The Lunar Breeze Effect Flag
For full understanding of the following, read section The Latest on Wikipedia’s Moon Landing Hoax Debunking in Law 10.
“Neil, it’s cool you went on the Moon but… a good artistic picture is what matters.”
“One that ties the room together.”
So you take the French Wikipedia version for granted. Yet the English Wikipedia version is different: “The flag was rippled because it had been folded during storage – the ripples could be mistaken for movement in a still photo.” Here there is no word about an intention to tie the room together, the ripples are accidental, they are folds due to storage which turn out to make the flag look as if it were fluttering in the wind.
As if the authors of the English Wikipedia page dared not confess what my interlocutor endorses wholeheartedly. As if, namely, they doubted it was judicious to fake a flag fluttering in the wind in a picture shot on the moon. As if they dared not confess it because of the issue involved in taking people for idiots.
Crack Hills Have Eyes 2
See Law 11.
Politicians make laws (lawmaker=the legislative power) and they also enforce laws as executive power (from which police take their orders).
What my post denounced about Crack Hill is that politicians qua executive power do not enforce the law politicians vote qua legislative power. That is, as taking crack is a criminal offence, politicians qua executive are taking a very light view of the law when they enforce it by distributing pipes and paying hotel rooms to criminals. If this is their idea of the issue, then they must take the initiative of a legislative debate to repeal the law and decriminalize crack consumption, and stop telling people they enforce the law by ignoring it.
This is a huge problem, because when executive officials do not want to enforce the law, they don’t bother to have it repealed, they just instruct the services (police etc) to ignore it, or to do as they please.
A crackhead in France may live in a free hotel room with new pipes every Thursday or behind bars, it all depends on the police’s mood.
There’s no rule of law anymore.
Government protectionism of the black market.
Yes, government and police protectionism of the black market, since without police forces the government could do nothing, so the police are always responsible (if only by abiding) whereas one may imagine cases where only police are responsible while the executive authorities know nothing of what is going on.
Now, as my interlocutor compared enforcement of Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act (Prohibition) with the contemporary war on drugs, let me add the following. The same politicians who in France are implementing the briliant crack plan I have just been talking of, eschewing enforcement of national drug laws, are eager to point at the figures of prison inmates in the U.S. (highest rate of prison inmates per inhabitant in the world, so they say) as a reason why they ought not to follow the same path. In several other, perhaps most European countries, we hear the same discourse.
But these fellows dare not repeal their own national drug laws, and the result of this slighting of the law is that these countries are not rule of law countries anymore. The prison inmates figures are the price the United States are paying for upholding the rule of law. God Bless America. In Europe they are leaving everything at the discretion of the bureaucracy. Whether one will be punished for consuming drugs depends not on the law (which still says they must be punished) but on how they were perceived at some point by some guy in the bureaucracy, some cop, who will have them prosecuted in spite of the unwritten rule of bureaucracy saying that those poor devils should be left alone.
The poor devil who did not please the cop will be prosecuted, a judge will hear him and, say we are in France, a country of written law, the judge, although he has heard of the bureaucratic rule, will open the legal code at the page where the article laying down the penalties for consuming drugs is, and he will condemn the poor devil. (Compared to the functionarial nonentity that a French judge is, American judges are intellectuals.)
This is what European politicians are so proud of – the fact that no one knows what to expect. They revel in a world of arbitrariness.
Biden supports suppressing online “misinformation,” press secretary says.
Was it on his electoral platform or does he just add it now as an extra?
Justin Trudeau dismisses critics of internet censorship bill as “tin foil hats.”
The same guy explained that derogatory speech is the same as shouting fire in a crowded theater – the classic example in SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) case law that would serve to send his bill to the garbage can.
“Free speech” lawyer argues “lying” should be an impeachable offense.
