http://www.rights.no/publisher/publisher.asp?id=59&tekstid=3259

Geert Wilders is the Dutch politician who is saying Islam is violent. He is on trial in the Netherlands right now. Read all about it.

My recent conversations with European lefties in various forums have convinced me that Europe is far gone into cultural dissolution.

Free speech

The campaign waged by Ezra Levant in Canada against the speech control fanatics at Human Rights Commissions has been successful. The blogosphere rose in defence of Ezra but he made it work, by patiently devoting himself to de-legitiizing them. Later, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench joined in the de-legitimization by roundly castigating the idiotic decision of Lori Andreachuk, the Alberta Human Rights Commissioner in the Stephen Boisson case.

Vigorous Nationalism

The nationalist cultural policy first came to light in the Herouxville Declaration, a statement made in 2007 by a small Quebec town’s aldermen and mayor that this is a Christian country, we eat pigs and we don’t treat our women like slaves. If you read it, you will find it surprizingly liberal in tone, but it appeared at a time when it was considered dangerous and provocative to herald Canadian social values, so uptight had everyone become with Muslim cultural intimidation.

In November 2009 the Canadian federal government has issued a citizenship statement which candidly rejects the more obnoxious aspects of Muslim culture as criminal.

One of the principal effects of the Harper regime in this country has been to restore a sense that there is a Canadian nation and it has values worth fighting for. The Afghanistan commitment has sharpened everyone’s thinking considerably. Jonathan Kay captured this well in his recent NatPost article.

Climategate

What a Christmas gift! Imagine that one could have run an experiment in 1917 on communism. Lenin tries it for a few years and then announces that Friedrich Hayek is right: prices are a form of information feedback, so that socialism will have to be built on the basis of taxes on real private sector income, which the government will now accept as legitimate. Imagine how many millions of lives would have been saved in the 20h century if communists had relented in their fanatic destruction of civilization.

Likewise with man-made climate change. Imagine that the world was about to launch on a path of forced income transfers worth trillions of dollars through a United Nations bureaucracy, totally unaccountable to electors, when it was discovered that the basis of the transfers. the moral claim of legitimacy, was completely disproven. Even in the bubble in which cabinet ministers live, it must have been evident that the doubts about man-made climate change through carbon dioxide emissions were not the mere hand waving of crank dissenters, but represented a serious claim.

For those of us more familiar with the climategate “science” , the whole thing is a commie rat. A massive swindle has been exposed. This was the triumph of 2009 for all mankind.

Communism’s second great surge was rolled back, just in time. Halleluyah!

I join with Arran Gold, Duggan’s Dew, Tobermory, Oban, Glendronach, and the barrelstrength team to wish you a happy and prosperous 2010.

“Explaiing his reasons for dismissing the case, he said Mrs Tazi’s claim that she was verbally attacked by the couple for up to an hour had not been borne out by other prosecution witnesses, who suggested that any discussions lasted around seven minutes.”

George Jonas is Canada’s premier political intellectual. He is old and has a weak voice, so his speech (above) is being read by another. His distinctions between  ambitions and rights should be embedded in the mind of every responsible citizen. His battle with statism is never-ending.

His analysis is entirely consistent with that of Brian Lee Crowley’s Fearful Symmetry: The Fall and Rise of Canada’s Founding Values. I suspect that Crowley may offer a more hopeful view of the future.

The EU is intent upon enacting legislation in the style of the Canadian Human Rights Act and its provincial counterparts. An offensive environment is created when I think your comment is offensive.

“Harassment, as vaguely defined in the directive, allows an individual to accuse someone of discrimination merely for expressing something the individual allegedly perceives as creating an “offensive environment.” The definition is so broad that anyone who feels intimidated or offended can easily bring legal action against those whom he feels are responsible. Moreover, the directive shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, who has to prove the negative, i.e. demonstrate that he or she did not create an environment which intimidated or offended the complainant. If the accused fails to do so, he or she can be sentenced to paying an unlimited amount of compensation for “harassment.” ”

Fortunately, it will need the approval of all 27 member states to pass.The article was first reported here at the Hudson Institute website.

