---

'Sensitivity' can have brutal consequences

February 5, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST





I long ago lost count of the number of times I've switched on the TV and
seen crazy guys jumping up and down in the street, torching the Stars and
Stripes and yelling ''Death to the Great Satan!'' Or torching the Union
Jack and yelling ''Death to the Original If Now Somewhat Arthritic And
Semi-Retired Satan!'' But I never thought I'd switch on the TV and see
the excitable young lads jumping up and down in Jakarta, Lahore, Aden,
Hebron, etc., etc., torching the flag of Denmark.



Denmark! Even if you were overcome with a sudden urge to burn the Danish
flag, where do you get one in a hurry in Gaza? Well, OK, that's easy: the
nearest European Union Humanitarian Aid and Intifada-Funding Branch
Office. But where do you get one in an obscure town on the Punjabi plain
on a Thursday afternoon? If I had a sudden yen to burn the Yemeni or
Sudanese flag on my village green, I haven't a clue how I'd get hold of
one in this part of New Hampshire. Say what you like about the Islamic
world, but they show tremendous initiative and energy and inventiveness,
at least when it comes to threatening death to the infidels every 48
hours for one perceived offense or another. If only it could be channeled
into, say, a small software company, what an economy they'd have.

Meanwhile, back in Copenhagen, the Danes are a little bewildered to find
that this time it's plucky little Denmark who's caught the eye of the
nutters. Last year, a newspaper called Jyllands-Posten published several
cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, whose physical representation in art is
forbidden by Islam. The cartoons aren't particularly good and they were
intended to be provocative. But they had a serious point. Before coming
to that, we should note that in the Western world "artists" "provoke"
with the same numbing regularity as young Muslim men light up other
countries' flags. When Tony-winning author Terence McNally writes a
Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times
and Co. rush to garland him with praise for how "brave" and
"challenging" he is. The rule for "brave" "transgressive" "artists" is a
simple one: If you're going to be provocative, it's best to do it with
people who can't be provoked.

Thus, NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the
gay sitcom "Will & Grace," in which a Christian conservative cooking-show
host, played by the popular singing slattern Britney Spears, offers
seasonal recipes -- "Cruci-fixin's." On the other hand, the same network,
in its coverage of the global riots over the Danish cartoons, has
declined to show any of the offending artwork out of "respect" for the
Muslim faith.

Which means out of respect for their ability to locate the executive vice
president's home in the suburbs and firebomb his garage.

Jyllands-Posten wasn't being offensive for the sake of it. They had a
serious point -- or, at any rate, a more serious one than Britney Spears
or Terence McNally. The cartoons accompanied a piece about the dangers of
"self-censorship" -- i.e., a climate in which there's no explicit law
forbidding you from addressing the more, er, lively aspects of Islam but
nonetheless everyone feels it's better not to.

That's the question the Danish newspaper was testing: the weakness of
free societies in the face of intimidation by militant Islam.

One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an
ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how
easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill
thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because
even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame
the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will
bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including,
eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British
foreign secretary, hailed the "sensitivity" of Fleet Street in not
reprinting the offending cartoons.

No doubt he's similarly impressed by the "sensitivity" of Anne Owers, Her
Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, for prohibiting the flying of the
English national flag in English prisons on the grounds that it shows the
cross of St. George, which was used by the Crusaders and thus is
offensive to Muslims. And no doubt he's impressed by the "sensitivity" of
Burger King, which withdrew its ice cream cones from its British menus
because Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe complained that the creamy swirl
shown on the lid looked like the word "Allah" in Arabic script. I don't
know which sura in the Koran says don't forget, folks, it's not just
physical representations of God or the Prophet but also chocolate ice
cream squiggly representations of the name, but ixnay on both just to be
"sensitive."

And doubtless the British foreign secretary also appreciates the
"sensitivity" of the owner of France-Soir, who fired his editor for
republishing the Danish cartoons. And the "sensitivity" of the Dutch film
director Albert Ter Heerdt, who canceled the sequel to his hit
multicultural comedy ''Shouf Shouf Habibi!'' on the grounds that "I don't
want a knife in my chest" -- which is what happened to the last Dutch
film director to make a movie about Islam: Theo van Gogh, on whose
''right to dissent'' all those Hollywood blowhards are strangely silent.
Perhaps they're just being "sensitive,'' too.

And perhaps the British foreign secretary also admires the "sensitivity"
of those Dutch public figures who once spoke out against the intimidatory
aspects of Islam and have now opted for diplomatic silence and life under
24-hour armed guard. And maybe he even admires the "sensitivity" of the
increasing numbers of Dutch people who dislike the pervasive fear and
tension in certain parts of the Netherlands and so have emigrated to
Canada and New Zealand.

Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On
the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op
transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-
warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the
other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-
tumble of a "diverse" "tolerant" society, and, when one gently raises the
matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the
question somewhat moot.

One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that, in
practice, there's very little difference between living under Exquisitely
Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia. As a famously sensitive
Dane once put it, "To be or not to be, that is the question."

© Mark Steyn, 2006




Copyright © Mark Steyn, 2006

---

"ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY" <boludovsky@hotmail.co.il> skrev i en meddelelse
news:Xns97646AB1D2090belgacom@149.204.49.80...
> 'Sensitivity' can have brutal consequences
>
> February 5, 2006
>
> BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
>
>
>
>
>
> I long ago lost count of the number of times I've switched on the TV and
> seen crazy guys jumping up and down in the street, torching the Stars and
> Stripes and yelling ''Death to the Great Satan!'' Or torching the Union
> Jack and yelling ''Death to the Original If Now Somewhat Arthritic And
> Semi-Retired Satan!'' But I never thought I'd switch on the TV and see
> the excitable young lads jumping up and down in Jakarta, Lahore, Aden,
> Hebron, etc., etc., torching the flag of Denmark.
-cut-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are absolutely right.
But while the anglophile media are reflecting their culture of too much
respect then the danes have debated the cultural differences and they
have desided to be multietnic but monocultural-with some multicultural
spice-so and so. This is a christian fundated state with a culture
reflecting love and we are not at the moment changing on that point.

