EU Phobia: more Crimes against the Ideology!

There's no ducking it. The new EU Council Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia adopted last week is another step towards Liberal totalitarianism and is already dubbed 'an appalling piece of legislation' by The Brussels Journal.

The EU Justice Ministers have been haggling and compromising over curtailing nothing less than our basic freedom of speech. The legal framework deals with the harmonisation and the E.U. proper's legal ability to combat "forms of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law", "against publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the crimes directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group."

Trust the E.U. not to see the ethical problem of what they're doing, and to come up with a subtle text that outlaws bad jokes and the Jewish Shoa, but doesn't cover the Armenian holocaust, or Stalin era communist crimes against the civilian populations.

Since the member states' existing legislation differs wildly, full harmonisation of criminal laws isn't yet possible.
But more stringent laws, such as in Germany and Austria, remain applicable in the member states.

Especially noteworthy is the EU's ability under the framework to prosecute cases of their own accord, and without the victim's consent. Crimes can carry sentences of upto three years in prison and forfeiture of employment as well as benefits. The latter is simply unheard of in post World War II Europe and a measure of the wrong way it's going.

The following may sound like linguistic nitpicking, but is indicative of the gross imprecision in these Liberal morality laws. Phobia means fear, not hatred, and fear isn't a matter of free choice. Depending on the underlying cause of the phobia - and I don't know that hatred is always of free choice either - but you can rest assured I have an almighty phobia for Islam ... what with terrorist attacks and Al Qa'ida's media manipulation that is specifically tuned to disseminating as much fear as possible. That is the whole point of it, and the reason it's called terrorism, which derives from the Latin word terrorem meaning great fear or dread.

While they should be prosecuting intolerant organizations the EU is potentially punishing the victims. But far from it, under the Four Freedoms they have a positive duty to keep their citizens from Fear! For terrorism is worse than war: it is an act of war against unarmed civilians.

In "You Can't Make an Omelet Without Breaking Eggs" we have already seen the tendency in the West to elevate Left Liberal ideology to moral standards across the board. These tenets don't foster equality, but on the contrary, victimhood and inequality so as to "compensate groups for their inequality in proportion to their difference."

In a post "Victim obsession leading to more oppression, not less in modern Britain" former University teacher John Ray from Brisbane, Australian gives a review on a book called, "Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law", in which practising barrister Neil Addison provides the first comprehensive survey of legislation concerning religion in diverse areas such as criminal law, discrimination, employment and harassment, and charts the growing role of courts in regulating this messy dimension of society.

Addison is concerned about the legal expansion into a complicated moral aspect of human life, and fears that a new generation of laws will remove people's powers to criticise, challenge or defend their religious (or non-religious) views.

He "sees the expansion of law into the terrain of religion as part of 'a new type of philosophy': 'We used to have laws because we considered them necessary, but now it seems we have laws because they are desirable. If something is regarded as good or bad, we use the law to direct it. In effect, we're trying to legislate morality.' For Addison, the law has now become a tool for some groups to impose their moral positions on others, whether it is the ban on smoking or the ban on foxhunting or restrictions on what we can say about minority groups.

We have to ask ourselves if any group's activism and victimhood outweighs the loss of a society that respects the freedom of speech! Instead of overcompensating for the Left Liberal lack of universal equality, in treating all religions as 'identical', it would be right, fairer and wiser to convince those minorities that hold excessive views, that living in a free world means furthering tolerance and respect for the freedom of others, and that there's no place for violent forms of self-assertion.

What the E.U. is in the process of doing, is making our societies less free, so as to accommodate intolerant minorities. By adopting their standards, we are getting it backwards.

As for gays and women's libbers, they need to develop a sense of responsibility: Oh, grow up!

Of Farce, Oscuridad and Re-Re-Conquista

Yesterday I promised a regular participant in these pages (hi, High) to produce an 'obscure' post. An entire post goes against the grain, but here's an obscure statement if there ever was one. Brussels Journal yesterday published an article, authored by Soeren Kern, Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid based Strategic Studies Group.

"Spain’s Policy of Appeasing Terrorists Backfires" deals with the Iberian version of Atilla the Hun and his destructive policies. In a statement of utter obscurity it reads: "Confirming the growing suspicion that José Zapatero’s post-modern approach to fighting terrorism lacks a basis in reality, he told TIME Magazine in September 2004 that ‘sexual equality is a lot more effective against terrorism than military strength’. Digest that for obscurity, for a moment.

That is, on the part of 'the epitome of a postmodern appeaser', not the author Soeren Kern evidently, whose description of Zapatero's "multicultural group therapy" shines a brilliant light over otherwise disastrous political recklessness for the sake of it, that can only facilitate to further the Re-Re-Conquista of Al Andalus and beyond, the Maghreb, the West.

- In Afghanistan this week, the kidnapping of Italian reporter for La Repubblica newspaper Daniele Mastrogiacomo, his driver, and his interpreter ended with the freeing of the first of these and the killing of the other two, both of them Muslims. Chiesa.com on Friday reproduced an article written by Islam expert Khaled Fouad Allam, which La Repubblica published on 11th April.

In "A totalitarian Islam" he explains the finer points of the fault lines within Islam, which are not just the more well-known Sunni versus Shia divide, but also a totalitarian versus mystic one. There's our answer towards the Religion of Peace: we should be supporting the Sufis!

- And while we are on the subject: the enemy is herewith on notice that any attack between today and two years hence will not be subject to any significant counter activity. This is the delivery time required to get fresh ammo and canteen supplies to the Dutch N.A.T.O. mission in Uruzgan, Afghanistan (ISAF III). Since this hazardous situation will not stand - and I'm sure the unions won't have it either - Dutch Command has let it be known they'll throw in the towel in 2008, totalitarian Islam or a mystical one. A sense of farce never was a Dutch forte.

- And as we find Canadian confirmation that multiculturalism indeed leads to ghettos, sectarianism and insularity, the most multicultural city on earth is moving on to 'metaculturalism' - and here they loose me - to syncretism. The term alludes me in the cultural context, but what could be meant, is what's called 'Truthiness', a religious smorgasbord of whatever suits your Individual Personality. The good news is that this particular piece of nasty social engineering might at last be fazing out once our governments get the message. Some cultures may after all survive the onslaught, more or less. And here's for the aficionados amongst us: metaculturalism does go towards Choice! This is promising a lot of fun, culture hopping. It may come in the nick of time to pick up a few pieces, of what's left of Britain.