Ishtar 17, 4395 of the 12th year of the  Glorious Reign of Gruppenfuhrer Louis XVI

Memo to the Supreme Council

For decision

from Department of Subversion, Supreme Council, Galactic Racially Aryan Supremacy Party (GRASP)

My Lords:

Agent 117 has been exposed, as you are no doubt aware . His usefulness is nearly over, but as a matter of policy I think the Council sould promote him to the rank of Unteroffizier and give him a medal (I suggest the Silver Swastika with Oak Leaf Clusters)  before he is disgraced and fined by the local emanation of the Dark Side.  When he has returned to us, he can get his back pay from the date of his condemnation.

Such measures may seem generous. Some other Bureaus of the Supreme Council (Treasury and Public Works) consider that Agent 117 has not completely succeeded yet. However most department heads agree with this recommendation. Staff considers that his mission has been wildly successful, and recommends promotion, medal and back pay.

Director BuSub

In the Human Rights Tribunal decision of Athansios Hadjis, the Tribunal has ruled that the constitutionality of section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act is in grave doubt, and refused to find Lemire guilty on that basis. The specific extension of the hate-speech prohibition to the Internet was contained in section 13(2), adopted by Parliament in 2001.

The Commissioner found that the measure (suppression of free speech in the way section 13 envisages) was disproportionate, in that it was not a minimal impairment of the Charter right of free speech.

The tribunal’s task lay in “determining whether it has been demonstrated that the challenged legislation minimally impairs the Charter right or freedom.”

He found that it did not. The combination of section 13(1) with the penalty provisions contained later on in the Human Rights Act had exceeded the type of speech control that the Supreme Court was willing to countenance.

“The point is that, when assessed against the characteristics of the penalty provisions enumerated in these decisions, it is evident that s. 13(1) has become more penal in nature (irrespective of whether s. 11 Charter rights are necessarily triggered). The provision can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature, which was at the core of the Court’s finding in Taylor that s. 13(1)’s limitation of freedom of expression is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, and thereby “saved” under s. 1 of the Charter.”

The judgment further states:
“the evidence in the present case suggests that s. 13 complaints proceed to hearing, and penalties are sought, even in instances where impugned material has long since ceased being communicated. More significantly, however, the Act does not include respondents’ willingness to “change their ways” as a factor for the tribunal to consider in assessing the penalty (s. 54(1.1)).”

Because the statutory penalties exceeded the remedial, preventative and conciliatory purpose of section 13, the only rationale the Supreme Court had expressed itself willing to tolerate, the tribunal ruled that the combination of section 13 and the penalty provisions were unconstitutional, for being disproportionate remedies to the problem of hate speech.

Hadjis made some telling remarks about Richard Warman in passing, too, pointing out that at all times Warman had refused conciliation with Lemire.

The main point is that the penal process undertaken in hate speech cases clearly went beyond what the Supreme Court had found tolerable in the Taylor decision.

“As I have pointed out several times in this decision, Mr. Lemire had not only “amended” his conduct by removing the impugned material, but sought conciliation and mediation as soon as he learned of the complaint against him. The process understood by the Supreme Court was not what Mr. Lemire experienced.

[290] In my view, it is clear that Taylor’s confidence that the human rights process under the Act merely serves to prevent discrimination and compensate victims hinged on the absence of any penal provision akin to the one now found at s. 54(1)(c), as well as on the belief that the process itself was not only structured, but actually functioned in as conciliatory a manner as possible. The evidence before me demonstrates that the situation is not as the Court contemplated in both respects.”

The analysis was exhaustive, and the reasoning kept as close to the previous Supreme Court decision in R. v. Taylor as possible, so as not to overturn precedent. It is likely that this decision will stand, and if so, then hate crimes prosecutions under section 13 have been crippled.

More investigation needed before commenting.

First: create the hysteria for which your legislation is the solution. Carbon dioxide, the natural process of all combustion, is named as a pollutant, despite its fundamental role as the life-giver to lamnts.