We recognise cultures by their fruit, and we don't excuse them and lie to
them, and tell them that their culture us just as good.
We dare to tell them the truth. And they can tell us the truth as well. If
they are right on any matter we will go for the truth.

Greets
Jens

---

"Lyrik" <lyrikfjern@heaven.dk> dixit:

> We recognise cultures by their fruit, and we don't excuse them and lie
> to them, and tell them that their culture us just as good.
> We dare to tell them the truth. And they can tell us the truth as
> well. If they are right on any matter we will go for the truth.

Unfortunately, I tend to see the situation in a less upbeat mood. Truth
doesn't matter anymore as long as it doesn't fit within the PC pattern
modeled by the Left. According to European standards, claiming
outspokenly that Islamic culture is backwards, intolerant and unmodern,
an statement being the sheer truth, makes you automatically part of the
racist, neonazi, far-right crowd.

The problem in Europe is that there are too many PC watchdogs (SOS
Racisme, etc) that perfectly embody themselves as the thought police.

ARI
>
> Greets
> Jens
>
>
>



--

---

"ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY" <boludovsky@hotmail.co.il> skrev i en meddelelse
news:Xns976472D001558belgacom@149.204.49.80...
> "Lyrik" <lyrikfjern@heaven.dk> dixit:
>
>> We recognise cultures by their fruit, and we don't excuse them and lie
>> to them, and tell them that their culture us just as good.
>> We dare to tell them the truth. And they can tell us the truth as
>> well. If they are right on any matter we will go for the truth.
>
> Unfortunately, I tend to see the situation in a less upbeat mood. Truth
> doesn't matter anymore as long as it doesn't fit within the PC pattern
> modeled by the Left. According to European standards, claiming
> outspokenly that Islamic culture is backwards, intolerant and unmodern,
> an statement being the sheer truth, makes you automatically part of the
> racist, neonazi, far-right crowd.
>
> The problem in Europe is that there are too many PC watchdogs (SOS
> Racisme, etc) that perfectly embody themselves as the thought police.
>
> ARI
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's becourse it is their convenient last ghost-trench of words. We must
hold them fast on the fact that it is by the fruits of a culture you can
reconize the quality of that same culture.
Can the culture deliver?
On woman right issues?
On equality issue?
On juridical issues?
On dynamic issue? Things like innovation and prosperity for its citizens.
You can lie a respect for something you despise in your heart. If you lie a
respect that is not fundamentaly there. Then you meke your culture a lying
culture and make the fruits of thet culture-lies.
Christian culture have never respected Muhammed. In that culture there is a
consensus about Muhammed as a false prophet. How can you then lie a respect
for him? As a person you can respect him. But his teachings you have the
right to despice. And you have to be candid about it.
You can respect a person as a believer of him, but at the same time you
persieve that person as a misguided person. A person whose eyes you want to
open for the misguidance.

Greets
Jens

---

ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY a écrit :

> > We recognise cultures by their fruit, and we don't excuse them and lie
> > to them, and tell them that their culture us just as good.
> > We dare to tell them the truth. And they can tell us the truth as
> > well. If they are right on any matter we will go for the truth.
>
> Unfortunately, I tend to see the situation in a less upbeat mood. Truth
> doesn't matter anymore as long as it doesn't fit within the PC pattern
> modeled by the Left. According to European standards, claiming
> outspokenly that Islamic culture is backwards, intolerant and unmodern,
> an statement being the sheer truth, makes you automatically part of the
> racist, neonazi, far-right crowd.

Well, not according with the standards of all Europeans. I am an
European, and by my standards, saying that "Islamic culture is
backwards, intolerant and unmodern" does not make you racist, neonazi or
even far right. It just makes you wrong, that's all...
Saying that Islamic culture is "backwards, intolerant and unmodern"
because a bunch of islamists are "backwards, intolerant and unmodern" is
like saying that christian culture is "backwards, intolerant and
unmodern" because of Pat Robertson or JPII are (or in JPII case, were).
A bunch of nuns putting up a cross in Auschwitz does not make the whole
of "christian culture" intolerant, and neither does a bunch of mad
muslims putting to the torch an embassy allow us to judge "islamic
culture" as a whole.

> The problem in Europe is that there are too many PC watchdogs (SOS
> Racisme, etc) that perfectly embody themselves as the thought police.

The price of free talk is to have to listen to foolish talk. I have to
say that "antiracist" organisations such as SOS Racism and the MRAP have
came rather badly out of this story. There should be NO COMPROMISE with
biggots as far as freedom of speech is concerned, whatever their
religion.

Cheers

Mario "the froggie"

---

usenet <god@vatican.com> wrote:

> Well, not according with the standards of all Europeans. I am an
> European, and by my standards, saying that "Islamic culture is
> backwards, intolerant and unmodern" does not make you racist, neonazi or
> even far right. It just makes you wrong, that's all...

Well, then just let us compare.

There are around 15 million Jews worldwide. How many of them have
received the Nobel Prize in physics?

There are more than five million Danes worldwide. How many of them have
receivedd the Nobel Prize in physics? Three are listed in my Danish
Encyclopædia, and the full list of all Danish receivers is:

Niels Bohr,
Aage Bohr,
Ben R. Mottelson (physics),
Jens Christian Skou (chemistry),
Niels Finsen,
August Krogh,
Johannes Fibiger,
Henrik Dam,
Niels K. Jerne (physiology and medicine),
Fredrik Bajer (peace),
Karl Adolph Gjellerup,
Henrik Pontoppidan,
Johannes V. Jensen (literature).