The levels of nincompoopery in academia (“law professor at George Washington University”) are staggering. To think that these fellows are comfortable talking about truth and lies as they do… they really have got no clue. Let me take an example. Husband and wife want to divorce because it turns out they don’t see things the same way. One issue to settle is who will keep the kids. Why is it an issue? Because husband and wife both want to raise the kids according to his or her own views and ideas, according to how he or she sees things. Will you ask a law professor at George Washington University to tell the judge whose ideas are truths and whose are untruths, calling the latter lies, before taking a decision? Nonsense. If an amicus curiae talked like that (within an acceptable margin in the frame of the society – as expressing some ideas, like belief in witchcraft or alien abductions, would probably be detrimental in the case to the party expressing these ideas) he would be dismissed at once, as trying to impose his or her own set of preconceived ideas.
What I wrote may sound confusing, at least for two kinds of people in America. Some will remember that experts in American courts are experts of the parties, who try to sustain their party’s position, whereas I seem to be talking of experts of the courts, which exist in civil law (as opposed to common law) countries, experts who had rather remain as neutral as possible in order not to fall into disrepute.
Others will remember that in America jury trial is the rule in civil trials and I seem to omit the fact completely. In fact, divorce trials by jury are rare even in the U.S.:
« Only a few states allow for any type of jury trial in a divorce case. Even then, those states limit the issues that can go before a jury. For example, Texas, which has the most liberal rules concerning jury trials in divorce cases, is the only state that allows juries to decide which parent gets custody of the children and where the children will live. » (rightlawyers.com)
Unless most divorces occur in Texas, the majority of divorced American parents must abide by a decision on who is to keep the children which was not taken by a jury.
Still, my point was, if an expert smugly told the judge, like some professor of George Washington University, that the kids cannot be in custody of the father, for instance, because he voted for Trump and Trump is a liar so you cannot rely on such a one to take care of kids, she would be laughed at or I do not know my judge. Yet she writes books like that, which tells you what a tyrant she must be in her classroom even if people shrug shoulders at her in most other circumstances.
Now, judges are probably more of an official’s profile than the majority of people, so the fact that divorce trials are not decided by juries is also more likely to be detrimental to parents who hold certain ideas, even not so fringe as belief in alien abductions. I should think a parent known to be a Gab user, for instance, is likely to lose his kids in a divorce court when a divorce is filed. Correct me if I’m wrong.
UK government accused of promoting a “nanny state” with proposed online ban on high calorie food ads.
Is commercial speech speech or rather the polluting of speech? Commercial speech wasn’t protected in the US before the 1970s (Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 1976). This is the kind of view that makes authoritarian regimes comfortable with their speech suppression systems, as they can say to their people: See, we’re protecting you and your free thinking from the relentless, nauseating pushing by unthinking business whose sole aim is profit.
In any case, while the US Supreme Court has found that commercial speech is speech, it does not grant it the same level of protection as non-commercial speech, so the UK policy here described could be implemented in the states too within the law.
Bonkers About Lèse-Majesté
Prince Harry complains about online “misinformation” calls First Amendment “bonkers.”
Prince Harry: “I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment; I still don’t understand it, but it is bonkers.”
No surprise: “In 2013, the Ministry of Justice admitted that the Treason Felony Act 1848 had accidentally been ditched. The 165-year-old law threatens anyone calling for the abolition of the monarchy with life imprisonment.” (The Sun, Oct 20, 2016)
Information about lese-majeste legislation in UK is deceptive: they make all sorts of claims, so much so that nobody can know what the legal situation is. (They call that rule of law?)
On Wikipedia page Lèse-majesté, for UK they write: “The Treason Felony Act of 1848 makes it an offence to advocate for the abolition of the monarchy. Such advocation is punishable by up to life imprisonment under the Act. Though still in the statute book, the law is no longer enforced.”
Yet the source for that is a Dec 2013 paper by The Guardian, “Calling for abolition of monarchy is still illegal, UK justice ministry admits,” with subtitle “Department wrongly announced that section of law threatening people with life imprisonment had been repealed.”
The government spreads misinformation on the issue. That the law be no longer enforced does not mean it will not be enforced in case someone violates it (they make it an entirely discretionary decision of prosecuting authorities), only it turns out nobody dares speak freely on the issue (except, probably, ‘accredited’ cartoonists trained in the art of sycophancy under the guise of joking, i.e. court jesters).