Second: create a market which appears to reduce CO2 emissions while actually filling the pockets of the very very rich with the revenues from carbon-dixide licences (caps) which are “traded”. How do you do this? Reduce the amnunt of caps by law.

First: bad science

 You will have read about this elsewhere in an article by Declan McCullough, about the suppressed report on carbon dioxide. The report says, in its executive summary, about the science of global warming:

•  that the US is acting principally on the IPCC report of three years ago;

that, since that time, and in contrast to what the IPCC predicted:

• global temperatures have been in decline while CO2 emissions have increased;
• Atlantic hurricanes are not increasing in severity
• Greenland ice is not diminishing
• the recession has greatly reduced greenhouse gas emissions below IPCC estimates
• that solar data (how much the earth is warmed by the sun) was downplayed in the IPCC report, contrary to evidence.

You can read the rest of the report for yourselves. Evidence ignored. Evidence suppressed. Bad science driving out good science.

I quote the McCullough article here:

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside a federal agency–and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Second: the scam

The next piece of the picture is supplied by a recent article by Matt Taibbi on the investment firm Goldman-Sachs, which is found in Rolling Stone magazine.

The article illuminates the role of Goldman Sachs in the creation of a number of bubbles, from which they have profited immensely. I recommend you read the entire article to appreciate the scale of the rip-off. This is a condemnation which could have been written by a person from any point on the political spectrum, because it is not anti-market; it is against the rigging of markets so that risk has nothing to do with it. Risk is for you small people. Risk at the level at which Goldman-Sachs is playing is of a paltry fine of $20 million when you have raked in $20 billion. I wondered whether it was going to be an anti-semitic diatribe but, rest assured, it is a diatribe against “malefactors of great wealth”, to quote Franklin Roosevelt. We live in a casino economy and Goldman-Sachs, says Taibbi, are the the casino owners.

How do you rig the carbon dioxide emissions market? Quite simple actually. You make sure that the carbon credits continually diminish. That is, as time goes on, the value of the right to produce carbon dixide must of necessity go up as the number of such credits goes down. The artificial scarcity is produced by the law. So the carbon credit price is a kind of tax on the production of carbon dioxide, the inevitable result of all combustive processes. But who gets the revenues produced by the tax?

Ah! Not the state. Not the federal treasury. No, no, no. The holders of carbon credits gets the revenue from the “tax” on carbon. Who holds the credits? Goldman Sachs and firms associated with or owned by it.

Let Taibbi speak to this:

“Cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. In stead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn another commodities market into a private tax-collection scheme.”

You do not have to believe all of Taibbi’s article on Goldman’s supposed role in rigging market after market. A commenter in the Atlantic magazine certainly does not. But on the plain facts of how a market will work, reducing the supply by law will create a scarcity, and ensurng the revenues accruing from that scarcity are captured by something else than the federal treasury is very bad policy indeed.

It reminds me of the tax-farmers of pre-Revolutionary France. The French monarchy contracted out the collection of taxes to those to whom it owed the most debts. The debt-holders organized themselves into Fermiers-General and became the collectors of revenue for the French state. They conducted tax-collection with honesty and efficiency, turning over to the State the agreed amounts and keeping the rest. They were guillotined at the time of the Revolution,including the famous French chemist, Lavoisier.

After reading Taibbi’s article one cannot help wonder whether we are approaching a pre-revolutionary situation – in say, twenty years, if this kind of organized looting of people’s wealth continues. This carbon-taxing folly is nothing but the looting of the public wealth under the cover of bogus science and doomist ideology, supported by al the usual useful idiots of the respectable press.

- You mean they had less than a billion addresses on the Internet?”

- They had no Internet. They only had about 85 endpoints, and they were called channels then.

-  Channels?

- The information only flowed one way.

- You have to be kidding. You’re kidding me, aren’t you sir?

- No, I am not. When broadcasting technology started, there were only three or four channels of television.

- What’s television?

- A pre-computer analog distribution system which employed vast amounts of spectrum to convey signals one-way. It was highly inefficient, but it was better at conveying pictures than what went before, which was only the printed word.