There are more than a milliard Moslems in the world. How many Nobel
Prizes in physics have they got? How many Nobel Prizes in general?

Let me guess - fewer than the number received by Danes and a /much/
lower number than the number of Jews ...

So Dar al-Islam backwards? Well, ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

---

Per Rønne a écrit :

> > Well, not according with the standards of all Europeans. I am an
> > European, and by my standards, saying that "Islamic culture is
> > backwards, intolerant and unmodern" does not make you racist, neonazi or
> > even far right. It just makes you wrong, that's all...
>
> Well, then just let us compare.
>
> There are around 15 million Jews worldwide. How many of them have
> received the Nobel Prize in physics?

I really fail to see the meaning of this question. Are you implying
that the Nobel price is a judgement upon de "culture" to which the
recipient belongs ? In that case, I should point out that among the jews
receiving the Nobel prize, almost ALL of them were "assimilated" jews,
who owed more to the culture in which they were living than to "jewish
culture". To my best knowledge, there are very few jews born and bred in
Israel who received the Nobel prize. Shall we conclude that "jewish
culture" is backwards, intolerant and unmodern ?

> There are more than five million Danes worldwide. How many of them have
> receivedd the Nobel Prize in physics? Three are listed in my Danish
> Encyclopædia, and the full list of all Danish receivers is:
>
> Niels Bohr,
> Aage Bohr,
> Ben R. Mottelson (physics),
> Jens Christian Skou (chemistry),
> Niels Finsen,
> August Krogh,
> Johannes Fibiger,
> Henrik Dam,
> Niels K. Jerne (physiology and medicine),
> Fredrik Bajer (peace),
> Karl Adolph Gjellerup,
> Henrik Pontoppidan,
> Johannes V. Jensen (literature).
>
> There are more than a milliard Moslems in the world. How many Nobel
> Prizes in physics have they got? How many Nobel Prizes in general?

Well... perhaps that has something to do with the way the Nobel jury is
selected. I understand that there are very few non-europeans among them,
and no muslim whatsoever. Don't you think that fact can explain a lot ?
If you take for instance the scientific prizes created by the Emir of
Dubaï, you will find that the majority of the recipients are muslims.
Wonder why...

Cheers

Mario "the froggie"

---

"usenet" <god@vatican.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:43EB8F95.8F66CDF4@vatican.com...
>
>
> Per Rønne a écrit :
>
>> > Well, not according with the standards of all Europeans. I am an
>> > European, and by my standards, saying that "Islamic culture is
>> > backwards, intolerant and unmodern" does not make you racist, neonazi
>> > or
>> > even far right. It just makes you wrong, that's all...
>>
>> Well, then just let us compare.
>>
>> There are around 15 million Jews worldwide. How many of them have
>> received the Nobel Prize in physics?
>
> I really fail to see the meaning of this question. Are you implying
> that the Nobel price is a judgement upon de "culture" to which the
> recipient belongs ? In that case, I should point out that among the jews
> receiving the Nobel prize, almost ALL of them were "assimilated" jews,
> who owed more to the culture in which they were living than to "jewish
> culture". To my best knowledge, there are very few jews born and bred in
> Israel who received the Nobel prize. Shall we conclude that "jewish
> culture" is backwards, intolerant and unmodern ?

There are so far eight Israelis, who have received the Nobel Prize, since
the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. An extraordinary achievement if
you ask me.

---

Joakim von And a écrit :

> ? I really fail to see the meaning of this question. Are you implying
> ? that the Nobel price is a judgement upon de "culture" to which the
> ? recipient belongs ? In that case, I should point out that among the jews
> ? receiving the Nobel prize, almost ALL of them were "assimilated" jews,
> ? who owed more to the culture in which they were living than to "jewish
> ? culture". To my best knowledge, there are very few jews born and bred in
> ? Israel who received the Nobel prize. Shall we conclude that "jewish
> ? culture" is backwards, intolerant and unmodern ?
>
> There are so far eight Israelis, who have received the Nobel Prize, since
> the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. An extraordinary achievement if
> you ask me.

Israelis of "israeli culture" ? You must be joking. TWO out of ONE
HUNDRED AND FIFTY jews having received the Nobel prize are born in
Israel (Aaron Ciechanover in chemistry, and Daniel Kahneman in
economics). It seems that the culture of the diaspora produces much more
outstanding intellectuals than israel culture. As a prominent jewish
scientist said, "the diaspora produces intellectuals, Israel only
produces generals".

Cheers

Mario "the froggie"

---

per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) dixit:

> Niels Bohr,
> Aage Bohr,
> Ben R. Mottelson (physics),
> Jens Christian Skou (chemistry),
> Niels Finsen,
> August Krogh,
> Johannes Fibiger,
> Henrik Dam,
> Niels K. Jerne (physiology and medicine),
> Fredrik Bajer (peace),
> Karl Adolph Gjellerup,
> Henrik Pontoppidan,
> Johannes V. Jensen (literature).

You guys are wonderful people. Danes are polite, civilized, well-behaved,
courteous and make excellent citizens of any country they move in.

The world needs more Danes and fewer Camel-fuckers.

BOLU


--
http://www.supportdenmark.com
http://www.prophetcartoons.com/

---

usenet <god@vatican.com> dixit:

> Well, not according with the standards of all Europeans. I am an
> European,

You an European, my ass. People born in Buenos Aires are NOT European. You
are a South-American (no pun intended).