- As Turkish National Islamists do their utmost to give God a bad name and murder their way out of future E.U. membership (not to worry, it'll blow over), the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas confirms Radical Liberals and The Pink Inverse Triangle in their conviction, that believers in the transcendental are indeed all deranged fundamentalists.

Of Rats and Inner Voices, mainly

Humanity's inability to resist the temptation to push things to their extreme seems to be our curse! Take the following hot news items.

Lost our way?
I see this isn't going to be a pleasant post, but - as we know - reality must be faced. With about half America, I've had it with Hilary and all these other hysterical women's libbers about 'a woman's right to choose'! I think it's terribly moronic to get accidentally pregnant in the first place, rape cases evidently excluded. Yesterday I registered some female peawit whining that "... all these prophylactics are so terribly unreliable, aren't they?"

Let's suppose you are one of those who answered the irresistible call of nature and got unlucky. What's to keep you from getting a 'day after' shot. At present outlook in most Western countries the situation is such, that should you be brainless enough to let that moment pass, there's still a legal period, that number of days worth of opportunities, to make your Personal Choice. We shouldn't be here at all, but let's presume for the sake of argument.

At which point Hilary's libbers have the gall to come and tell us that, still dithering around the 180 days pregnancy mark is still not enough Choice. They also want the 'right to partial birth', which is a gruesome and unnecessary procedure by any one's standards. Even Hillary can't sell us a six months' old fetus for a de-humanized 'cluster of cells' .

Remember yesterday's hierarchy of rights? The disturbing thing in this debate is, that we are talking about human life, but the ethics are lost in the politics of the matter, and the principle of positing a mother's right to choose above a human's number one, basic and absolute right to life.

While beheading your innocent unborn offspring is seen as a right, hanging Saddam Hussein is a big moral 'no no'! Don't let anyone come and tell me we are not hopelessly confused, and not a little disturbed!

Christian values?
Roman Catholics keep telling us about Natural Law, and about a trait we all are supposed to possess. Others explain our natural capacity of a conscience, as an inner voice: after you've done something you oughtn't, it's telling you that it was a bad move on your part? It's all very Victorian ... Christian philosophy and all that, I know ... which is possibly the reason why it isn't much in evidence. I'm also not so sure about this over-all natural capacity of a conscience anyway. Perhaps it's latent, but needs nurture to develop. How else can you explain the above?

What conscience?
Or explain the existence of these rats?
- Dutch former Socialist Party leader and former World Bank Chairman of the Board’s Ethics Committee during mid-2005, who requested Paul Wolfowitz to act as he did, presently denies all knowledge. Those familiar with the Ad Melkert modus operadi, shouldn't be terribly surprised. Didn't I explain that's the sort of institutions Socialists go to die - spending other people's money - after messing things up too much, even for Dutch hyper tolerant standards?
- Deputy says 'quit', Here's the link to all 357 articles
- Well, the whole Wolfowitz affair stands to reason ... he's a neocon, isn't he? As it's open season ...

What? More rats ... ? Yeah ... remember the anti war crowd? This is the lengths some go to in a good cause, in all their rage, rage, rage about rats, rats, rats ...?

Education, education, education!

When investigating the history and tenets of multiculturalism I stumbled upon the relevant Wikipedia entry, which also lists a number of its 'founding fathers'. It's off topic here, but Hispanic Pundit provides us with other fine background information. The Wikipedia entry mentions as founders Charles Sanders Peirce, William James W.E.B. Du Bois, Alain Locke, George Santayana, Horace Kallen and John Dewey, almost all also civil rights movementers.

The last name triggered a flurry of synaptic activity. Checking the notes I made on Ann Coulter's book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" - a hilarious feast of recognition I might add - I read: "John Dewey, founder of U.S. public education - said 'you can't make socialists out of individuals - children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent' - in case anyone still doubted the relationship between multiculturalism, relativism and the Left!

I jotted it down because it tallies so wonderfully with the Dutch situation and lays bare another public secret: that socialists not only socially engineered society to the extent we presently witness, the indoctrination with the politically correct (read: 'the ideology') starts at educational level, since after Mao and Marx they say: it is the incubator of tomorrow's socialists (read Left Liberals, Social Democrats, or whatever label it is they like to present themselves with these days).

Education simply belóngs to the Left. In The Netherlands the Ministry of Education is where Socialists spend their hay-days - they go to die at the U.N., the World Bank or some other international forum which has been bribed for the privilege at the taxpayer's expense.

Subjectivity is therefore a riot in education! Anyone who thinks that children get the grades they deserve, had better think again! There's an awful lot of proportional compensating for unequal difference being done there. What is class justice to the legal system, is underachiever's favouritism in the class room! The remainder of the time, when they aren't recuperating, is spent on the celebration of pluralism.



The reason I bring this up now, is an article "A Minority View: Exploiting Ignorance" by Walter E. Williams on today's Townhall. Williams, a regular producer of above average material, I noticed, is also on the case. "So many Americans graduate high school and college having learned what to think as opposed to acquiring the tools of critical, independent thinking ... I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories, but it's tempting to think America's charlatans, quacks and demagogues are in cahoots with the teaching establishments at our government schools and colleges to dumb down the nation."

Those who think that eduction has become progressively worse over the last decades, the infamous 'phenomenon' of dumbing down, aren't dreaming. It is not even a phenomenon: it is like most trouble, man-made, or to be more precise, socialist made. If this isn't addressed ASAP (which it won't be), the next generation the educational system delivers will be practically moronic, if useful voting machines.

Your can't make an omelet without breaking eggs!

Delorme and great number of other Liberals are making the mistake of thinking that Islam is as any other minority group whose victimhood must be compensated, not taking into consideration its perceived superiority, its exclusivity and its intolerance of other faiths and schools of thought. They are aware of it - or they could be, if not in denial - but the public secret is that of their own choice, they choose to ignore it in the hope that almost overnight a friendlier, more liberal, Western variety of Islam will develop.

Some politicians feel other paths may yield better results. They try to avert the consequences by appeasing, smoothing over, imposing temporary stop gaps and half measures, uttering sedating mantras they hope will make the threat go away, hoping against hope to avert the inevitable, betraying their own people in the process if they have to (oh, I'm sorry - was that terribly fascist of me?). Some French Police Departments for one, are more realistic.

Others, totally in denial, require immediate commitment to an institution for the criminally insane (or wherever it is they send the hazards of society to these days). Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen (proclaimed Mayor of the Year by his peers for crying out loud!) - who together with the parties of the leftist coalition that is ruling the city, have come to the conclusion that the Muslim Brotherhood may not be a dangerous organisation at all!