- How did they talk back?

- They didn’t.

- You mean they just sat there and watched stuff?

- Yes.

- Ah sir!  That’s just too weird!

- Nevertheless, for a few decades after radio communication was invented, but before computers re-organized how it was done, there was a period there when signals went out but the back-channel was missing.

- It must have been a period of extreme conformity, I mean, everybody watching the same stuff must have meant they all thought alike.

-  Good insight. It was. The 20^th century was the century of the mass-man and the collective state, even in the parliamentary democracies. There were even people who tried to maintain that system. They called the expansion of choices ‘fragmentation of the audience’, as if we were all supposed to be watching the same thing.

- Why did they think we should all be watching the same thing?

- That’s a tough one. Your essay has to be on the social implications of “broadcasting”, and that’s an issue you should address in your paper.

GEERT WILDERS’ FREEDOM OF SPEECH SUMMIT

I wish I had come to a place they call they call sunshine state with better news but it would be very unwise to deny that the situation indeed is very gloomy, and it might take a while for you to understand the situation that we are in now. Maybe you as Americans still think that Europe is a place with a great culture and a profound way of looking at things. Maybe you see immigration as something that is inherently good for our country as it contributed so much for the United States, and I understand that. But Ladies and Gentleman the Europe as you know it from visiting Europe or from stories from your parents or friends or whoever, is on the verge of collapsing.

We are now witnessing profound changes that will forever alter Europe’s destiny and might send the Continent in what Ronald Reagan once called: “A thousand years of darkness.

And the takeover of Europe, that is currently taking place, is part of a global fight, a global fight of Islam for World domination.

Let me tell you first, that Islam is not a religion. Islam is a totalitarian political ideology. Islam hearts lies at the Koran and the Koran is a book that calls for hatred, that calls for violence, for murder, for terrorism, for war and submission.

The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill Kuffars, non-Muslims. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs, and Churchill, and I agree with him, Churchill compared the Koran, the book in the 50’s, to Adolf Hitlers book Mein Kampf.

Ladies and Gentleman the core of the problem with Islam is twofold, First, the commands of the Koran are not limited by place or time, they apply for all time, to all Muslims of the World.

Second, the Koran is Allah’s personal words that leaves no room for interpretation, therefore, there is not such a thing as a moderate Islam. Of course, there are many moderate Muslims, but a moderate Islam does not exist.

As the Turkish Prime Minister Mr. ErdoÄŸan once rightfully said, he said: “There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam”

Apart from the Koran, the life of the Prophet Mohammed is very important for you to understand, in order to understand this terrible ideology. Mohammed plays the crucial part in this Islamic totalitarian ideology. Mohammed in fact is the role model for all Muslims in the World but, who was Mohammed? Mohammed, in fact was a paedophile, was a conqueror, was a Warlord and in establishing Islam he preached violence and the slaughter of non-Muslims.

He took part in 78 battles and slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah and Mohammed once said and I quote: “I have been ordered by Allah to fight against people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger”

And, indeed, Mohammed’s behaviour inspired Iran’s former leader the Ayatollah Khomeini to say and I quote: “The purest joy in Islam is to kill and be killed for Allah”

And Mohammed’s behaviour and the Koran inspired Jihadists all over the World to slaughter innocent people like they did in Washington, in New York, in Madrid, in London and in Mumbai.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Islam has always intended to conquer Europe and it has done so for centuries.

The Christian city of Constantinople fell in the 15 century and now in the 21st century. Islam is trying again, but this time, not with Armies, but through the application of Al Haya the Islamic doctrine of migration. As expounded so masterfully by my good friend Sam Solomon in his (book ?????) The doctrine that is based on the example of Mohammed who himself migrated from Mecca to Medina.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi said and he unfortunately is correct, and I quote: “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe and there are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe, without swords, without guns, without conquest. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn Europe into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” Ladies and Gentlemen, unfortunately Gaddafi is right.

The Al Haya doctrine is and has been very successful in Europe for the first time in World history there are dozens of millions of Muslims living far outside the dark area of Islam, the Islamic World, and that poses enormous problems to the West.

