasting no time in trying to get Dieudonné sentenced and condemned. For which crime? Freedom of expression the government doesn’t like.
The French govt has asked that an investigation into the controversial black performer be made – the accusation? “Incitement to terrorism” because Dieudonné said that after the attack he felt like “Charlie Coulibaly” – and that is criminal speech according to the govt. Now that’s hypocrisy.
Dieudonné loves to provoke the French and it would be magnificent if he were imprisoned for his speech while the French were hysterically declaring their love of freedom of expression. Many of his shows have been censored by the French govt and he is still being prosecuted for criminal speech by the government for past declarations.
In addition, Dieudonné said he did go to the historical demonstration on Sunday. He qualified it as “a magical moment like the Big Bang”, “comparable to the crowning of Vercingétorix”.
I don’t know, but it seems Dieudonné is much more intelligent than this trash of vile racism and sexism and anti-religionism that was the Charlie Hebdo – but then I remember reading mentions that Dieudonné hates Jews, Israel, whatever, so who knows.
[ADDED:] These articles and comments seem to confirm the above – the profound quality different between the grotesquely trashy Charlie Hebdo, voice of the French elites “sclérosées”, and Dieudo:
Comment on Le Parisien :
Tout simplement c’ent grotesque, c’est que Dieudonné a dit, n’a rien pour inciter à la violence. Ce qui s’est passé à Paris est inhumain, une barbarie, mais l’hypocrésie des politiciens, le double discours… comme si les morts français étaient plus importants que les morts par milliers dans le reste du monde et c’est ça qui fait qu’on se sent comme un “Charlie Coulibaly”, d’un côté révolté par cette barbarie…mais aussi laissé pour compte quand les autres ont été victimes d’actes terroristes. Ceux qui nous sentons aujourd’hui “Charlie Coulibaly”, aujourd’hui, nous voulons la paix, car la guerre, la haîne c’es trop dur… Le monde a besoin de paix, mais les politiciens français ont choisi le camp de l’affrontement contre tous ceux qui n’auront pas mis sur la hierarchie des souffrances, celle de la Shoa en premier et celle de Charlie Hebdo en deuxième et le reste, celles des noirs, celles des autochtones, celles de arabes, loin derrière… Non, c’est M. Valls qui fait l’appologie de la violence, de la guerre, de la confrontation… Une chance que j’habite finalement dans un pays beaucoup plus tolérent que la France, et j’en suis très heureuse.
[ADDED Jan 13 – 2014:]
The New Yorker has an article on Dieudonné that tells of some of his excesses:
“Dieudonné plays a game of deliberate ambiguity,” says Damien Glez, a writer and cartoonist from Burkina Faso who has written about Dieudonné for Jeune Afrique, a francophone magazine published in Paris. “He is using a lot of the language and metaphors of old-fashioned French anti-Semitism before a young audience that does not have a very developed idea of anti-Semitism. They don’t know who Robert Faurisson is. And then you take this into the banlieue, where many young people feel oppressed by Islamophobia and angry and frustrated about the Palestinians. And everything is ambiguous and mixed together: anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and anti-system anger. Humor and hatred. The resentment of the Le Pen right and the anger of the recent immigrants of the banlieue. Even the gesture of the quenelle is ambiguous.”
This gesture, which Dieudonné began using a few years ago, is not, strictly speaking, a Nazi salute—rather than raising a stiff right arm up in the air, he points his arm down, and then places his left hand on his right shoulder. In his video “Hollande” he calls the quenelle a signal of “faith and courage,” and attributes its meaning to his encounter with a young, white seventeen-year-old cancer victim, who performed the quenelle in front of an M.R.I. machine and onstage with Dieudonné.
“It’s a gesture of the free man in front of the system of his jailers,” Dieudonné said in a video made last September after the minister of defense, Jean-Yves Le Drian, disciplined two French soldiers for doing the quenelle. “We piss on your institutions, Monsieur Le Drian, we shit on your government and on your Republic and on your shitty democracy. We are for a coup d’état, done by farce, by non-violence, by the quenelle,” Dieudonné said. What he didn’t explain is that the soldiers had been photographed while making the gesture in front of a synagogue. Many of Dieudonné’s followers have connected the quenelle to his anti-Semitic rants: several have posted pictures of themselves doing it in front of Holocaust monuments and even in front of the entrance to Auschwitz.
To me, doing this “satirical” salute in front of anything related to the Holocaust is really pushing it in terms of offense, but I also think some of the Charlie Hebdo pornographic cartoons about religions are profoundly offensive (in addition, specifically because they are pornographic, that is the main vehicle for offending the concept of religion, and pornography is horrendously degrading and offensive).
And that’s the problem with free speech. In the end, we see that the powerful always find a way to defend themselves from being publicly insulted and degraded, and the powerless are the endless targets of the same. Dominant narratives and ideologies are considered sacred, questioning and marginalized ones must be silenced. The justification keeps being labeled differently throughout history, but it’s all the same, whether heresy, blasphemy, hate speech, un-patriotic speech, pro-terrorist speech, etc.
However, if these expressions à la Charlie Hebdo or à la Dieudonné or many others are then used to justify the institution of laws taking away our most basic civil liberties, such as freedom of expression, information, religion, and assembly, then the world has learned nothing – and it becomes clear that the modern world has invented a new form of government: a dictatorial form of democracy. You vote (in mostly irrelevant ways) but you are not and you cannot be free. By law. For your own good.
[Jan 14, 2015] Le Monde reports on speech crackdown in France – govt pursuing 50 ppl for their speech this week
Some were told to appear before the police while three were arrested – put in prison, censored, and punished for their speech. Seriously, what hypocrisy.
Seules cinq condamnations ont pour l’instant été prononcées, et les peines sont très lourdes.
La plus sévère concerne un homme de 34 ans qui, après un accident de la circulation à Haulchain (Nord), s’en est pris, le 11 janvier, aux policiers en défendant les attentats : il a été condamné à quatre ans de prison ferme. L’apologie du terrorisme n’était toutefois qu’une circonstance aggravante : il avait refusé de se soumettre à l’alcootest, était en récidive et l’accident a causé des blessures involontaires.
Deux autres lourdes peines ont été prononcées à Orléans et à Toulon le 12 janvier — un an de prison ferme, avec à chaque fois huit à neuf mois avec sursis — ainsi que deux rappels à la loi à Saint-Etienne le 11 janvier, et la veille à Courbevoie (Hauts-de-Seine). Ces deux derniers concernent des hommes qui hurlaient dans la rue, mais sans viser personne en particulier. L’un d’eux avait lancé « je suis fier d’être musulman, je n’aime pas Charlie, ils ont eu raison de faire ça ».
En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2015/01/14/une-cinquantaine-de-procedures-ouvertes-pour-apologie-du-terrorisme_4555819_1653578.html#RiC8YftDKJM6Jj5w.99
50 lashes today (Jan 9), 50 more each week for 19 weeks, plus 10 years in jail.
Hundreds of thousands of people parading in France this week, not one of them will lift a finger to stop the flogging of this blogger and really defend freedom of speech. And of course, Saudi Arabia is counted among the great friends of the US and France…