Yesterday we had a look at a Middle East Forum report to the effect that Islam in its present state, isn't fit to be integrated into free society. This conclusion may be an obvious one to any unblinkered observer who isn't dazzled by the prospects of a global Ummah. But so as to avoid admitting the fact, things are exacerbated by excuses that hardly stand up to closer, Liberal scrutiny. Delorme mentions one such example, of a Bavarian court coming up with stops like the headscarf is 'fostering paternalism' and is 'hampering women's lib'. That's elevating the values of the Left Liberal school to the accepted standard of general morality: the mechanism of political correctness!

The basic, absolute, and universal right to liberty cannot be defended without violating the Left Liberal moral standard. This is why we stand aghast when confronted with the fact that Liberalism stands for freedom, but that this principle apparently doesn't extend to practicing Muslims. This standard is thus self-defeating in the face of radical Islam, which needs confronting head on, and on proper grounds.

The present trouble with Islam could have been averted, if we hadn't lost our objectivity in abandoning the principle of equal value (N.B. I purposely use this term, which is not to be confused with equality, often taken to mean: identical). Mostly to blame is the Left who keep on arbitrarily compensating victimhood, if only for reasons of self-perpetuation. Relativism and its ugly stepsister, multiculturalism, did the rest for the distorted, subjective world view.

Another taboo is that what caused the problem in the first place - the Left's principle of good intentions that always outweighs the regard for negative effects.

While volumes have been written and (inter)national agreements have been signed over any kind of positive right, benefiting perceived unequal groups - be they animals', children's, civil, collective, group, men's, women's, workers' or youth's rights - we have lost sight of the real hierarchy of rights. To remind us of the most elemental, basic and absolute ones: the right to life, liberty for all, and the pursuit of happiness. All else is secondary.

The fundamental question of a government should be, is anyone expanding his freedom at the expense of someone else's and if so, do we have the means to address it? The prime government's role in the Classical sense is the defense of these rights, but that cannot be done if certain groups are empowered at the expense of the government's ability to do their job. This is a matter of proper balance. After the transition from Classical to Left Liberalism the government became an institute for taxation, and redistribution: compensating groups for their inequality in proportion to their difference.

We have to ask ourselves: if we let ourselves be demoralised by the call of the Borg: "Resistance is Futile - Prepare to be Assimilated ... !" and if we waive our right to self-defence, which is primer in any one's book, the Borg's one uniquely excluded - there will shortly be no Liberal rights or values at all to uphold.

The best generation defended the free world at the cost of millions of lives, so that the worst generation had the liberty to wreck two millennia of civilization in the stretch of four decades. Feast your eyes on the following quote from the comment section of Elsevier Magazine, a repro from an article dated October 10th, 2004 on Daniel Pipes Weblog, "Europeans Fleeing Eurabia":

"The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told ... that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now ... Broder pointed to ... passers-by and said melancholically: 'We are watching the world of yesterday.' Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself ... he urged young people to get out and 'move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable'."

That's right .... this is the answer of the worst generation: flee while you can! Flight is easier than showing moral courage and fight for what's right! It is time we did what must be done: return to basic values, get objective and state unequivocally: this is what made us who we are, this is for the good of us all including freedom-loving Muslims; accept and live them, or leave us!


Most of us have got over
the pre-war wishful thinking
about international politics.
C.S. Lewis,
Mere Christianity (1952)

Egg on our Face!

New Left Liberal, subjective, morality laws are in the making: people have already been sentenced to fines and it is just a matter of time before the first priest or vicar will be jailed for inciting hatred under the relativist reasoning: race discrimination is bad, gender discrimination is bad, 'phobias' for Islam, homosexual behavior and abortion are bad and must be banned for violating the subjective rights of unequal minorities (is hatred). In the meantime denial of Jewish and Armenian holocausts are quite the done thing, resulting in more laws against an objective, basic Classical right: free speech!

Islamic fanaticism and its incompatibility with other religions and ideologies, are leading atheist and anti-theist movements - to whom all faiths, as per above reasoning, are in essence 'the same' - to increasingly view religion as a threat to the Liberal society, rather than as any section of humanity worthy of representation, like anyone else ... (not an subjective, unequal minority ... evidently).

This is leading to what could paradoxically be termed, signs of a Liberal dictatorship in the making. To mind come two recent affairs. One is the matter of the Italian candidate for the European Commission, Professor Buttiglione, who was rejected by the Euro Parliament for being 'too Catholic'. Everyone is welcome to join the democratically elected, freedom loving, European institutions, as long as you underwrite the Liberal ideology which says that gender is race and does not exist, the usurpation of ecclesiastical institutions by secularism is perfectly natural, human rights are fine but feticide is a women's right alone, and ventilation of opinions to the contrary are an incitement to hatred.

At present in The Netherlands there's a question over an M.P. who also happens to be a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, apparently a criminal organization by Liberal standards. Although it is not altogether clear what the problem exactly is, it is safe to assume that the fear is that she holds politically incorrect views, as per the above, or - worse - that she may be a rejectionist of the Liberal epistemology, called Darwin's Theory of Evolution: journalistic commentators make kindergarten comments - quite normal these days - to the effect that "she's in a creepy sect", and that they wouldn't be surprised if this entails "denying the Theory of Evolution".

Instead of which it would have been more in line with serious Liberal thought, to point out that "yes, we have freedom of conscience in this country" and "yes, the Theory of Evolution is indeed just that, a theory, that after 150 years still hasn't been proved - that the chances of basic enzymes of life arising by random processes are 1 to 1 followed by forty thousand zeroes". If they'd done so, they should have acted as genuinely open minded, truth-seeking journalists would have done. Instead they explain to the nation in baby-talk that the M.P. has to go as she might be committing crimes against the politically correct. For those not old enough to experience a déjà vue at this point: this happens before political correctness is elevated to law: such was part and parcel of the Soviet Union and perpetrators spent lengthy sentences in Siberian work camps for their dissent.

These are serious and ominous signs. Dissent from the prevailing Liberal thought is sliding from the politically correct suspicious, into full fledged crimes against the ideology. Very slowly but surely we are descending into a society which is tuned to totalitarianism and dictatorship, instead of one that is free, based on Judeo-Christian values and Greco-Roman principles. We are in danger of losing ourselves.

If we have a cold, hard, objective look at the remedies that have been put to work for better results, it is plain these haven't worked. Often even worked to the contrary. Due to its subjectivism [1] and the departure from Classical Liberal values (see Dr Pat's chart), Left Liberalism is defenseless and self-defeating in the face of upholding basic freedoms against radical Islamism. The multicultural approach is worse than the problem it sets itself to solve: Resistance is Futile, Prepare to be Assimilated! French secularism, laïcité, has failed as well.