Ladies and Gentlemen AlHaya may be the end of the Western civilization as we know it, for Islam is not coming to our societies to integrate or to assimilate but wants to dominate, and wants to submit us all, and the most dramatic situation is the one in Europe today.

My country is in the process of becoming Hollandistan as Europe is becoming in the process of becoming Eurabia. Only 12 percent of the German Muslims see themselves more German than Muslims, and churches throughout Europe are emptying out whereas Mosques are shooting up like mushrooms. Many evil phenomena such as Burqas, honour killings, female genitalia mutilations are becoming more and more prevalent.. Sharia testaments, Sharia mortgages, Sharia schools, Sharia banks, Sharia courts and even sharia Barbie dolls–Europe has them all today.

And I have not even mentioned the fact that for instance 70 percent of all crimes in the European city like Copenhagen are committed by Muslims. Indeed, we let in the Trojan Horse and the free World is now facing a Stealh Jihad, the Islamic attempt to introduce Sharia Law, bit by bit (or hit by hit?).

Allow me to give you a few examples also of the Islamization here in the United States:-

Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis have refused over 5,000 passengers because they were carrying alcohol. Muslim students are demanding separate campus housing. Muslim women are demanding separate hours and gyms, and swimming pools. Schools are already banning Halloween and Christmas celebrations. Indeed, schools are taking pork off their cafeteria menus to avoid Muslim students.

Ladies and Gentlemen, be aware that this is only the beginning. If things continue like this, you will have the same problems that we are facing in Europe today. And if we do not stop the process of Islamization, I am sure we will lose everything, we will lose our identity, we will lose our culture, we will lose our Democratic Constitutions, we will lose our freedom, we will lose our Civilization.

In Europe we are already losing the fight for freedom of speech. We are losing the fight to criticize Islam and I think that criticizing religions and ideologies, always, always ought to be possible in a free World. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and certainly not ideologies. S|o I propose that all the hate speech laws in Europe are to be repealed.

Europe ought to defend the freedom of speech.

In fact Europe should adopt a U.S. model like the First Amendment. The difference between United States and Europe and the area of free speech is for instance shown by the example of my short film Fitna.

A few months ago, I was invited to show Fitna in the Senate, in your democratic Senate, by Senator Jon Kyl and in contrast to that the screening of my film Fitna was banned twice in the terrible European Parliament, and let us see to which the Freedom of Speech is exercized not only in Washington DC but also in Brussels and Strasbourg, and that is why we do need a European First Amendment.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is one country in our Western Civilization that has been forced to fight the forces of Jihad for its values since the very day of its existence: Israel the Canary in the Coal Mine. Let me say a few words about that wonderful country.

I had the privilege myself to live in Israel for a few years and since then I have visited that country many, many times.. Why? Because I love it, I do love Israel.

However, in Europe, being Pro-American, being Pro-Israel makes you an endangered species. Israel is a Beacon of Light in an area, the Middle East, that is pitch black everywhere else.

Israel is a Western Democracy, whilst Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and all the other countries in the region are medieval dictatorships. And the so-called Middle East conflict, as you all know it, is not about land at all. It’s a conflict about, once again, about ideologies. It’s a conflict and a battle between Islam and Freedom. It’s not about some land in Gaza or Judea or Samaria, it’s about Jihad.

To Islam the whole of Israel is occupied territory. They see Tel Aviv and Haifa as settlements as well, and I am very much in favour of a two state settlement solution but then the two state solution from Winston Churchill in 1921, when Palestine was partitioned into a Jewish and an Arab part, Arab Palestine, Ladies and Gentlemen, is now called Jordan and I think that Jordan is the Palestinian State.

Islam forces Israel to fight. Israel is not just fighting for itself, Israel is fighting for all of us, for the entire West, just like those brave American soldiers who landed in Sicily in 1943 and stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944.