As Harry has in his native country a history of blundering (google “Harry the Nazi”), I think it relevant to stress that his calling American First Amendment “bonkers” is not one more blunder according to British royalty’s etiquette but on the contrary full compliance with it.
The extraordinary sequence of the British government claiming lese-majeste laws void and then retracting, claiming to have repealed them and then denying, is the (one may say comical) confirmation that deep within these people see no wrong in punishing speech with life imprisonment.
The appalling statute, worse than the classic example of Thai monarchy (where offensive speech about the King is punishable with a maximum of 15 years imprisonment, compared to 3 years for the Sultan of Brunei), and whose status is at best uncertain, that is, of which nobody can say it is not part of British law any longer because British lawmakers won’t make such a declaration without denying it at once, is among other things what shapes Prince Harry’s animus.
Now, that “Department wrongly announced” the repeal of the lese-majeste law is big lese-majeste, if you ask me, and should be punished with hanging because if they haven’t hanged people for a while it must be due to some misunderstanding.
None of Your Business
The US will join the “Christchurch Call” to eliminate extremist content online. (May 2021)
“New Zealand man jailed for 21 months for sharing Christchurch shooting video.” (BBC News, June 2019)
Making it a crime to share this video amounts to claiming that the government must be the only source of truth. The only source of truth will be at the same time the agency that restricts access to evidence.
Under a constitutional regime the government can make no claim to be an authority as to what the truth is. Hence, by restricting access to evidence it overrides its constitutional function and mocks constitutional liberties.
Here is how the government proceeds. You learn what happened in Christchurch and then the government tells you that, given what happened in Christchurch, they are going to carry out a set of policies that will curtail your fundamental liberties for the sake of peace and order. Then, when one citizen says “Okay, so let’s see what happened in Christchurch” and makes the video of the shooting available online, he’s punished with 21 months imprisonment for inciting violence (or whatever fallacy they used).
Thus, what happened in Christchurch is none of your business even though based on this particular event you are going to lose big in terms of freedom, or more simply you are going to lose your freedom. – What happened in Christchurch is the governement’s business and you have no right to ask for evidence. “The only source of truth will be at the same time the agency that restricts access to evidence.”
“Independent judges versus employees of the king. In the common law tradition, judges are fully independent. In the civil law tradition, judges are no more than employees of the king. They are strictly monitored by higher courts, which are in turn monitored in a remarkable extent by the central government.” (Gerrit De Geest, American Law: A Comparative Primer, 2020)
It should be stressed that this describes, as far as the civil law tradition is concerned, police states, because the state is entirely absorbed in the government. The axiom is therefore that civil law countries are police states.
“the French, with their centuries-long tradition of presenting case law as pure interpretations of codified law.” (De Geest, 2020, p. 64)
Granting it is true of the judicial judge, it is not so with the administrative judge, which has originated much of the administrative law in France, whole parts of which are judge-made (« droit d’origine jurisprudentielle »). – The political cartel is fond of leaving to the judge all lawmaking that crushes individuals under the boot of the police state.
De Geest is excusable, however, from a common law viewpoint, for overlooking that the administrative judge is a judge at all: “Believe it or not, the Conseil d’État, that is, the French supreme court for administrative law, belongs to the executive branch, not the judicial branch!” p. 86)
It’s not about believing and joking but about what common law countries do to bring police states to reason.
“A plea bargain in a criminal case is the equivalent of a settlement in a civil case.” (Gerrit De Geest, American Law: A Comparative Primer, 2020, p. 70)
No. Plea bargaining is a modality of prosecution, not its eschewing. It has nothing to do with the debate on compulsory prosecution vs. principle of opportunity, and by the way De Geest wrongly associates compulsory prosecution with the civil law tradition; in major civil law countries such as France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the principle of opportunity obtains.
May-June 2018. English/français.
#DimitriosPagourtzis [17-years old Santa Fe highschool mass shooter] was wearing both an Iron cross and a Soviet star on his jacket. So far I had heard only of the Iron cross (under appellation “Nazi sign”). I wonder how come people noted the former but failed to see the latter.
