Topsy-Turvy in the Netherlands: Punishing Hate Speech but Applauding Eugenic Infanticide
I only bring this up because it provides a vivid example of how so much of the West has become, in the old Gilbert and Sullivan phrase, topsy-turvy. The Dutch Government is bringing a parliamentarian named Geert Wilders up on charges of hate speech for making incendiary statements about fundamentalist Islam. From a blog opinion article about the event:
"The Freedom Party (PVV)," read yesterday's press release, "is shocked by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal's decision to prosecute Geert Wilders for his statements and opinions. Geert Wilders considers this ruling an all-out assault on freedom of speech." The appalling decision to try Wilders, the Freedom Party's head and the Dutch Parliament's only internationally famous member, for "incitement to hatred and discrimination" against Islam is indeed an assault on free speech.I am not defending Wilder's views, which I understand are quite xenophobic. But here is the point: The Dutch prosecute offensive speech, but not the killing by doctors of babies born with disabilities! Wilders is "evil" for what he says, according to one official quoted in the story, but eugenic murder is respectable, and the killing guidelines (Groningen Protocols) are openly published and applauded. Topsy-turvy is a polite way to put it.
Labels: The Netherlands. Hate Speech v. Eugenic Infanticide. Topsy-Turvy.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:16 PM
13 Comments
13 Comments:
Well, Lord only knows what infants might say if they are allowed to grow up; why risk it?
I know this is a bit off point and only at the most arguably tangential to this section, but I just read an email alert about Obama's authorizing today hundreds of millions to go to overseas organizations that promote abortions as a means of family planning, despite his having said while campaigning for office that he would do what he could to curb unnecessary abortions. A few things about this strike me:
Was this yet another executive order, and aren't executive orders used only sparingly and in exigent circumstances? Why are his initial actions not re the things on the basis of which people voted for him?
What does he know about abortion? What does any man know about abortion, other than the result, unless he has been party to one in some way or other himself? How many women who want the right to abortion have ever had one? From what I've heard women who have had them say, it is a very traumatic experience, both physically and emotionally. How come only those women who have had them are not the ones whose voices are sought out and heard, with the decision on the issue made accordingly? We know that women who have had them have spoken out against them, and it may be that they are in the majority among that group, and it may be that they are in the minority among that group, but aren't those who actually have experienced it the ones who should have the most input? Wouldn't that be common sense? Wouldn't that be more logical and acceptable as a means of resolving the issue?
What does this have to do with the most pressing issues we face here in the United States, such as terrorism, the economy, people losing their homes, unemployment, health care, education, crime, drugs, illegal immigration, etc.?
How is it our business how birth control is done in the rest of the world, or how is it a priority in view of the above pressing concerns when we are in a time of crisis? I know a couple from China who gave up promising medical careers there to come here because they wanted to be able to have more than one child. What kind of attitude does this show to the rest of the world? I guess if it's good enough for his own daughters, it's good enough for the third world, where women don't even have the benefit of U.S. private-school education. We don't even have enough money for ourselves right now and he's worried that too many people are born elsewhere and will want to come here, and suddenly have the ability to, tomorrow? Where are his priorities?
Does he think this will work in Muslim countries and that that will make us safer from Islamic-based terrorism and protect us from another attack?
If it were a female president who had experienced abortion herself, she still should be focusing on more pressing domestic issues and on catching Bin Laden, shouldn't she, the first week?
My impression is that he knows he's in over his head, like an eight-year-old behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler thinking "can I drive this thing?" and is still amazed that he won and focusing on his pet projects because he doesn't feel confident to address what people elected him to do. Or else he's trying to ram them through while there is still euphoria over his election, or the "mandate" has gone to his head, or he's trying to get the stuff he's sure about out of the way before trying to do what he knows is going to be much harder and address problems he is unable, or unwilling, to improve.