> Saying that Islamic culture is "backwards, intolerant and unmodern"
> because a bunch of islamists are "backwards, intolerant and unmodern" is

It's not a bunch. An overwhelming majority of Muslims are intolerant
regarding other religions, they treat women, gays and other minotities like
dogs and still hold the backwards and disgusting traditions of their
religion (like slaughtering cattle) in high esteem.

> like saying that christian culture is "backwards, intolerant and
> unmodern" because of Pat Robertson or JPII are (or in JPII case, were).

AFAIK, Pat Robertson has never encouraged religious violence by hatred
incitement. He might be nuts, he might hold extreme views on some
controversial issues but, at the end of the day, he is not a threat to
Western liberal values. Now, compare that with the crazy mullahs armed with
nukes.

As usual, you see the mice behind the armchair but fail to see the huuuuge
elephant in the room.

> A bunch of nuns putting up a cross in Auschwitz does not make the whole
> of "christian culture" intolerant, and neither does a bunch of mad
> muslims putting to the torch an embassy allow us to judge "islamic
> culture" as a whole.

Islam is a religion of peace. Who claim that? George W. Bush, IIRC. I
wouldn't have bet on that one. You and Bush, two of a kind. Go figure.

BOLU



--
http://www.supportdenmark.com
http://www.prophetcartoons.com/

---

ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY a écrit :

> ? Well, not according with the standards of all Europeans. I am an
> ? European,
>
> You an European, my ass. People born in Buenos Aires are NOT European. You
> are a South-American (no pun intended).

I see... for you what one is depends only on birth. Tell me... was Ben
Gurion an Israeli ? Or was he Polish ?

> ? Saying that Islamic culture is "backwards, intolerant and unmodern"
> ? because a bunch of islamists are "backwards, intolerant and unmodern"
> ? is
>
> It's not a bunch. An overwhelming majority of Muslims are intolerant
> regarding other religions,

Well... Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

> they treat women, gays and other minotities

Women are a "minority" ? My, my...
It might surprise you to learn that half the muslims are women.
Therefore, the statement that "an overwhelming majority of muslims
mistreat women" implies that women mistreat themselves...

> ? like saying that christian culture is "backwards, intolerant and
> ? unmodern" because of Pat Robertson or JPII are (or in JPII case, were).
>
> AFAIK, Pat Robertson has never encouraged religious violence by hatred
> incitement.

I seem to remember that he called for the killing of Chavez, am I wrong
? Isn't that "hatred incitement" ?

> He might be nuts, he might hold extreme views on some
> controversial issues but, at the end of the day, he is not a threat to
> Western liberal values.

I believe that killing doctors because the practice abortions who are
deemed legal does indeed threat "western liberal values".

> Now, compare that with the crazy mullahs armed with nukes.

The crazy "born again" christian who believes god gave the USA the
right to bomb irak "back to the middle ages" is much more dangerous that
any mullah, at the present moment.

> ? A bunch of nuns putting up a cross in Auschwitz does not make the whole
> ? of "christian culture" intolerant, and neither does a bunch of mad
> ? muslims putting to the torch an embassy allow us to judge "islamic
> ? culture" as a whole.
>
> Islam is a religion of peace. Who claim that? George W. Bush, IIRC. I
> wouldn't have bet on that one. You and Bush, two of a kind. Go figure.

Where did I say that "Islam was a religion of peace" ? If Bush has
deceived you, dont take it on me. For me, ALL religions are equally
intolerant and must be fought against. But here we were talking about
muslim CULTURE, not muslim RELIGION.

Cheers

Mario "the froggie"

---

usenet <god@vatican.com> dixit:

> I see... for you what one is depends only on birth. Tell me... was
> Ben
> Gurion an Israeli ? Or was he Polish ?

He was a Polish Jew by birth and an Israeli by naturalization (and the
founding father of the Israeli nation, BTW).

I reckon you can't tell between the citizenship and nationality concepts.
Too bad.

> Women are a "minority" ? My, my...
> It might surprise you to learn that half the muslims are women.
> Therefore, the statement that "an overwhelming majority of muslims
> mistreat women" implies that women mistreat themselves...

The nonsense du jour. Quite a habit of yours these days

> I seem to remember that he called for the killing of Chavez, am I
> wrong
> ? Isn't that "hatred incitement" ?

No, in the same way that making a call to kill Hitler wasn't an incitement
during WWII.

>> Now, compare that with the crazy mullahs armed with nukes.
>
> The crazy "born again" christian who believes god gave the USA the
> right to bomb irak "back to the middle ages" is much more dangerous
> that any mullah, at the present moment.

Hopefully, those deranged Christians exist only in your mind.

> Where did I say that "Islam was a religion of peace" ? If Bush has
> deceived you, dont take it on me. For me, ALL religions are equally
> intolerant and must be fought against.

Then you don¡t understand a shit about today's world.

BOLUDOVSKY



--
http://www.supportdenmark.com
http://www.prophetcartoons.com/

---

ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY a écrit :


> > ? ? Well, not according with the standards of all Europeans. I am an
> > ? ? European,
> > ?
> > ? You an European, my ass. People born in Buenos Aires are NOT European. You
> > ? are a South-American (no pun intended).
> ?
> ? I see... for you what one is depends only on birth. Tell me... was
> ? Ben
> ? Gurion an Israeli ? Or was he Polish ?
>
> He was a Polish Jew by birth and an Israeli by naturalization

Then, let's say that I am as "european" as he was israeli, and as
"south-american" as he was polish...

> I reckon you can't tell between the citizenship and nationality concepts.

I am sure YOU can't. What was the "citizenship" of Ben Gurion, and what
was his "nationality" ?

> ? Women are a "minority" ? My, my...
> ? It might surprise you to learn that half the muslims are women.
> ? Therefore, the statement that "an overwhelming majority of muslims
> ? mistreat women" implies that women mistreat themselves...
>
> The nonsense du jour. Quite a habit of yours these days

Usual answer when you have no argument to offer. Nothing to worry
about.