[Dimitrios is said to have being stalking for some time his class mate Shana before he killed her during the mass shooting. His father said he was bullied by his class mates. Some (self-described feminists) who adhere to the version that he was a stalking male predator refuse to admit he could have been bullied. Here are my thoughts on the matter.]
Dimitrios Pagourtzis may have been a stalker AND been bullied. He may have reasoned that Shana’s rebuffs were due to his being bullied by other kids at school and resented her submitting to the group pressure that ostracized him. Shana wasn’t strong enough to help Dimitrios against the bullying when he was calling her for help, as his advances meant “If I can date this fine girl, they’ll leave me alone.” As she couldn’t help, she turned against him, shaming him before the whole class [one incident that occurred a few days before the shooting]. Turns out the kids bullied the wrong guy. And they did bully him, perhaps, not even because of Dimitrios’s behavior but because of his Greek name…
It is a known fact that bullying leads to many suicides among teens and yet hardly anything is done about it. School staff close their eyes. Sometimes it leads to mass shooting, as the sad story of Dimitrios Pagourtzis shows.
[And in reply to one bully] If Dimitrios has a right to a lawyer, I have the right to play the role of Dimitrios’s lawyer any time anywhere.
Si l’antisémite n’existait pas, le Juif l’inventerait.
L’ami de Khamzat Azimov [Français d’origine tchétchène responsable d’une attaque au couteau à Paris-Opéra] sera « lui aussi » jugé pour « assassinat et tentative d’assassinats en lien avec une entreprise terroriste » (Le Figaro) car on a trouvé une photo du drapeau de Daesh sur son ordinateur… Parodie de justice ! La France sur le chemin de la dictature policière et militaire. Connaître un assassin et télécharger de la propagande djihadiste n’a jamais été et ne sera jamais un « assassinat », sauf peut-être dans une dictature bien franchouillarde de chez nous à gerber.
« La France sur le chemin de la dictature policière et militaire ». Mais ne vous inquiétez pas : il y aura toujours des députés pour vous dire à la télé que la France est un pays libre. La place de député est trop bonne pour qu’on s’en passe, même en dictature. Ils ne servent déjà à rien.
Comme pour les politicards, un attentat=>une nouvelle loi sécuritaire, maintenant pour les flics, c’est un Tchétchène fait une attaque au couteau=>une ratonnade chez les Tchétchènes. Bravo, quelles méthodes !
L’islam a le droit d’être politique et a le droit d’être prosélyte. Toute interférence de l’État laïque avec un processus de conversion pacifique du pays est illégale et anticonstitutionnelle. #MaryamPougetoux
« Le prosélytisme est propre à chaque religion et ne saurait en soi être considéré comme fautif. » (Cour d’appel de Montpellier, 13 juin 2000)
Si un avocat des djihadistes a le droit de s’exprimer sur la place publique sans que cela passe pour de l’apologie du djihadisme, je ne vois même pas pourquoi un tel délit d’apologie existe. La France n’a aucun respect pour la liberté d’expression et d’opinion.
Si quelqu’un est contre la présence militaire nord-américaine en Afghanistan, ça le met de fait du côté des Talibans. Avec des lois de criminalisation d’apologie, il est tellement facile d’attaquer toute prise de position avec le seul argument judiciaire, d’intimider les gens, d’étouffer le débat.
Dans certains pays, les djihadistes combattent des dictatures : pourquoi défendrais-je des dictatures contre les djihadistes ? En Algérie en 1991, le Front islamique du salut (FIS) remporte 82 % des sièges au premier tour des élections législatives ; l’armée annule les élections. Cela ne vous rappelle rien ? #Pinochet
Les procès de djihadisme devraient être aussi les procès des gouvernements, y compris occidentaux, qui arment et financent les djihadistes un peu partout dans le monde. (Avec le lien suivant : Britain affectionally referred to terrorists in Libya as “rebels”. A year ago today one of these “rebels” carried out a suicide bombing in Manchester.)
La jurisprudence des troubles à l’ordre public par le juge administratif est attentatoire et inadmissible : c’est comme ça que des manifestations sont interdites au bon vouloir des autorités. Que la police fasse son travail pour prévenir les troubles : point barre.