International laws, so often invoked in explaining why tougher measures simply aren't on the cards, are not acts of God, but human-made legal edifices, often raised on Utopian grounds. There were reasons for putting them there, there are even more vital reasons for evaluating them. It is of existential importance that the Western world regains the ability to defend its proper values, before there won't be any left to defend.
I think it is high time we take a step back and examine what it is exactly we are forging here.

~ To be continued: Delorme and great number of other Liberals make the mistake to think that Islam is as any other subjective unequal minority group they are dealing with, not taking into consideration its perceived superiority, its exclusivity and its intolerance of other faiths and schools of thought ~

After Easter: Islamic Tyrannosaur Eggs (II)

That said, on other vital areas Islamic principles and Liberal values collide irreconcilably; the problem areas are numerous and fundamental. A recent report published by the Middle East Forum "Can there be an Islamic democracy?" explained it like this: "Ironically, while Western scholars perform intellectual somersaults to demonstrate the compatibility of Islam and democracy, prominent Muslim scholars argue democracy to be incompatible with their religion ... Islamic law regulates the believer's activities in every area of life, and ... some Muslim scholars further reject anything that does not have its origins in the Qur'an."

In consideration of my personal health I go out of my way in avoiding the calls to dhimmitude issued by The Kings of The Borg, Messrs Garton Ash, Sim and Buruma as per their cold, robotic mantra: "Resistance is Futile - Prepare to be Assimilated ... !" Regretfully I had the misfortune to stumble upon an article that the Dutch-American product of multiculturalism, in the person of Ian Buruma, recently published in Pakistan's Daily Times, entitled rather counter-intuitively "The strange death of multiculturalism". Well, not due to wishful thinking on his part, I should think.

Anyway, apart of the usual nut-cracking that kept me sleepless till six this morning - and the habitual whispers of Resistance is Futile: "... like it or not, Muslims are part of Europe ... so ... learn to live with them", he singles out Indonesia as the crowning evidence that "Liberal democracy and Islam are reconcilable." That is, conveniently passing over acts of terrorism - which, according to The Borg are to be taken in our stride, in the life in the new nationless Empire: just ask the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs; beheadings of young Christian girls are but a small price to pay for so much celebration of diversity!

It so happens that the Middle East Forum report also mentions Indonesia, but as an example that Islam is the antithesis of any secular Western democracy: "Outlining his plans to establish an Islamic state in Indonesia, Abu Bakar Bashir, a Muslim cleric and the leader of the Indonesian Mujahideen Council, attacked democracy and the West and called on Muslims to wage jihad against the ruling regimes in the Muslim world. "It is not democracy that we want, but Allah-cracy," he explained". The Borg's sense of reality has been totally relativised, I'm afraid! But that doesn't keep them from serving in governmental advisory committees. Want to bet?

Western society as a whole is in serious trouble due to Liberalism's relativist view on religion as a result of the erroneously reasoning that is typical for the pseudo philosophy, of which Buruma is a master. For instance: "Christianity equals religion, Islam equals religion, all religions are equally valid, Christianity is Islam". This infantile fallacy causes radical atheists and agnostics to seek refuge in the Christophobic French secular system, by which religion is pushed to the very margins of society. There, in the fringes it may play a silent role within the confines of the private home.

As is in evidence in the French suburbs with the violent rioting of Islamic - no, strike that last word - unemployed youths, this approach of the religiously neutral state - as warmly recommended by author Pascal Bruckner - apparently doesn't work either. It doesn't produce a better integration, or a more peaceful society, while it does create a religiously sterile public space in which even the wearing of a small crucifix on a necklace amounts to a crime. And, by Bruckner's own emphasis, this state of affairs is built on the blood of priests and nuns. No, thanks!

The bane of subjectivism within the judiciary was recently in evidence when in a German case, a Muslim mother of two petitioned for an expedited divorce from her violence prone husband. Judge Christa Datz-Winter didn't apply German law, but instead saw fit to single handedly declare Sharia law in Germany, denying the woman's request on the grounds that the couple hail from a "Moroccan cultural environment in which it is not uncommon for a man to exert a right of corporal punishment over his wife." We may not notice it any more, but this is pretty serious Eurabian stuff! Justitia blind? Objective? This isn't class justice, it's sheer racism!

Western society and the Liberalistic philosophies underpinning the legal system, are tuned to a free, responsible people that respect other person's freedoms. Adjustment of legislature to the intolerant dentencies is threatening to undermine these civic freedoms, the foundation of Western societies.

~ To be continued: New morality laws are in the making: it is just a matter of time before the first priest or vicar will be jailed for homophobia or abortionphobia ... In the meantime, denial of Jewish and Armenian holocausts are entirely the done thing ~

After Easter: Islamic Tyrannosaur Eggs (I)

While Jesco Delorme in his article "Multiculturalism is not cultural relativism!" states that in Liberalism the fundamental idea is that "the human being is autonomous, takes precedence over the collective ... metaphysical concepts such as God, History and The People may not be invoked in the formulation of political demands", he goes on to state at least three - in his eyes legitimate - examples of Muslims invoking Allah (or the Koran) in demanding privileges in re of headscarves, separate swimming pools and beaches for Muslim women. Those that mind about such minor details are merely being shortsighted and petty bourgeois. Yesterday we saw that Mr Delorme's brand of Left Liberalism justifies granting certain special rights to unequal minorities.

I don't propose screening Mr Delorme's article further on inconsistencies and inconsequential reasoning, but to move on instead to another very important point that he raises, which sets Left Liberalism (or free-market Socialism), apart from Classical Liberalism (or Libertarianism).

It is the fundamental leftist mistake of abandoning universal equality, thereby introducing subjectivism into politics and society. Decades ago I was taught the virtue of trying to be as objective as possible: to assess a casus or a situation on its own merits, without taking into consideration the persons involved: their social class, status, race, gender, or the amount of money in their bank accounts. This premise was based on the biblical principle that God created man in His image, and that consequently all people are of equal value, have equal rights and possess dignity in and of themselves.

With the Left in attendance of politics, the judiciary, education, housing, welfare, social services and a number of other fields, this universal principle was abandoned - objectivity made way for subjectivity - with grave consequences all round. Jesco Delorme justifies it as follows: "Aristotle himself insisted that equality must be understood as proportional equality. To treat persons equally in the strictest sense is justified only when they are truly equals. However, if they differ from one another in normatively relevant respects it is justified - indeed imperative - to treat them unequally in proportion to their differences". This principle may be philosophically sound when pertaining to plastic balls and pieces of fruit; it doesn't make good policy towards a healthy social state of society.