> ? I seem to remember that he called for the killing of Chavez, am I
> ? wrong. Isn't that "hatred incitement" ?
>
> No, in the same way that making a call to kill Hitler wasn't an incitement
> during WWII.

Oh, I see... Chavez is like Hitler for you, and it is "WWIII" between
the USA and Venezuela. How interesting...

> ?? Now, compare that with the crazy mullahs armed with nukes.
> ?
> ? The crazy "born again" christian who believes god gave the USA the
> ? right to bomb irak "back to the middle ages" is much more dangerous
> ? that any mullah, at the present moment.
>
> Hopefully, those deranged Christians exist only in your mind.

Hope springs eternal...

> ? Where did I say that "Islam was a religion of peace" ? If Bush has
> ? deceived you, dont take it on me. For me, ALL religions are equally
> ? intolerant and must be fought against.
>
> Then you dont understand a shit about today's world.

Indeed. For instance, I fail to see that Chavez is the modern Hitler,
like you do. Thank's (all) gods for that...

Cheers

Mario "the froggie"

---

usenet <god@vatican.com> dixit:

>> He was a Polish Jew by birth and an Israeli by naturalization
>
> Then, let's say that I am as "european" as he was israeli, and as
> "south-american" as he was polish...

No way. According to your own version, you are a naturalized French
citizen, namely, a Frenchman. But not an European, which is a term that
carries geographical and cultural significance.

Acquiring French nationality did not turn you into an European, in the
same way that Spanish immigrants who got Argentinian citizenship did not
become Latin-Americans or South-Americans overnight. Or in the same way
that Ben Gurion became Israeli but not Asian.

> I am sure YOU can't. What was the "citizenship" of Ben Gurion, and
> what
> was his "nationality" ?

He was a dual Israeli-Polish citizen (though if he did lose the Polish
citizenship, I don't know for sure). Nationally, he was an European Jew
and, later on, when the Israeli nation was founded, an Israeli.

> Oh, I see... Chavez is like Hitler for you,

Not Hitler, but he's rather a buffonesque and ridiculous figure like
Mussolini.

> Indeed. For instance, I fail to see that Chavez is the modern Hitler,
> like you do. Thank's (all) gods for that...

The modern Hitler is now in Iran.

BOLUDOVSKY

---

ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY a écrit :

> ?? He was a Polish Jew by birth and an Israeli by naturalization
> ?
> ? Then, let's say that I am as "european" as he was israeli, and as
> ? "south-american" as he was polish...
>
> No way. According to your own version, you are a naturalized French
> citizen, namely, a Frenchman. But not an European, which is a term that
> carries geographical and cultural significance.

My passport bears the words "European community" (against my will, if
you want to know, but that's another matter). I therefore must be an
"european". See below:

> Acquiring French nationality did not turn you into an European, in the
> same way that Spanish immigrants who got Argentinian citizenship did not
> become Latin-Americans or South-Americans overnight. Or in the same way
> that Ben Gurion became Israeli but not Asian.

Not quite. The Maastricht treaty establishes a "citizenship of the EU",
and that "Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall
be a citizen of the Union". Therefore, acquiring French nationality DOES
turn you into an "European".

> ? I am sure YOU can't. What was the "citizenship" of Ben Gurion, and
> ? what ? was his "nationality" ?
>
> He was a dual Israeli-Polish citizen (though if he did lose the Polish
> citizenship, I don't know for sure). Nationally, he was an European Jew
> and, later on, when the Israeli nation was founded, an Israeli.

Therefore, there was no difference between his "citizenship" and his
"nationality" ?

> ? Oh, I see... Chavez is like Hitler for you,
>
> Not Hitler, but he's rather a buffonesque and ridiculous figure like
> Mussolini.

Then, I must remind you of your statement:

I said: I seem to remember that he called for the killing of Chavez, am
I wrong. Isn't that "hatred incitement" ?

You answered: No, in the same way that making a call to kill Hitler
wasn't an incitement during WWII.

If you state now that for you Chavez is NOT like Hitler, it is rather
hard to make sense of your comment. Once again, you seem to say whatever
crosses your mind and to forget it immediately...

> ? Indeed. For instance, I fail to see that Chavez is the modern Hitler,
> ? like you do. Thank's (all) gods for that...
>
> The modern Hitler is now in Iran.

A WHOLE COUNTRY can be "a Hitler" ? Your delirium gets worse and
worse...

Cheers

Mario "the froggie"

---

---

usenet <god@vatican.com> dixit:

> Not quite. The Maastricht treaty establishes a "citizenship of the
EU",
> and that "Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall
> be a citizen of the Union". Therefore, acquiring French nationality
DOES
> turn you into an "European".

No, you are not. Incidentally, you are a citizen of the European Union.
But that does not make you an European. Using a reduction ad absurdum
technique, if EU citizenship makes you European, then Russians are not
European.

> Therefore, there was no difference between his "citizenship" and his
> "nationality" ?

It's a complex issue, because Ben Gurion was born in Poland when Russia
had a hold on it, then moved to Palestine under the British mandate, etc,
etc. IMO, he was an European Jewish with Israeli citizenship.

It turns out most countries have a perfect match between citizenship and
nationality. For instance, Japan. But, in others, like European
countries, there are more nuances to take into account. For instance,
Spanish gypsies certainly hold Spanish citizenship, but they are not
_nationally_ Spaniards or of Spanish stock.

>> The modern Hitler is now in Iran.
>
> A WHOLE COUNTRY can be "a Hitler" ? Your delirium gets worse and
> worse...