Avec #MaryamPougetoux, un esprit tordu pourrait considérer qu’il y a trouble à l’ordre public, vu tout le bataclan médiatique et autre ; on a déjà vu la jurisprudence servir à la répression des libertés pour moins que ça. Cette jurisprudence est une honte.
Danemark : Le ramadan est incompatible avec le travail, selon la ministre de l’immigration et de l’intégration. (20 Minutes)
Si le ramadan est incompatible avec le travail, vive le ramadan !
Savez-vous pourquoi les entreprises délocalisent en Chine ? Parce que la semaine de travail légale y est de 44 heures et la durée réelle constatée par la FIDH entre 60 et 80 heures. C’est ça que vous voulez, travailleurs ?
C’est ça que vous voulez, travailleurs : faire de l’émulation aux Chinois en heures de travail parce que les patrons voyous et leurs politiciens vous font du chantage à la délocalisation ?
Work hard, American workers, work hard! Yet with your average 40 hours a week you’re such lazy b*stards compared with China’s legal working week of 44h and real time average of 70h (according to FIDH)! You’ll have to work much harder than that or stop listening to CLOWNS!
Germany: 89 far-right extremists and 24 Islamists identified within army since 2011. (ESISC)
But everything’s OK because the 89 far-right extremists are all generals and the 24 Islamists are all cooks.
Top 5 Most Inegalitarian Countries in the World (Gini coefficient, World Bank):
1 South Africa (63.4)
2 Namibia (61.3)
3 Haiti (60.8)
4 Botswana (60.5)
5 Suriname (57.6) (source)
Top 5 Most Egalitarian Countries in the World (Gini coefficient, World Bank) :
1 Ukraine (25.5)
2 Iceland (25.6)
3 Slovenia (25.7)
4 Czech Republic (25.9)
5 Slovakia (26.1) (same source)
Rather interesting, that 4 of 5 of these are Slavic countries, yet Russia, the former “headquarters” of World Communism, is not on the “short list”.
We know what the transition has been in Russia [cf Oligarchs]. Today it is at Gini 37.7, which is more egalitarian than U.S. (41.0) and Communist China (42.2). (Cuba, North Korea not surveyed)
Le directeur du journal Rivarol est fiché S [selon son propre témoignage]. Conclusion : Ce fichier S, c’est comme le cagibi (KGB ?) de l’oncle Maurice, pour trouver un truc, ça prend des plombes… Pas étonnant, après, qu’ils disent tout le temps : « On ne peut pas les surveiller tous. » Méthodes bidon.
When a “Contributor at Jane’s Terrorism & Insurgency Centre” tweets about gang criminality, it makes it sound like all criminality is terrorism and insurgency… The consequence of which can only be that the military will become the first and foremost institution in our countries. While we don’t ask the army to fight our “war on crime,” with our “war on terrorism” this is exactly what we’re doing.
Malay Islam / Islam malais
FPI Aceh membuka pendaftaran bagi para calon mujahidin yang ingin berjihad membela muslim Rohingya (Serambi Indonesia)
Aug 2017: Front Pembela Islam (FPI) Aceh opens mujahidin enrollment list to fight in defence of Rohingya Muslims.
Kegiatan ini juga untuk mengembalikan kepercayaan publik pada perempuan bercadar paska serangan teror bom di Surabaya. (tribunnews)
Bomb Takjil: “Break ramadan fast with bomb sweets.” Indonesian veiled women offer sweets for free with these words in order “to change public perception of veiled women in the aftermath of Surabaya bomb attacks” (May 2018) #ramadan
Teroris bakal keop berhadapan dengan Koopssusgab TNI.