At this rate we may not to wait very long to see what's going on in Holland re both "hate speech" and infanticide reach our shores. Especially with his attitude about what's going on in other countries and what goes on here. Maybe tomorrow he'll authorize funding for abortion promoted as a means of birth control in the U.S., too. After all, we don't count either. It's heinous. It's heinous for a man to want a woman to have an abortion for the sake of convenience, but for anyone, male or female, to foist it on disadvantaged women overseas whom we don't even know and whose anguish we won't even have to see for the sake of "population control" is even more heinous, and for a man to do it shows ignorance, arrogance, and contempt for women everywhere, especially for those less advantaged. He doesn't know how to be President, he doesn't understand the impact of abortion on a woman's body and soul (they don't even get to choose it, it's going to be "promoted" to them and they end up having to endure the ordeal and pick up the pieces) and the rest of her life, and he's turning out to be every bit as scary and dangerous as a lot of people considered him from the outset.
Well maybe no one will dare make any anti-Islamic statements here, but people had better start hiding their children.
And why do we keep electing presidents who have had drug habits in the past? Why can't we even find candidates who haven't? Has it occurred to no one that they may have brain damage? Whatever is in this guy's head at the moment, he focuses on. This was his answer to the pro-life demonstrators who "dared" to challenge his position and ask for consideration yesterday, that he'll do as he pleases and watch out because I'm doing it to them now and you're next. That's bully behavior. It's no surprise based on his astrological chart, whose planets and their configurations reflect his hype, his being all talk, his conviction that he should be in charge, his coldness, his callousness, and his trampling with hobnailed-boots, not to mention narcissism, poor judgement, and delusion, and when it comes to just his sun, like Fidel Castrol and Bill Clinton he's yet another embarassment to the sign of the lion, as are the leonine planets in Hillary's chart, and it's lions that kill cubs sired by other lions and the female lions just have to suffer through the ordeal. (NOW tell me it's not evil when lions do that, whether the lions think they are being evil or not.)
(I do concede to the doctrine of human exceptionalism that many, or most, humans born under the sign of the lion embody its better qualities, whereas non-human lions pretty much all act the same way.) But Obama is running true to type for politicians born under the sun sign of the lion who aren't the best it has to offer, and he's a selfish thinker, very enthusiastic and over-optimistic about his own ideas, intellectually limited, inflexible, and sometimes confused, fixed in his opinions, unapt to change his mind (which may very well have been affected by past drug use on top of everything else), and apt to decide and act without having all the necessary relevant information, as well as not being able to be aware that he does not have all the information.
He has "issues" from his early childhood with, and is not attuned to, and is no friend to, women and children, he's going to have "issues" at the end of his life and re geriatrics (which I only hope turn out to be positive, perhaps because of his attachment to his grandmother), he doesn't have a ton of emotional depth and needs to talk and communicate all the time, but blocks off outside information, he is going to be either very compassionate toward (if he has some personal reason to or takes it into his head to do that and adopts it as his own idea, but others' ideas don't get through to him as easily) or blind to, those who are disabled and/or institutionalized, and boy, are the elderly ever in for a radical change under his administration -- one which could possibly be positive if in his own mind and psyche he identifies them with his grandmother, and either way, he'll get a lot of public attention about it, and about his philosophy and policies regarding death, insurance, taxes, and "resources," one way or another.
One can only hope it turns out positive instead of negative, but it doesn't look as if health care is something he's going to be overly concerned about, at least in the right way, or if he does get concerned about it, that he won't be confused or overly idealistic and enthusiastic about it; he does like efficiency, but if he made big, fast changes in that area that weren't necessarily beneficial, I wouldn't be surprised. At the last stage of his life, he'll be very famous, of course, which is a given now, but possibly in other ways obscure as well, and will be known either as spiritual and humanitarian or as infamous, and he could be in some way disabled or confined, perhaps in an institution, himself, and that, too, will receive much public attention.
He's a good parent to his own children -- whoa, I even just saw the dog he's getting them in his chart -- but not entirely, and I'd suspect that's because he isn't as attuned to women as some men are; for others' children and foetuses, there is reason for concern with him. No surprise that his habit is to think in terms of other countries, and when he thinks of this one he is capable of thinking in terms of changing and/or limiting its thinking and speaking out ("no drama" is just an example of that; personally, he does not like demonstrations of emotion, drama, theatrics, or others getting atention, taking center stage and taking the spotlight off him, etc.), and in terms of how thinking is in other countries.