You know perfectly what I meant. This is the run-of-the-mill nonsense a
bored French civil servant with time to waste would like to argue about
over and over again. But, unfortunately, I don't have that time.
Discussion is over.

BOLU



--

---

ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY a écrit :

> > Not quite. The Maastricht treaty establishes a "citizenship of the
> > EU", and that "Every person holding the nationality of a Member State
> > shall be a citizen of the Union". Therefore, acquiring French
> > nationality DOES turn you into an "European".
>
> No, you are not. Incidentally, you are a citizen of the European Union.
> But that does not make you an European.

Well, if being citizen of the French Republic makes me a "Frenchman",
then being a citizen of the European Union should make me an "european".

> Using a reduction ad absurdum technique, if EU citizenship makes you
> European, then Russians are not European.

If you are talking about "citizenship", indeed they are not...

> > Therefore, there was no difference between his "citizenship" and his
> > "nationality" ?
>
> It's a complex issue, because Ben Gurion was born in Poland when Russia
> had a hold on it, then moved to Palestine under the British mandate, etc,
> etc. IMO, he was an European Jewish with Israeli citizenship.

Up to yesterday, he was "a dual Israeli-Polish citizen". It seems that
Ben Gurion's citizenship in your mind is an evolutionnary issue.

> It turns out most countries have a perfect match between citizenship and
> nationality. For instance, Japan. But, in others, like European
> countries, there are more nuances to take into account. For instance,
> Spanish gypsies certainly hold Spanish citizenship, but they are not
> _nationally_ Spaniards or of Spanish stock.

I would be glad if you could provide your definition of "citizenship"
and "nationality". Your example about spanish gypsies is rather
disturbing, because I do not see any reason why they should not be
considered "spaniards of spanish stock".

> >> The modern Hitler is now in Iran.
> >
> > A WHOLE COUNTRY can be "a Hitler" ? Your delirium gets worse and
> > worse...
>
> You know perfectly what I meant.

No, I don't. You may believe I am a mind reader, but I am not.

> This is the run-of-the-mill nonsense a bored French civil servant
> with time to waste would like to argue about over and over again.
> But, unfortunately, I don't have that time. Discussion is over.

I love the "unfortunately" in the last sentence. It smells of envy...
Apart from that, nothing new: When you are left without a leg to stand
on, try a personal attack (totaly unrelated with the subject under
discussion) and then a quick run.

Cheers

Mario "the froggie"

---

usenet <god@vatican.com> dixit:

> Well, if being citizen of the French Republic makes me a "Frenchman",
> then being a citizen of the European Union should make me an
> "european".

No. It does not make you an European. As I said, European is a term that
conveys cultural and geographical meanings. You might be a citizen of the
EU, but not an European, in the same way that, should I marry a Japanese
and acquire citizenship, that would not make me "Asian".

> If you are talking about "citizenship", indeed they are not...

There is no "European" citizenship as such. There is EU citizenship which
is just a supplement to EU state members citizenship. What sort of
"European citizenship" would leave Russians, Norwegians, Swiss, etc out?

That's EU crap. Russians are as much European as Germans or Italians.

But you are not. You are a South or Latin American instead.

> I would be glad if you could provide your definition of "citizenship"
> and "nationality".

"Citizenship" is a legal right granted by the government of a country.
"Nationality" is the belonging to a particular nation.

There are citizenships that do not carry national belonging. Eg, Vatican
citizens. OTOH, there are nationalities whose members are citizens of other
states. Eg, Kurds.

>Your example about spanish gypsies is rather
> disturbing, because I do not see any reason why they should not be
> considered "spaniards of spanish stock".

Of course they are not. They belong to the Gipsy nation, not to the
Spanish nation. But they are citizens, and that's what matters to me.

> I love the "unfortunately" in the last sentence. It smells of envy...

I concede I am envious of French civil servants. I'd love to have a well-
paid secure job for life, eight weeks of holiday per annum, and not much to
do during my workday except planning my next holiday. And retire early. And
if I'm not in the mood to work, just go on strike.


                   BOLUDOVSKY



--
http://www.supportdenmark.com
http://www.prophetcartoons.com/

---

ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY a écrit :

> > Well, if being citizen of the French Republic makes me a "Frenchman",
> > then being a citizen of the European Union should make me an
> > "european".
>
> No. It does not make you an European. As I said, European is a term that
> conveys cultural and geographical meanings. You might be a citizen of the
> EU, but not an European, in the same way that, should I marry a Japanese
> and acquire citizenship, that would not make me "Asian".

Or a citizen of the United States should not be called an American ?

> > If you are talking about "citizenship", indeed they are not...
>
> There is no "European" citizenship as such. There is EU citizenship which
> is just a supplement to EU state members citizenship. What sort of
> "European citizenship" would leave Russians, Norwegians, Swiss, etc out?

Indeed it does.

> That's EU crap. Russians are as much European as Germans or Italians.

Most of EU is crap, but it exists nevertheless...

> But you are not. You are a South or Latin American instead.

Why ?

> > I would be glad if you could provide your definition of "citizenship"
> > and "nationality".
>
> "Citizenship" is a legal right granted by the government of a country.
> "Nationality" is the belonging to a particular nation.

Aha. And when you say that I am "latin-american", are you talkin about
citizenship, or nationality ?

> > Your example about spanish gypsies is rather
> > disturbing, because I do not see any reason why they should not be
> > considered "spaniards of spanish stock".
>
> Of course they are not. They belong to the Gipsy nation, not to the
> Spanish nation. But they are citizens, and that's what matters to me.

Saying "of course" is not an argument. If "belonging to the gypsy
nation" was reason enough not to belong to the Spanish nation, then
neither are Spanish the Catalans, Basques... and the Spanish jews !