Since the departure from objectivity in politics it has become the norm for people and groups to formulate and foster any number of perceived grievances and inequalities, so as to claim special status and privileges over and at the expense of other people's rights and freedoms. It has caused the cultivation of victimhood, it has kept people from taking responsibility for their own actions, and caused the waiving of acceptance and atonement for the consequences of mistakes. That is, apart from the endless debates over how and in what measure perceived unequal proportions must be determined and compensated.

Mr Delorme's article brings us right to the heart of today's trouble when on its basis a number of privileges for Muslim women are demanded: we are not to whine pettily over headscarves and separated bathing areas. In the past decades we have been likewise subjected to positive action for women and blacks, unreasonable demands on the mentally and physically impaired, special housing and services for lower income brackets, ditto for immigrants, ditto for students, funds for violence prone youths, pregnant women, sufferers of particular diseases, AIDS victims, teen mums, the elderly, underprivileged youths, the morally challenged, divorcees, the list is endless and the struggle for inflated victimhood goes on ...

The result is the virtual incarceration of people within social and mental ghettos, poverty, class justice, ludicrous situations as a result of positive action, unfair mirroring of society in group quotas, and the excruciating phenomenon of the politically correct: the inviolate face of the prevailing ideology, the representation of today's red handkerchief. Still worse, it has made inequality the norm in Western society.

Dr Pat's chart shows in which areas the Left and Islam's social views coincide: socialism, collectivism - the subordination of the individual to the group, subjectivism, anti-realism and a socially constructed victimhood. The Unholy Alliance presently extends to a growing Muslim constituency adding to the Left's vote and a growing influence on politics in general, on immigration policy, and of influence of foreign governments on Western soil.

On a less directly visible plane of operation it could be said that the multicultural branch of the Unholy Alliance is disseminating ideological confusion, while the terrorist off-shoot takes care of radicalization in copying Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory. The multiculturalist's view of a world without national borders - one huge multi-ethnic Empire without a worldly Emperor, coincides very happily with the Islamist's vision of the Khalifate.

Islam's unprecedented special status of victimhood backed up by terror threats has led Liberal subjectivism to allow distortion of history, adjustment of school curricula, denial of the holocaust, all so as not to hurt Islamic sensitivities. The story is ongoing. Further special privileges are demanded or coerced at the expense of other groups, and cohesion of society as a whole. Especially the more radical versions don't accept the democratic tenets, nor do they accept - or even appreciate - democratic values. We have passed "go home if you don't like it here" a long time ago. This has turned into "let's change it in accordance with our wishes". It's the West that does the assimilating, at home.

The incompatibility is to a large extent due to the Islamic principle which holds that society is subservient to the all transcendental laws of Allah, as laid down in the Koran. The concept of free will is non-existent. Assertive Muslims don't accept, nor are they willing to understand, Liberal c.q. Western values which they take for weak and degenerate. As an exclusive, superior religion it expects global conversion and victory of Islam over the infidel. Neither does it accept socially deviant behaviour of the faithful, nor does it tolerate dissent.

With regard to Delorme's proposition one wonders how he reckons to police the Liberal rights of the individual within the Islamic singularity. I'm thoroughly looking forward seeing him do that!

~ In Part II: That said, on other vital areas Islamic principles and Liberal values collide irreconcilably; the problem areas are numerous and fundamental ... ~

For Easter: Multicultural Cuckoo's Eggs (III)

Having established what means what, let's have a look at Jesco Delorme's contribution on the side of the multiculturalists in the debate on Signandsight, under the crushing title: "Multiculturalism isn't cultural relativism".

Delorme starts out by declaring that "all the participants in the debate so far have explicitly affirmed belief in certain universal values; not one of them takes a position of genuine cultural relativism". So the accusation is unfounded, Delorme indignantly exclaims!

Allow me to venture a guess why Messrs Buruma, Garton Ash and Sim are being accused of relativism: could that - apart from their own confessions - perhaps be, because it is impossible to separate multiculturalism from its basis: relativism (compare definitions 1. and 2.: see part II)? Let me spell that out: without relativism you cannot maintain that there is no objective truth, and hold the subjective view that all cultures are equally valid, not one being more superior than another?

I suggest the reason why Delorme is denying the obvious and the self-confessed, is that - when maintaining the dogma that there is no "eternal truth" - you not only deny the possibility of the existence of God, Allah and all the other foundations of belief systems, as well as all the other tenets of whatever ism - be they Liberalism, Socialism or any other - but more importantly, you deny the universal value of human rights. Also it is impossible to maintain the propaganda ploy that multiculturalism is "all about individual freedom and a sheer fest of individual equality."

Since that unhappy realisation, multiculturalism is on the look-out for another basis, but that cannot be done without destroying its own very basic principle that everything and everyone is the same and 'there is no longer any eternal truth - the belief that stems from naive ethnocentrism'. Contrary to the proud relativists Sim c.s., it is to the credit of Delorme that he doesn't consider relativism a commendable ideology. He's right in that: it is the most regrettable load of rubbish ever produced in the history of ideas.

At this point any serious philosopher or ideologue worth his weight, would take stock, take a step back, saying: "well, either we stick to our guns - universality of human rights, individual equality and freedom be damned! - Or, we concede that our thesis isn't tenable".

Not so the multiculturalist. They stick to their guns, refuse to admit defeat, still congratulating themselves on the vast consequences of their truth trickery. Instead they turn to the neighbours, steal a new founding principle from them declaring it is all "in keeping" with their principles, while sticking a new label on the toxic potion: 'liberal culturalism'! Voila!

To get an idea of the depth of this absurdity, compare it to a phrenologist who posits that his ideas are still valid but that in future he'll base his claims on scientific brain research, re-baptizing it 'scientific phrenology'; or the astrologer who insists on the correctness of his astro charts based on NASA's latest Mars images, relabeling his work 'astronomical zodiac reading'! It's a bizarre fallacy.

So instead Delorme proposes to borrow the Classical Liberal or Libertarian universally valid 'eternal truths' of individual freedom, individual equality and hands-off government, and apply them only to certain 'unequal' groups. He maintains that Liberalism justifies granting certain special rights to unequal minorities. Well, not under the objective universality of Libertarianism it doesn't!

So at this point we make the transition as indicated on Dr Pat's chart (see part II) from Libertarianism to Left Liberalism, which is actually free-market socialism with a bent for special minority rights, of which we'll come to speak later. At the same time we loose the relativist basis that states that all is the same and truth does not exist. Thus robbed, we can no longer speak of the concept of multiculturalism. We're back on planet Earth, back to reality, truth and morals ... Goodbye to vertigo ...