Into the bargain, he sounds good, but is actually rather confused, about all of that, our national ethos and way of thinking vs. other countries', etc. It's not that he's not idealistic, but he's confused, and can be blind, along with that, and I just hope the part of his chart that could spell "euthanasia" doesn't manifest. Health, health care, technology, the cutting-edge, innovation, fast and possibly rash action, danger, death, taxes, insurance, and "resources" are all very closely tied together in his chart, and his Mars/Neptune semisquare isn't promising re health care, the death culture, or anything else, unless he can transcend it as he is purported to have done re his drug use.
He can be an unknown quantity and turn out to be a strong leader and do much better than feared, but after what he just did, that hardly seems a sure shot. Until proof to the contrary that he's taking the high road, there is reason to believe that we may be heading into the Holland tunnel under this new administration. I most certainly would be pleased to be wrong about that.
p.s. It's certainly possible that he's not idealistic, but a fraud, or, as frauds sometimes are, both. But if he doesn't turn out to be very very good, it's going to be very very bad, for him as well as for everybody else.
Re hate speech vs. disability based infanticide-this is, of course, because the govnt doesn't see eugenic infanticide as a crime, it sees it as a service to those infants who are murdered and to the national health care system. The fact that this is not only bigotry, but murderous bigotry, apparently doesn't enter into the equation.
I think it sees it as a service to the national health care system and calls it a service to the infants, who certainly didn't request such "service,"
I think Obama really wants to get Obama and might be able to do it. But how are we going to get the extremist Muslims to think of us as not degenerate when he just authorized funding to encourage abortion as a means of birth control? By the way, what is the Muslim religion's position on life issues? If it abhors the things promoted by the culture of death, why isn't Al Qaida attacking Holland, Switzerland, et al.?
That was incomplete; what is the position of radical Muslim extremism on life issues, and is it the same as that of mainstream Muslimism?
RE: Al Quaida and Holland, etc:
I think because these countries are less likely to get involved in conflicts between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the middle east-Al Quaida hates Israel, and since the US has been instrumental in helping that country, the US is a much more attractive target. It's my impression that English-speaking countries also exert a greater worldwide influence, as more foriegners learn English than Dutch. So, it's not as much about the culture of death as it is political ideology-the culture of death just gives them a context for justifying their depraved acts in the name of religion.
Let's not talk about radical Islam. I was just struck by the incongruity of it all--shutting up speech but greasing the skids for eugenic infanticide--and then still considering your country to be "enlightened." Thanks.
Wesley: Ok. I was just trying to figure out where the various religions in their various manifestations stand on life and COD issues, and I do think that's relevant, particularly with what's going on these days; as I've always been uninterested in religion, I really don't know, and wouldn't care otherwise. As for the incongruity in the Netherlands, I think their idea of enlightened is save money and be polite to everybody; independence and freedom are a different concept to them; maybe it has to do with European nations and people being in closer proximity to others than we are here; the United States was started to get away from their way of doing things. I think it's perfectly consistent that they give people grief for speaking out and give babies death for being out of what they consider the standard norm. Conformity seems to be an important requirement in that part of the world, and in a much more overt way than it is here. That also could explain why it's taken hold as easily over there; where it's taken hold here (except for I still don't understand why Texas and Virginia are on the bandwagon), liberals have been able to dominate, and they are most afraid of not conforming bunch around.
One bright spot: At least Obama re-took the oath at a time that could yield a less disastrous term, but the set time for his takingit, when he began the action of taking it, still began at an inauspicious one. I won't be surprised if we end up with forced abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and infanticide; I'm just hoping that he might choose to go in the direction of being concerned about the elderly; that's an inconsistency of which he is capable; which doesn't mean that he will necessarily manifest it.
After reading I'm just sickened...
There's no reprieve is there Wesley?
No reprieve, which is why there can be no quitting the resistance.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home