Young Israeli men today, young Israeli Women today, are fighting for our freedom, are fighting for our civilization, and like Bosnia, like Kosovo, like Nigeria, like Sudan, like the Caucasus, like Kashmir, like Southern Thailand, like Western China and the South of the Phillipines, Israel is situated exactly on the dividing line between dar el Islam, the Islamic World and dar al Harb the non-Islamic World. It is no coincidence that it is precisely this dividing line, where blood is flowing and war is raging in many many areas.

And, we have to get rid of that politically correct fallacy that it is all about separate conflicts, it’s not. Let us please allow ourselves at least to see the big picture, which is, that all those conflicts, have to do with Jihad, Jihad in the spirit of Mohammed. Ladies and Gentlemen, Europe ought to fully back Israel to the hilt and help us fight against those that threaten it, whether it’s Hezbollah, whether it’s Hamas, or Nuclear Iran. Also, because of its history, Europe has certainly the moral duty and obligation to prevent at all cost, another Holocaust against the Jewish people.

Ladies and Gentlemen, still Islam is not our No. 1 problem, our No. 1 problem is called “Cultural Relativism,” the Elites that rule our countries have converted us to this sick philosophy a long time ago. Government leaders, Judges, even Churches, Trade Unions, Universities, the Media, all of them are blinded by political correctness and have chosen the side of Islam. They feel sorry for Muslims and pity them. “Cultural Relativism” is weakening the West day by day. As a result of this “Cultural Relativism” a little bit of the Free West dies everyday. Many Politicians, seem to believe, unfortunately, that their job is not to defend democracy but to help to make the transition to Sharia as smooth as possible.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am often asked whether I have any answers to all the problems that I mention or what those answers might be. Well, let me tell you, I certainly have a lot of answers. Here are a few things that I believe we should do in the West, to stop the Islamization.

First, I have already said it, we have to stop the idea of “Cultural Relativism.” Get rid of the misconception that all cultures are equal. They are not. Our culture based on Christianity, on Judaism and Humanism is far better than the Islamic culture. So we should stop it.

We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion, sure, it has religious symbols, but it’s not a religion. It is a totalitarian ideology and the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.

We should stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries. We have to stop it, today. No more immigrants from Muslim countries. We have to stop the Al Haya .

We have to encourage the voluntary repatriation. We have to expel criminals. We have to expel criminals with dual nationality even if we have to de-naturalize them and send them back to their homelands. I think we need a European First Amendment to strengthen our freedom of speech.

I think we have to have a contract, in any Western Country, a contract, a binding contract signed by everybody there, of Assimilation. We need a Pledge of Allegiance in all Western countries for people to adhere to our values as well.

We have to stop the building of new Mosques. We have to close the Mosques where incitement of violence is taking place.

We have to close down Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions, where young people are brought up with an ideology of violence. And, last but not least, we have to get rid of the weak leaders that we have.

We have the privilege, until today, to live in a democracy, and let us use that privilege in order to exchange our own values.

We need indeed, in our Western World today, we need more leaders, we need more Churchill’s and we need less Chamberlain’s. We need strong leaders like we have here today, like Alan West and Adam Hasner, we need strong men like that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, in short, we have to go on the offensive; my message of this evening is that we have to go on the offensive. We have to start fighting back, there is no alternative other than fighting back. We must no longer allow ourselves to remain seated in our armchairs and get trampled over. If they bombard us with Sharia Law as they do, then we shall bombard them back with our Human Rights and our Freedom of Speech. if they bombard us with all their court cases we will bombard them back with all our court cases, against them. We have to fight back and show them indeed millions, millions of people….

I assure you that I will continue my struggle for Freedom, and indeed a struggle it is.

After Fitna had been screened for the first time last year, there were threats. Don’t ever dare to criticize Islam publicly, you will get threats of Economical Boycotts, your flag, like the dutch flag will be burnt all over the World You will be prosecuted, like I am to be prosecuted in my own home country, and also in France and Jordan, I face prosecution.

I have been barred from entering the United Kingdom, Lord Malcolm Pearson just spoke about it, but also barred from going to Indonesia.