Under Delorme's proposal however we're still very much on subjective territory; Christianity and Western civilization get a break for once, but that's probably due to an oversight on the part of Mr Delorme: we're still presented with that illiberal principle by which white males are uniquely and inherently bad: "the liberal order until now has borne the stamp of the white, middle aged, heterosexual male with no disabilities". Yak! I don't know out of which book this is a leaf, but singling out one group for vilification sounds to me pretty ominous and morally reprehensible!

I think Mr Delorme's case is increasingly non-existent, as not all that different from the current, unsatisfactory status quo.

~ In the next instalment we'll have a look at the problems and consequences of Left Liberalism and why it doesn't solve today's problems. To do that, let's crush a few taboos in the process ... ~

For Easter: Multicultural Cuckoo's Eggs (II)

Since this series of posts are consecutive I'll not provide back-links ... just scroll away. We left off yesterday with the definitions. Considering confusion is rife on this subject it is vital we know what we are talking about. You are of course free - in fact I urge you, to do more reference work on these definitions. If not ready at hand, you can find a number of links to encyclopedia and dictionaries in the Store Room.

1. What is the essence of relativism?
Relativism is the pseudo philosophy that posits that all points of view are equally valid. In ethics, this amounts to saying that all moralities are equally good; in epistemology it implies that all beliefs, or belief systems, are equally true; in anthropology that no culture is more superior than any other. Reality depends on your point of view, who you are and where you are: it is subjective. It follows that there isn't any standpoint that is uniquely privileged over another. Thus: there is no objective reality or truth, nothing is true or false in itself, there are no lies, mistaken opinions or "wrong" points of view belong to a murky past. To borrow an apt line of Ann Coulter's: "Truth is a discredited scientific theory from the Victorian age".

A great number of things may be said about this, not least of which - and I keep stressing this point because it is so familiar but no one seems to be aware of the cause - this is what makes debates in the Western world at present so very frustrating and pointless: in the absence of objective truth it a discussion over personal preferences. The one likes red, the other blue: you cannot convince the other that red is better, because it isn't. Denying the most basic of all philosophical tenets - true or false - has far reaching consequences indeed. It undermines the very basis of reality and it is what makes this fallacy so toxic: I have written extensively, but clearly not enough about it.

2. What is the definition of multiculturalism?
Contrary to popular belief multiculturalism is not the definition of a society with more than one culture: the definition politicians like to dish up to the average citizen, who takes it to mean, something vaguely like 'being nice to immigrants'. Rather, said to be rooted originally in the black civil rights movement in America, it was first adopted as an official policy in Canada in 1971. Multiculturalism's "principle aim is to assure the peaceful cohabitation of populations of different ethnic or racial origins on the same territory" - a useful point of view - for a huge, thinly populated semi continent of an immigration country without a history, a tabula rasa in all respects.

"In multiculturalism, every human group has a singularity (remember the collective soul or tribal spirit, the totem?) and legitimacy that form the basis of its right to exist, conditioning its interaction with others. The criteria of just and unjust, criminal and barbarian, disappear before the absolute criterion of respect for difference. There is no longer any 'eternal truth': the belief in this stems from naive ethnocentrism - reason why multiculturalists grow fangs at hearing the word 'dogma'. It demands that we see our values simply as the beliefs of the particular tribe we call The West. Multiculturalism is the result of this process."
N.B. the bold passages highlight some of the infamous contradictions, inherent in the ideology.

Europe, at present gravely at risk by its open door and (re)uninification policies of the last forty years, which they mistook for close-up charity (read: development aid) (or Eurabia theory, if that's your cup of kaghwa), have silently and quite undemocratically adopted multicultural policies in a last ditch effort to stave off civil unrest. But, if anything, this exacerbates the situation. Efforts in the opposite direction, of assimilation, have had the same contrary effect so far due to the overwhelming numbers: you can assimilate one person into the environment of ten people, but this gets progressively more difficult as the number of people to accommodate, increases.
For those interested, here's a colourful lecture on the subject of multiculturalism.

3. What is Liberalism in the original sense?
Since even far left green parties, with a history in pacifism and radical leftist Protestantism, have now adopted Liberalism as its basis, and multiculturalism is as well making efforts in that direction, I think it is wise at this point to go back to basics. To return to the original Classical Liberalism as it was meant to be, and leave the steady build up of leftist ideas that have been thrust upon it, for the time being aside. Later on I will provide a chart that shows the havoc the leftist cuckoo's chicks have brought upon the liberal nest.

Liberalism is the belief in liberty, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others. Its coin is the individual. People are endowed with a number of negative rights [1]; people have these rights in themselves, meaning they weren't granted by a government, but that every man is born with these rights (which stems from the Christian teaching that man was created in God's image). The people can form and dissolve governments whose sole purpose is to protect the rights and the realm. Liberalism's economic theory is based on free-market, ideally laissez-faire. Contrary to Radical Liberalism, Classical Liberalism was from the outset never anti-theist: see my post on The Impossible made Possible: the Dictatorship of Liberalism [2].

4. What is Socialism in the original sense.
Socialism is an economic and political ideology based on collectivity, on public ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth. It stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, i.e. the rights of the few (the individual) are subordinate to the good of the many (the collective). As per its economic theory, the purpose of the government is raising taxes over private wealth, coupled with social policy or directly via nationalisation and public ownership. While Socialism is anti-theistic in character, and many leading Socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas, which Christians hope soften the harsh free-market laissez-fair approach of Liberalism (as a consequence, we have never seen how entirely free markets actually work). Pope Benedict XVI has declared liberation theology anathema as inconsistent with Christianity.

Now that we know what's what, we can do some comparative work. How Liberalism ended up as a leftist philosophy is made clear by Dr Pat's chart, which I will once again borrow from her.

The left hand column lists what Classical Liberalism originally set out to be; the right hand column shows what the leftist adoption of Liberalism has made of it. It is almost beyond recognition; in fact, it's the very opposite on all fronts.

The chart also solves the puzzle of the Unholy Alliance, the axis of the (far) left and radical Islam, together against the West: they share all right hand side traits.

This multifunctional chart also shows that multiculturalism, far from being on the side of the individual, the dissidents, the Ayaan Hirsi Alis of this world, is on the contrary on the side of the collective, the tribe, the group, the singularity.

