10-11-2010, 12:26 AM
Now, here is some really chilling news that connects with something I mentioned earlier on in another thread. While we celebrate the freedoms that we enjoy in the UK this report from the Toronto Sun points out that far from being an outstanding example of tolerance and the success of multi-cultural liberalism in Europe Amsterdam has seen an increase in the number gay-hate crimes. The report equates these with the sudden increase in the numbers of Turks and North Africans bringing with them religious and cultural ideas that seem to give them license to undermine everything the Dutch have worked for over the years. The report claims that sharia law is ruling the streets.
If this kind of criminal behaviour can take root in Amsterdam I fear it could happen anywhere. I have often been confused by the amount of venom directed at people like Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh and more recently Geert Wilders. The first two were murdered, Fortuyn for speaking his mind and raising questions, Van Gogh for making a film about Islam's treatment of women. Wilders, I believe is still banned from entering the UK because of his outspoken stance on Islam.
For several years now, the United Nations has passed a series of resolutions aimed at restricting freedom of speech in an attempt to promote respect for all religions and beliefs. According to Wiki:
I must admit to being terribly conflicted about a lot of these issues, but I feel there is reason to stay on our guard.
Quote:If you doubt it, then you haven’t been paying attention. Actually, that’s not fair. Gay-bashing is front-page news only when it’s committed by a straight, white male.
The media is terribly uncomfortable writing about gay-bashing by minorities. It’s the same reason why Canadian feminists are so eerily quiet about honour killings of Muslim girls.
According to an “offender study†by the University of Amsterdam, there were 201 reports of anti-gay violence in that city in 2007 — and researchers believe for every reported case there are as many as 25 unreported ones. Two thirds of the predators are Muslim youths.
The violence couldn’t be more brazen. It’s not in the back alleys in the dark, it’s in the heart of the city, often in broad daylight. It’s a direct dare to the Dutch government to show who rules the streets.
In 2008, 10 Muslim youths broke into a fashion show, dragged gay model Michael du Pree off the stage and beat him bloody. Last month, several lesbians were hit by beer bottles thrown at their heads as they marched in a parade of thousands to protest violence against gays. There’s a gay community centre in Amsterdam — you’d think that would be safe. Wrong. It’s a target, with home-invasion style beatings. No one is immune. Last year Hugo Braakhuis, the founder of Amdsterdam’s gay pride parade, was attacked.
In 2005, Chris Crain, former editor of America’s leading gay magazine, Washington Blade, was swarmed by seven Moroccan youths. “I was really surprised,†Crain told reporters at the time. “I felt comfortable because it is San Francisco times 10.†Or it used to be.
If this kind of criminal behaviour can take root in Amsterdam I fear it could happen anywhere. I have often been confused by the amount of venom directed at people like Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh and more recently Geert Wilders. The first two were murdered, Fortuyn for speaking his mind and raising questions, Van Gogh for making a film about Islam's treatment of women. Wilders, I believe is still banned from entering the UK because of his outspoken stance on Islam.
For several years now, the United Nations has passed a series of resolutions aimed at restricting freedom of speech in an attempt to promote respect for all religions and beliefs. According to Wiki:
Quote:In March 2010, Pakistan again brought forward a resolution entitled "Combating defamation of religions" on behalf of the OIC.[2]
The resolution received much criticism. French ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei, speaking on behalf of the European Union, argued that the "concept of defamation should not fall under the remit of human rights because it conflicted with the right to freedom of expression."[2] Eileen Donahoe, the US ambassador, also rejected the resolution. She said, "We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' concept used to justify censorship, criminalisation, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world."[2]
The UNHRC passed the resolution on 25 March 2010 with 20 members voting in favour; 17 members voting against; 8 abstaining; and 2 absent.[44]
I must admit to being terribly conflicted about a lot of these issues, but I feel there is reason to stay on our guard.