The most radical Imam in the Netherlands is threatening to sue me and demanding a compensation, and a Parliamentary Bill, even today in the Netherlands in my own country, is currently being drafted with the aim of protecting Islam from criticism, and on top of all this, because of my view of Islam anybody else who dares to stand up and criticize Islam, Al Qaeda is there determined to kill me, and others who speak out against Islam.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I told you I was going to be blunt, I was going to be tough, but there is no alternative for this. In spite all this bad news, fortunately there is also some good news I can share with you and there is no doubt in my mind that at the end of the day, even though it is five minutes to twelve, Freedom will prevail. There are already some hopeful signs.

For instance, last week, in my own Parliament in the Dutch Parliament, they accepted a motion, a resolution, proposed by my own Party, seeking to block any dialogue between Government Officials and Hamas. And, according to the most recent opinion polls, already for months now, if elections were to be held in the Netherlands today, my own Party, the Freedom Party, will be the largest Party in the Netherlands. So you might be looking at the next Prime Minister of the Netherlands. So, I ask you, if it can be done in the Netherlands, why not throughout the whole Western World.

If the Netherlands were the first country to end up the Multi-Culturalist Swamp why can’t it be the first Country to find a way out. Why are there not other countries where people stand up and win the elections and make some changes.

Finally, Ladies and Gentlemen, of course, we in Europe, we in the Netherlands, I myself, have not forgotten to whom we owe our Liberties. Our Liberties were bitterly fought for by American Soldiers. American soldiers fought, bled, and died for the European freedom. American soldiers did not die for an Islamized Europe, they died for a free Europe. We owe, we owe something to those brave men, those brave American men, their legacy can not be squandered and cannot be given away. The third President and his spiritual father of this great Nation, once said and I quote: “The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance” as so often Thomas Jefferson was right.

Our freedom must be safeguarded, and it is, we, ourselves, as we are sitting here, that must do so, that must act. A period of inattention of dropping our guard, for even a short while, might cost us our freedom, just like that. It has happened before in history, please let us not allow it to happen again.

Everything we stand for has to be defended, everything we are, everything we have, with all our might, our identity, our culture, our democracy, our freedom and our civilization is at stake.

We owe it, Ladies and Gentlemen, to our children.

So Ladies and Gentlemen, I leave you with the expression of our determination. We will never give up, we will never give in, we will never never, ever, surrender. Thank You.

[youtube xKY3i_tYzos]

Simple. Declare the Internet is broadcasting. No, I don’t mean broadcasting over the air. I mean “broadcasting” as in the Canadian Broadcasting Act: the propagation through a transmission medium of signals composed predominantly of full-motion video, or music.

No, please, I am not kidding. The Canadian Thought Control Commission (CTCC, formerly known as the CRTC) could spend a great deal of time estimating whether the inclusion of a video feed into a blog turns it into “broadcasting”. It could embroil the blogosphere in years of apprehension, litigation and speech “chill”. What fun! Jobs forever!

Consider the advantages:

• You need a licence from the government to operate a blog.
• You pay heavy fines (up to $20,000 a day for individuals) and jail time for operating without a licence and you pay equally serious fines for failure to obey a regulation of the CTCC.

This is just the beginning. The opening section 3 of the Broadcasting Act establishes a wide series of objectives for Canadian broadcasting.  The wide objectives require broad and discretionary regulation. Examples:

• Religious programming: in order to ensure that religious programming is diverse, the Commission controls the religious composition of the Board of Directors of Vision TV so that religious affiliation is “balanced”, that is, conforms to the condition of licence established by the CTCC.
• Political viewpoints: the CTCC could establish or re-affirm a fairness doctrine, such that each programmer, who is responsible for the content of his “programs” must give space to opposing points of view, because, as we know, “programming” should

“provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern,” (3 i, iv)

• Each broadcaster must make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use of Canadian creative reources (3f). Can we establish quotas on hyperlinks to foreign websites? You betcha.
• Broadcasters are regulated as to speech by means of “broadcast standards councils” which are set up outside the CTCC but which can admonish broadcasters for intemperate speech. In this way the boundaries of permissible speech are not seen to be regulated by the regulator but by the industry itself. Recently some rather anti-Islamic comments by an Ottawa radio host were denounced by the Broadcast Standards Council.