While we are on the subject of spacing, remember Star Trek's Prime Directive [2]? That's the only law that might - just might keep the peace in a world consisting of loose singularities. Also multiculturalists should at long last explain how they hope to persuade radical Islam to stay within their singularity and not break out in posses for a spot of conversion by the scimitar.

And while we're clearing up, which inherently and uniquely bad Western hegemonic achievements would they like to abolish first? Should we be thinking of environmental hazards like electricity, refrigerators, the combustion engine and water closets, or are we more likely to find ourselves in want of vaccinations, water purification, or inalienable human dignity?

~Tomorrow we'll return to Jesco Delorme's philosophical musings in defence of the multiculturalists. ~

For Easter: Multicultural Cuckoo's Eggs (I)

I wasn't planning on wasting much more time on the German government sponsored culture site that was established as a counterweight to the American influence on American culture, but the latest contribution "Multiculturalism is not cultural relativism" - while simply breathtaking is its anti-logic - not an unfamiliar experience for regulars on the subject - it does provide an opportunity to provide a recap for the benefit of those that have joined us a bit later, or for readers who missed the basic principle: that multiculturalism cannot base itself on any philosophy, other than the pseudo-philosophy of relativism exclusively, and that the excruciating postmodern phenomenon of political correctness, is a mere symptom of the two.

Recapping the above: relativism is to multiculturalism, what scientific socialism is to communism. Political correctness is to multiculturalism, what Heil Hitler! was to National Socialism. You still with me ...?

Whereas the multicultural proponents in the discussion, Messrs Buruma, Garton Ash and Sim are viciously out to destroy Western culture even if they have to make dhimmis out of all occidentals, it would transpire that the latest contributor to the debate, author Jesco Delorme, is merely useful and is making some honest, if basic mistakes.

A caveat for the beginners around this subject, don't expect anything in the way of logic or reason: that's not the point at all. Relativists only call their ideology a philosophy, and multiculturalists pretend they have a serious policy, to make the impression it is well wrought and deeply thought through. The proponents aren't interested in logic, in true or false: the basic tenet of relativism is that objective truth does not exist, reason why at some point I personally stopped counting the paradoxes, the oxymora and the fallacies. Even I don't have so much time!

Multiculturalists are presently disowning relativism as their philosophy because they just found out that if you deny objective 'eternal truths', the emperor literally has no cloths. So they're on the lookout in whose nest they can drop their nasty cuckoo's egg. At the moment they favour Liberalism, a philosophy they not that long ago vilified for its free-market principles!

The sole purpose of the proponents however is to push their agenda, which is ultimately the destruction of Western civilization - Christianity for starters - which, for some reason only known to themselves, they deem inherently and uniquely bad. In this respect, think like communism: everybody knew it didn't work, but the aficionados kept on apologising and advocating it long after its crimes against humanity became known, simply because it offered the best opportunity to annihilate the West. Fortunately it collapsed under its own weight, but that was after only the fittest survived the atheist humanistic onslaught.

But for those not willing to suspend the laws of logic altogether, let's begin by establishing a few definitions. The relativist mind - bend on realising the main objective - tends to be not very precise in definitions and loans principles and tenets here and there, wherever the purpose takes him. So, back to basics:

1. What is the essence of relativism?
2. What is the definition of multiculturalism?
3. What is Liberalism in the original sense?
4. Ditto on Socialism.

~ In tomorrow's instalment a closer look at the definitions. ~

Easter wishes

The Lighthouse endeavours to shine a light over matters and thought that influence our world in this extraordinary time of major transition.

I wish all readers a blessed and happy Easter and the Orthodox readership, Kali Anastasi!

God bless,

Cassandra.

A fittingly Good Friday

Good Friday 2007, and it hasn't made me any more charitable towards postmodernity.

The institution that went - within one year, from the standard of journalistic excellence, to possibly the worst politically correct offender - weighs in on the Greek history book furore, and entirely along predictable, dualistic, P.C. ideological party line:

- church, obstructionist, uncompromising, conservative, irrational, reactionary, history, obscurantism, vilification of the other, narrow minded, dogmatic, nationalistic, monoculture, nation-state, petty pride: bad;

- 'science' (in casu, the authors, the supporters), reasonable, open minded, charitable, progressive, enlightened, European Empire (implicit), multiculture: good.

The basic part of the P.C. message also is, either "it must happen, it is essential" for some unidentified reason, or "it is already an accomplished fact, so you'd better make the best of it": case closed. So much for the open mind, revulsion towards dogma and the 'scientific' approach.

Another sample of the course BBC are on, can be found in a typical "BBC Breaking News Alert" of these days. Another 9/11? Government fallen? Moldova struck by major earth quake?You must be joking! Such a hot breaking news message can only concern the new animist religion! But perhaps there's still hope. They're getting new management. But if the Tory reaction is one to go by, things may not even have hit rock-bottom yet! Or it may be as per the E.U., simply beyond repair!

But back to the Greek history book story, which is revealing in more ways than one. Following the 4-1 loss in the Greece/Turkey soccer match last week, English language Turkish Daily News gloatingly spoke of "no absence of national malaise these days" and "The textbook takes a less victimized approach to the war of independence in 1821 from the Ottomans and downplays the role of the Orthodox Church during that period".

Dear Turks, by all means, eat your heart out while you still can! By the time the boys in Brussels are finished with your history books, you won't know what Greek and Armenian lobbies will have hit you! By the way, the French don't mind about the gas pipe line project being abused as a political object of blackmail over the Armenian Genocide Act, you know. Apart for your mutual interest in power politics, the French are also great stickers to principles. And after Russia's abuse of economics as a political crow bar like there never was a Soviet Union, the rest of the world by now is up to anything that might be thrown at it. You'll see ...

With hindsight it has by now become apparent that humanity's hay days were the 1990's of blessed memory, when the curtain had just fallen and to the optimist it seemed to be curtains! for the whole social engineered mess. But this is the new millennium and high time for yet another gigantic folly of global proportions.

So old Uncle Joe (Stalin) gets the blame (he's conveniently dead so has nothing to say) and the entire totalitarian circus is resurfacing in another guise, as champions of women, blacks, gays, indigenous peoples, the physically and mentally challenged, and any other downtrodden minority you can think of. Just in the nick of time rescued from white, male, Christian domination, only to be turned over to the other partner in the axis of evil in Operation Destroy the West - to reemerge on the other side of the 'debate' as dhimmis, or converts with bags over our heads. As if 1821 should never have been: empire is good, even if it is called a khalifate, it is multicultural!

This is going on while some useful others with impaired brain capacity, want us all to become bloody heathens and think, this is of no consequence at all, other than entirely beneficial, to the world we live in.