Terrorizing the terrorists? PR Poster from Indonesian Army: “Terrorists will scream with fright in front of #Koopssusgab (elite corps)” / « Les terroristes vont hurler de peur devant le Koopssusgab. » :O
Koopssusgab = Komando Operasi Khusus Gabungan (joint commando for special operations)
Hijab bukanlah suatu penhalang untuk aku terus bernyanyi dan berkarya. (Indira Anjani on TRANS7)
Golden-voiced Indonesian Indira Anjani, finalist at #SunsilkHijabHunt2018: “Hijab is no hindrance to singing and doing things.” / « Le hijab n’empêche pas de chanter et de faire des choses. »
Peluk saya jika anda merasa aman dengan keberadaan saya. (MNC Newsroom)
“Embrace me if you feel safe with my presence.” Indonesian women with integral chador invite female passers-by to embrace them, to convey message that the veil isn’t radicalism.
L’Indonésie élue membre non permanent du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU (anggota tidak tetap DK PBB) (à partir de janvier 2019) avec 4 priorités : 1 résolution du conflit palestinien 2 synergie des organisations régionales 3 promotion de l’islam modéré au niveau mondial 4 promotion d’un partenariat global. #BanggaIndonesia (Fier de l’Indonésie)
I have found a theologian’s justification for the burqa, that is, the integral veil where not even the eyes can be seen.
Al Allamah Ar Ramli, ulama madzhab Syafi’i: “diharamkan melihat wanita yang bercadar yang hanya terlihat kedua matanya dan bola matanya. Karena betapa sering bola mata itu bagaikan belati.” (Quoted by Yulian Purnama here)
“It is haram to watch a covered woman whose eyes and pupils can be seen, because how very often those pupils are like daggers!”
Seorang gadis Melayu berhijab berketurunan Malaysia dan Indonesia berusia 20 tahun telah memecahkan rekod dengan menjadi finalis Top 20 di Miss Universe New Zealand 2018. (toodia.my)
Une jeune femme voilée de 20 ans d’origine malaisienne et indonésienne bat des records en devenant finaliste (top 20) de Miss Universe New Zealand 2018. (son nom : Nurul Shamsul)
Some news from the other country that moved her embassy to Jerusalem #Guatemala:
Guatemala needs to do more to stop the killings of indigenous activists (UNSR Vicki Tauli)
At the root of this violence is institutionalized racism and discrimination against Guatemala’s indigenous population (Washington Post)
France: Constitutional Council validated a law that ordered the closure of a Muslim school in Toulouse. (ESISC)
A “law” that closes a school? Closure of a school is an administrative act! To write a law or an article of law to close one school is insane.
Skilled police [in Berlin] took down the perp without killing him. See, it can be done!
Yes, only it’s above U.S. cops’ skills. Something wrong with their training, perhaps. And U.S. private security agents probably don’t even have a training at all, or just a smattering of it, although they’re entitled to the same use of lethal force!
Avis à la population : trois ans après son installation à 300 000€, le ministère de l’intérieur français ne renouvelle pas le contrat de la société Deveryware pour son application SAIP (Système d’alerte et d’information à la population), qui n’a jamais marché.
La mise en place de l’application aurait coûté 300 000 euros (lien) mais cela n’inclut pas les frais de fonctionnement des trois ans de service de ce ratage.
La société Deveryware ne verra pas son contrat renouvelé parce que son application ne fonctionne pas. Il ne manquerait plus que ça ! Mais surtout n’allez pas faire un procès à une bonne start-up bien française pour non-respect du contrat, ce ne serait pas cool.
Bref, les types de cette boîte ont été payés trois ans à ne rien faire par le même État qui chicane à mort ses fonctionnaires.
Top 5 countries with most road fatalities (per 100,000 inhabitants per year), WHO:
1 Thailand 36.2
2 Liberia 33.7
3 Democratic Republic of Congo 33.2
4 Tanzania 32.9
5 Central African Republic 32.4
France 5.1; UK 2.9; Germany 4.3; Spain 3.7; Italy 6.1; Sweden 2.8; Norway 2; Ireland 4.1; Australia 5.4; US (worst result for a Western country) 10.6; Turkey 8.9; Japan 4.7; India 16.6 (source)
Top 5 countries with least road fatalities (per 100,000 inhabitants per year), WHO (non-industrialized countries in brackets only)
(Federal States of Micronesia 1.9)
1 Norway 2
2 Switzerland 2.6
3 Sweden 2.7 4
5 Netherlands 3.4 (same source)
#Sartrouville Fermer des lieux de culte est indigne. Si un imam dit des choses contre la loi, qu’il se défende en justice, mais ne punissez pas les fidèles en les privant de lieu de culte.