> > I love the "unfortunately" in the last sentence. It smells of envy...
>
> I concede I am envious of French civil servants.

Then you should strive to imitate them.

> I'd love to have a well-
> paid secure job for life, eight weeks of holiday per annum, and not much to
> do during my workday except planning my next holiday. And retire early. And
> if I'm not in the mood to work, just go on strike.

Then you should avoid joining the Civil Service. You would be very
disappointed. To start with, civil servants at least in France retire
LATER than private sector workers (65 against 60). The pay is lower (but
about twenty per cent) compared to the pay in the private sector for the
same level of responsibility (and it becames almost 70% lower for the
higher grades).

Cheers

Mario "the froggie"

---

usenet <god@vatican.com> dixit:

> Or a citizen of the United States should not be called an American ?

Yes, because in English does not exist an equivalent to
"estadounidense" as we say in Spanish. But as "American" is a citizen of
the US as a citizen of Bolivia or Nicaragua. Actually, many
Latinamericans resent the appropiation of the term "American" by the US.

And, OTOH, nowadays American citizens tend to highlight their national
origin: Afro-American, Irish-American, Mexican-American, Canine-
American...

> Indeed it does.

Yes, it does, and it proves that "European citizenship" is a pointless
and obnoxious fabrication of Brussels' bureaucracy.

>> But you are not. You are a South or Latin American instead.
>
> Why ?

Why? Because, AFAIK, you were born there. South American Spanish is your
native language, you probably drink mate, etc.

> Aha. And when you say that I am "latin-american", are you talkin
> about
> citizenship, or nationality ?

Neither. Latin-American is rather a cultural and geographical term. Just
like European.

> Saying "of course" is not an argument. If "belonging to the gypsy
> nation" was reason enough not to belong to the Spanish nation, then
> neither are Spanish the Catalans, Basques... and the Spanish jews !

IMO, Catalan and Basques belong to the Spanish nation (many of them say
otherwise, but this is another issue), but there are also Catalan and
Basques that hold French citizenship.

Conversely, Gypsies haven't really been assimilated into the Spanish
mainstream society. They have their own codes, their own ways, their own
nomadic life, their own language, and most of them feel alienated by
modern Spanish society. Yes, they have lived there for hundreds of years,
but IMO, they do not belong there. Which, of course, does not mean that
we shouldn't respect their rights as citizens.

>> I concede I am envious of French civil servants.
>
> Then you should strive to imitate them.

What for? If I'd go on a strike for the first silly reason I could come
up with, I would be fired right away. This is a serious country. Slackers
are encouraged to move to France.

> Then you should avoid joining the Civil Service. You would be very
> disappointed. To start with, civil servants at least in France retire
> LATER than private sector workers (65 against 60).

My ass. A woman can retire after 15 years of service, for instance.

BOLUDOVSKY


--

---

ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY a écrit :
>
> usenet ?god@vatican.com? dixit:
>
> ? Or a citizen of the United States should not be called an American ?
>
> Yes, because in English does not exist an equivalent to
> "estadounidense" as we say in Spanish.

I do not see any english equivalent for "citizen of the European
Union"... s

> And, OTOH, nowadays American citizens tend to highlight their national
> origin: Afro-American, Irish-American, Mexican-American, Canine-
> American...

You may call me "French-European", if you like...

> ? Indeed it does.
>
> Yes, it does, and it proves that "European citizenship" is a pointless
> and obnoxious fabrication of Brussels' bureaucracy.

May be, but it exists nevertheless.

> ?? But you are not. You are a South or Latin American instead.
> ?
> ? Why ?
>
> Why? Because, AFAIK, you were born there.

So what ? Is the president of Israel an Asian ?

> ? Saying "of course" is not an argument. If "belonging to the gypsy
> ? nation" was reason enough not to belong to the Spanish nation, then
> ? neither are Spanish the Catalans, Basques... and the Spanish jews !
>
> IMO, Catalan and Basques belong to the Spanish nation (many of them say
> otherwise, but this is another issue), but there are also Catalan and
> Basques that hold French citizenship.
>
> Conversely, Gypsies haven't really been assimilated into the Spanish
> mainstream society.

Sorry, but you make me a "Latin american" just because I was born
there, without considering wether I am "asimilated" or not. Why does not
the same rule apply to the Gipsies ?

> They have their own codes, their own ways, their own
> nomadic life, their own language, and most of them feel alienated by
> modern Spanish society. Yes, they have lived there for hundreds of years,
> but IMO, they do not belong there. Which, of course, does not mean that
> we shouldn't respect their rights as citizens.

Does the same apply to spanish jews ?

> ?? I concede I am envious of French civil servants.
> ?
> ? Then you should strive to imitate them.
>
> What for? If I'd go on a strike for the first silly reason I could come
> up with, I would be fired right away.

So would you if you were a French Civil Servant. Many of us do not even
get the right to strike, you should know...

> ? Then you should avoid joining the Civil Service. You would be very
> ? disappointed. To start with, civil servants at least in France retire
> ? LATER than private sector workers (65 against 60).
>
> My ass. A woman can retire after 15 years of service, for instance.

You must be joking... could you point to me where does this ludicrous
information come from ? I suspect a new suburban Kalachnikov on the
making...

Cheers

Mario "the froggie"

---

usenet <god@vatican.com> dixit:

> You may call me "French-European", if you like...

I won't because you are not "European".

> So what ? Is the president of Israel an Asian ?

Indeed, he is. Moshe Katshav was born in Iran. Iran is an Asian country,
ergo he is an Asian by all accounts. However, "Asian" is a term that
currently encompasses a significance more oriented to East-Asian people
like Chinese, Japanese or Thai. A more accurate term for Israelis would
be "Middle Eastern". But, of course, Askenhazi olim from Russia or the
USA are not Middle Eastern in any way. So every ethnic and national term
has its own nuances.