~ Some of the readers will be pleased to know that over the Easter weekend we'll be revisiting the Veritable Treasure Trove of Sheer Relativist Madness! ~

Quick, while it's still legal ...! Part 3.

- While we are on the subject, let me remind you of part 1.

- For those of real short memory, here's part 2.

- And for those who, contrary to expectations, may have any illusions if the Pakistan and OIC initiative towards defamation of Islam were to become reality, here's part 3.

Good night.

Anything, but the Truth ... please!

It is with sincere regret that I had to prepare this sequel to the post of a few days ago, "Quick, while it's still legal".

This monument to hypocricy is no longer fit for polite society: meet The Daily Invective.

GalliaWatch: Police Resistance

Police resistance: it is simply unprecedented! Whatever next? A coup by the Foreign Legion?

So much for Pascal Bruckner's laicite, which he defends in the face of all the Anglo-Saxon multicultural misery, as the only alternative possible.

As per Socialism, perpetually on the look out for a third way that might actually Work! Increasingly it's too late.

In Defense of Democracy, the West, and Deeep Thoughts

Yesterday I reported on how the very institutions that are supposed to be the temples of our universal human rights, have become the incubators of quite the opposite. Well, I have found an organization that is tracking and exposing this phenomenon for us: the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. I can heartily recommend subscribing to their excellent Newsletter.

L'Occidentale is back, with a brand new English language section and a link to Tocqueville.

I leave you to it for the day, as I am preparing a recap of the investigations so far. It would appear that the workings and goals of the axis of evil laid bare in these pages, hasn't yet reached those that need it most.

Here's a thought for you: could it be that - given time - any idea, driven to its extreme, turns into its own opposite? Let me know your thoughts.

Quick, while it's still legal ...!

Let me write this quickly while it's still legal. A new low watermark in humanity's march backwards has passed virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media, except perhaps significantly by a brave little Calvinist newspaper in the Netherlands, Reuters and the Jerusalem Post.

On Friday 30th March the United Nations Human Rights Council - yes, the one which was silently set up last year to replace the Human Rights Commission, which was simply too much disgraced to keep on - adopted a Resolution by 24-14, calling for combating defamation of religion. It was drafted and tabled by the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Conference [1].

Superficially this may seem beneficial for humanity as a whole - except perhaps for those radical enlighteners that like to bring trumped up charges to bear on Christianity, as if a giant autocratic theocracy headed by Benedict XVI or Bartholomew I is just a matter of days, not months. This Resolution however is almost exclusively drafted in defence of Islam at the expense of basic human rights.

The Resolution was an initiative of Pakistan's President Musharaf. Since he is not a democratically elected head of state and sits at the pleasure of radical elements in the army and elsewhere, it may be assumed his initiative primarily serves a domestic purpose. As a 'friend of the West' he is in a perpetual balancing act, playing two boards at once.

The telling lack of media interest perhaps stems from the fact that such politically motivated Resolutions are passed quite regularly and have no teeth to speak of. This new U.N. body for human rights is rapidly going the same way as its predecessor, as we shall see. Still, a trend has been already set, and bit by bit inroads are made towards exchanging Western inspired universal human rights for less enlightened ones, with the help and assistance of indigenous crypto-totalitarians who have declared war on occidental ethnocentricity in the name of multiculturalism.

The Resolution also sheds light on the Danish Mohammed cartoon hysterics of last year. It has been estabished that this was a carefully choreographed piece of agit-prop in the best Marxist-Leninist tradition, the Islamist's revolutionary model of choice. It was thought at the time that the ulterior motives of the riots of hate were, well ... the riots of hate. It is now becoming clear they may have been concerted to provide a context and excuse for tabling and pushing this U.N. sponsored ban on the freedom of expression where 'the good name of Islam' is concerned. Here's another suggestion.

It should however not be confused with blasphemy, the defamation of God. Rather, it is towards a ban on insulting the religion of Islam and its Prophet, a crime for which many people are rotting away in prison cells, at best: just recently an Egyptian blogger was jailed for four years.

This text on the contrary has nothing to do with anyone's God. It astonishingly speaks of "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations, the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001" and "urges states to provide protection and take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas and material".

In Eurabian style it even goes on to urge supposedly democratic states "to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided ... on all manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights". I'm sure there are some Purple [2] dominated governments to be found that are more than happy to oblige.

The full text can be read here: minutes of the entire session at the UN site. As it's a bit of a stretch and a puzzle, here's the digest on this particular Resolution.

As a genetically determined Roman Catholic I heartily thank the Organization of Islamic Conference for speaking on my behalf. But still I'd rather they didn't, for the following reasons:

As multiculturalists well know - reason why they want to abolish them as ethnocentric - the universal human rights as mentioned in the Resolution, are based on Christian teaching. As long as Christians are prevented from freely practicing their faith in Islamic countries, indeed are killed and prosecuted, this reads as hypocrisy.

The liberally used designation, especially in tuition text books, of Jews and Christians as pigs and monkeys, is not consistent with peaceful coexistence and are parts of Islam that for starters might hit the religious antiquities and curiosa cellar, just as a gesture of good will.

The text of the Resolution is specifically addressing the West, the source and vessel of universal human rights. There is not a country in the West however in which the rights are Muslims are not upheld, even to the point of positive action at the expense of the indigenous populations and at the detriment of social cohesion.

This Resolution should be addressed instead to the Governments of those Islamic countries that violate human rights on a daily basis - primarily because such rights are not rooted in their religion - as some Islamic radicals do not stop to point out.

Moreover, it is an attempt to curtail the freedom of expression that is also a basic right in Western societies. In fact, this is the reason the OIC is able to draft this Resolution and bring it to bear in an international forum, in the first place.

Furthermore it has the undesired effect, of confirming radical and assertive seculars in their belief that religion as a whole is against freedom, is dictatorial, undemocratic, backward, obscurantist, and a danger to those same human rights they portent not to believe in as occidental hegemonism. It thus provides these secular ignoramuses with a stick to beat Christianity in particular and religion as a whole: they see it as a matter of "freedom of speech versus religion". Islam is spared because of its socially constructed victimhood, while religion gets a bad name.

Implementation of laws against religious defamation will either lead us up the path of semi-Soviet or French style secularism (laïcité), the banning of all religious expressions to the fringes of society and seclusion within the home, the state and public space being thus religiously neutralized; or the Anglo-Saxon variety will breed a Hobbesian, sectarian, multicultural wasteland of perpetual tribal war, of all against all. We could call that also the Balkan, or Yugoslav model. Either way, it leads to a totalitarian dictatorship.