 

In addition, the CTCC has complete authority to establish new classes of licence and to regulate effectively each class of licencee. So it would be perfectly legal to establish the Internet blogging licence regulations, under the Internet Regulations, 2010, by decision of the Commission.

In the recent new media proceedings before the CTCC, the subject was whether the Commission’s previous exemption orders should be lifted. These exemption orders, passed in 1999, declared that parts of the Internet were “broadcasting” but that the Commission would exempt the Internet from all regulation. The reasons why are scary, if you are concerned with the freedom of speech on the Internet, because they had nothing to do with the virtues of the Internet in either allowing innovation without permission or free communication. The reasons all had to do with the lack of impact on “broadcasters” and the regulated system generally.

So what of the Internet had had these effects? Regulate!

In the recent proceedings, the CTCC heard from many parties opposed to the regulation of the Internet, and many parties in favour of doing so. Most of those in favour of broader application of the Broadcasting Act thought that the blogosphere could be excluded from regulation by establishing exemptions for privately produced or “non-professional” web content. Some did not even address this issue. As usual the licenced mendicants of the Canadian broadcasting sector appeared to claim that a tax on ISPs would handily resolve the economic problems caused by their not having enough money. The large commercial interests poured scorn on the concept of regulating the Internet for reasons of interest and practicality.

Not one made the point that the expansion of licensed speech is the further limitation of unlicenced speech. Not one addressed the central concern of free speech. I guess there is no money in it, and those concerned with a tax on ISPs thought that the CTCC would take care of the issue.

It is a cause of alarm that in the Canadian political culture, the only questions being asked by the Commission were whether the Internet was having an effect on its creatures, the broadcasters, and if so, what remedies could be taken to ameliorate that affect. The cultural industry mendicants were eager to absorb more taxpayer money. The large carriers defended their rights to experiment in the frequently unprofitable zone of the Internet without being obliged to answer to government for Canadian content.

Let us take a look at what would be considered “broadcasting” under some interpretations of the Broadcasting Act which have been advanced by lawyers for Canadian cultural industries.

Look at www.patcondell.com. You have probably seen him: that balding grey-haired Brit who speaks from an upstairs room to the world through a video-cam upload to the Internet. He denounces Islam, Christianity, and all religious belief with cheerful insouciance or vituperative insolence. Preponderantly video? Yes. Under Canadian jurisdiction? Doubtful – he lives in England and the territorial connection is insufficiently close to Canada. But we could work on it. We could just assert jurisdiction over ISPs, which are in Canada. Then we could establish regulations over what “programs” ISPs could carry.

Set aside for the moment the apparent impracticality of doing so. All you need is a complaints-based regime. You don’t need inquire yourself into Pat Condell’s particular offensiveness. You bring the ISPs within the Canadian broadcast standards council. Then you let some offended Muslim or Christian bring a petition before the CBSC. Voila! Years of litigation and tedious procedures, and suddenly Pat Condell cannot be found on Canadian ISPs any longer. The forces of those who take offence are generally stronger than the forces of free speech, especially when the speakers have to face publicly subsidized processes concerned with too much free speech of the wrong kind.

Thus, the zone of free unlicensed speech in this country depends greatly on the decisions of 13 commissioners at the CTCC, in effect, to self-deny their apparent jurisdiction – a jurisdiction which is evident to some very good lawyers for the cultural industries.

Feeling comfortable about this situation?  I confess that I do not.

 Remember, this situation continues until someone makes changes in the Broadcasting Act, or declares the expression of thought by any technical means through Internet permanently off-limits to licensing by the state. I foresee neither possibility happening without public outrage directed at governments.

Indeed.

Clearly an utter lack of shame opens up vast new frontiers of endeavour.

A good start for Randy Hiller. Check out his platform, which is enough to cause wets to wet themselves. A Freeedom of Association and Conscience Act? The pity is that such an act is needed.