> Sorry, but you make me a "Latin american" just because I was born
> there, without considering wether I am "asimilated" or not.

"Assimilation" has nothing to do with geographical or cultural origin.

>Why does
> not the same rule apply to the Gipsies ?

Because European nations are traditionally based on ethnic pertinence.
Unlike the USA or Argentina, which are brand new countries that
assimilate immigrants prompty and quickly, European nations tend to
identify their nationals on the basis of blood. So, essentially, Gipsies
have lived for centuries in Europe (Spain, France, Czechslovakia,
Hungary, Romania) but they are still regarded as an alien national
minority. This is a concept that, for instance, has no sense in American
countries (except for the native-Americans, perhaps).

> Does the same apply to spanish jews ?

Spanish Jews are another national minority. But, conversely to Gipsies,
they are fully integrated and assimilated within the mainstream society.
Usually there are both cultural and socio-economic indicators to confirm
a succesful assimilation. Jews, whether in Spain or France, belong to the
upper-middle-class. However, the bulk of the Gipsy population in Spain
tends to live in sort of ghettos (poblados) set up in the middle of
nowhere, usually in mobile homes, with scarce economic means that place
them at the bottom of the income bracket.

> So would you if you were a French Civil Servant. Many of us do not
> even
> get the right to strike, you should know...

That's precisely why bus drivers went on strike for three months in
Antibes when I was living there...

> You must be joking... could you point to me where does this ludicrous
> information come from ? I suspect a new suburban Kalachnikov on the
> making...

"Les femmes fonctionnaires peuvent prendre leur retraite à n’importe quel
âge, dès qu’elles justifient de 15 ans de services et remplissent des
conditions d’ordre familial, notamment avoir élevé trois enfants pendant
9 ans ou être mère de trois enfants"

So 15 years of work and three fucks, and you are done.

BOLU




--

---

ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY a écrit :

> > You may call me "French-European", if you like...
>
> I won't because you are not "European".

If you call a citizen of the United States of America an "american", I
do not see why you refuse to call a citizen of the European Union an
"european". Lack of logic, perhaps ?

> > So what ? Is the president of Israel an Asian ?
>
> Indeed, he is. Moshe Katshav was born in Iran. Iran is an Asian country,
> ergo he is an Asian by all accounts. However, "Asian" is a term that
> currently encompasses a significance more oriented to East-Asian people
> like Chinese, Japanese or Thai.

So, he is or he isn't.

> A more accurate term for Israelis would be "Middle Eastern".

I see... Israelis are "Middle Eastern", but French are not
"europeans"...

> > Why does not the same rule apply to the Gipsies ?
>
> Because European nations are traditionally based on ethnic pertinence.

Are they ? What is the "ethnic pertinence" of France, for instance ?
That's pure rubbish: european nations are sometimes ethnically
homogeneous (like Ireland), but most of the time they are not. France or
Spain have no "ethnic pertinence" whatsoever.

> > Does the same apply to spanish jews ?
>
> Spanish Jews are another national minority. But, conversely to Gipsies,
> they are fully integrated and assimilated within the mainstream society.

In other terms, all the people you like are, and all the ones you
dislike are not.

> Usually there are both cultural and socio-economic indicators to confirm
> a succesful assimilation. Jews, whether in Spain or France, belong to the
> upper-middle-class.

Oh, I see... "upper middle classes" are the melting pot of the
"nation"... God gracious, what a load of cobblers.

> > So would you if you were a French Civil Servant. Many of us do not
> > even get the right to strike, you should know...
>
> That's precisely why bus drivers went on strike for three months in
> Antibes when I was living there...

And bus drivers are "civil servants" ? My, my...

> > You must be joking... could you point to me where does this ludicrous
> > information come from ? I suspect a new suburban Kalachnikov on the
> > making...
>
> "Les femmes fonctionnaires peuvent prendre leur retraite à n’importe quel
> âge, dès qu’elles justifient de 15 ans de services et remplissent des
> conditions d’ordre familial, notamment avoir élevé trois enfants pendant
> 9 ans ou être mère de trois enfants"

Aha... once again we see the "approximation". From "any woman can
retire
with 15 years" we have gone to "a woman who fulfills (unspecified)
family conditions, and who has three children". The Kalachnikov, as
usual, becomes a small pistol...
By the way, would you be so kind as to tell me where does this text
come from ?

Cheers

Mario "the froggie"

---

ARIEL BOLUDOVSKY wrote:
> 'Sensitivity' can have brutal consequences
>
> February 5, 2006
>
> BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

> One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that,
> in practice, there's very little difference between living under
> Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia.

Præcis. Når ERMS (Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity) i
_realiteten_ ikke er meget end knæfald for muhammedanske dogmer angående
tegninger, menuer, badeforhæng osv. , så er glidebanen til Sharia-samfundet
sat igang.

Det nægter velmenerne selvfølgelig er tilfældet. Vi skal bare indrette os,
så vi ikke (uha) krænker, og er det virkeligt for meget forlangt? Selv
krænker de meget gerne, bare ikke muhammedanske dogmer, og så må man jo
gerne.

Der er dømt dhimmi.

And in english to the best of my native danish ability:

Exactly. When ERMS (Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity) in
_reality_ is'nt much more than giving in to mohammadan dogma regarding
drawings, menus, and something I don't know the english word for etc. the
slippery slope to Sharia has been laid down.

The sensitive lot denies this. We should just adapt so as to not offend (in
any way or anyone). Is that way out to ask for? But the sensitive lot really
don't mind offending, its just - you should'nt offend mohammadan dogma, then
its okay.

That's their true attitude and it's dhimmitude.