Ce genre de punition collective, totalement inconstitutionnel et contraire aux traités européens, est de l’islamophobie d’Etat et doit être dénoncé devant les juridictions supranationales auxquelles la France est soumise. #CEDH (Cour européenne des droits de l’homme).
Comme les autorités, quand elles ferment des mosquées, ne se demandent pas, que je sache, si les fidèles ont un autre lieu de culte à une distance raisonnable, ces autorités sont ignobles, et de toute façon punissables devant la CEDH pour peines collectives.
Si la deuxième mosquée la plus proche, encore ouverte, est au-delà d’une « distance raisonnable », l’administration a sciemment créé un obstacle exorbitant à l’exercice du culte et doit être condamnée.
Qu’un imam doive passer en justice ne justifie nullement qu’une mosquée soit fermée. C’est l’imam qui a (peut-être) violé la loi, pas « un établissement », qui peut continuer à remplir sa fonction légale avec un autre imam, voire un simple fidèle. La fermeture est une peine collective illégale. Un établissement est fermé administrativement quand son activité est illégale ; l’activité d’une salle de prières est l’exercice du culte musulman, légal.
Pourquoi un parti islamiste français n’existe-t-il pas et ne se présente-t-il pas systématiquement aux élections ? Ce serait tout à fait normal, si la France n’était pas un pays d’islamophobie étatique.
Si les Musulmans de France ne veulent pas se faire écraser par l’islamophobie d’État, ils n’ont pas vraiment le choix : il faut qu’ils créent un parti politique. Maintenant, quand on regarde qui serait le mieux placé pour le diriger, il est en prison dans des circonstances douteuses… #TariqRamadan
L’extrême-droite néerlandaise est furieuse que des classes scolaires visitent des mosquées et apprennent comment on prie quand on est Musulman [vidéo à l’appui où l’on voit des enfants néerlandais apprendre les gestes de la salat, avec génuflexion et le reste]. Comme si ce n’était pas la meilleure façon de mieux connaître ses voisins ! Que le gouvernement français en prenne de la graine.
Tatarstan is welcome in European Union with full membership any time if they feel repressed by autocratic ruling practises in Russia, and that applies also to Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia &c. Turkey is our next member and things will change.
Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tatarstan, you name it: Europeans all!
[Seeing the dismantling of Sweden’s welfare state] You’ve now got the demonstration that compromizing with capitalism is unworkable on the long run. Everything it took Sweden so long to build up will be swept out in a couple of years like everywhere else in Europe (where all countries more or less made the same kinds of compromizes these last decades). Social-dem politicos and their cronies must be held accountable. You know what they’ve been after, all these years: the good positions, the honey pot. They’re marked.
Of course there was to be mass immigration: doubling or trebling the number of people, all scabs, in search of a job on the market, to dominate the workers.
#MeToo. Language says it all:
As spoiled = spoilt,
raped = rapt (deeply delighted).
The sovereign of Australia is the British monarch. Now when #PrinceHarry of Australia’s sovereign sports a Nazi swastika, he is NOT disciplined for this “abhorrent incident” like Australian soldiers when they do the same (2007: Australian soldiers flew Nazi swastika in Afghanistan. The swastika was removed and military personnel were disciplined, with authorities condemning the “abhorrent” incident. Skynews). Still good to be King!
Prince Harry the PRIVILEGED Nazi (He can wear a swastika without trouble while his subjects, Australian soldiers, are disciplined when they do the same.)
Click to enlarge:
Source for the military (“active military”) personnel figures. Source for population figures is Google: Type population+name of country and you will get the latest available figure on top of page.
“Mad-dog democracy” Israel beats all countries on military personnel-to-population ratio except North Korea (4.6%) and Eritrea (3.8%).
Nicely placed carrot in Mario Bava’s 5 bambole per la luna d’agosto (1970). All by chance, of course.