Tagged: Prince Harry
Law 29: Demonetizing Bin Laden
Buddhism is the true religion of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Let me explain. Gautama opposed the caste system and was attacked – although not persecuted – by the Brahmins. Since then, Savarkar (1883-1966) and other proponents of Hindutva ideology have played down the caste system, to the point of presenting it as a deviation from true Hinduism or Hindutva. Therefore, as they oppose the caste system, they must be Buddhists, unless they are Westernized revisionist brains.
Demonetizing Bin Laden
“Center [Indian Government] had justified the decision of demonetization stating it was taken to crack down on fake currency, black money and terror financing.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 2, 2023)
Some governments can’t take any action without justifying it by a necessity to fight terrorism. A potent justification as far as illiterate mobs are concerned, certainly. In 2019, EU stopped issuing its 500-euro banknotes, the highest euro note; these were called “Bin Ladens” because they were allegedly used in criminal transactions (and Western media know of no other criminal than Bin Laden, although mafias have been thriving all over the place for decades). 500 euros is about 45,000 Indian rupees, and one can understand that transactions that must remain cash (because they are unlawful) need high-value notes, but what proportion of “Bin Ladens” were used by Al-Qaeda compared to mafias? – India fighting terrorism with excavators (demolishing for encroachment the property of alleged terrorists running free [see Law 28: “Bulldozer Crackdown”]) and demonetization…
However, Modiji demonetized 1,000 INR notes to replace them with 2,000 notes†, that is, he replaces high-value notes by even higher-value notes. Criminals need cash for their high-value criminal transactions. You and I need cash for groceries; for more expensive purchases we usually make bank transfers. The 2,000 note is evidence that the demonetization has nothing to do with war against crime.
“People seeking to exchange their banknotes had to stand in lengthy queues, and several deaths were linked to the rush to exchange cash. … The move reduced the country’s industrial production and its GDP growth rate. It is estimated that 1.5 million jobs were lost.” (Wkpd: Indian banknote demonetization) Congratulations, Modiji!
†To be quite precise, demonetized 500 and 1,000 INR notes were replaced by new 500 and 2,000 notes.
The Delhi Car Drag Case
“Delhi erupts in rage after car drags woman for 7 kilometers; Murder or accident?” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 2023)
Some constitutional considerations
“Delhi chief minister demanded death penalty for the accused.” In all countries, it would be senseless for a member of the executive to tell courts what their decision should be, at any stage. But to demand death penalty is even more senseless in India, where, although death penalty exists, only eight executions have been carried out since 1996, that is, death penalty in India is a mockery.
Delhi CM’s demanding a death sentence for what has been said, so far, to be an accident, is senseless. But given Indian Supreme Court (SC)’s decision Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980), even if it is, in fact, a gruesome murder, the demand would still not be in line with actual law, that is, said decision, which limits death sentence to “rarest of rare crimes.” These include crimes involving the “security of the state” and I therefore disagree with SC’s ruling. There exists no reason to make a difference between crimes based on state security. Such a line simply cannot be drawn, unless it means that the life of a public official has more value than ordinary citizens’ lives, or something like that – an abhorrent idea.
Delhi CM talks in the present case of “rarest of rare crime” indeed, the condition for a death sentence. According to the Indian Supreme Court, there is a rarest of rare crime when, to begin with, a “murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.” This cannot be a valid definition. Murders committed in anger or fear are usually more brutal and violent and dastardly than premeditated murders committed in cold blood, and yet it is a well-established principle that premeditation makes a crime more heinous. By emphasizing the graphic element of a crime, the definition overlooks other major aspects, just like a mob reacting to a crime.
In fact, the attempt by SC to define “rarest of rare” contrives a definition that denies the very name “rarest of rare”: “[I]f the motive betrays depravity and meanness, or if a backward or minority community member is killed not for personal reasons but to arouse social wrath, the accused should get death. Other crimes which technically fall into the rarest of rare cases are bride burnings and dowry deaths, a child victim, the assassination of a public figure for political reasons [security of the state, discussed above], or killing a defenseless person because of old age or infirmity.” Hate crimes, political crimes, infanticides, etc. Such a large definition for rarest of rare?! – Given that among the only eight people executed since 1996 in India, we find rapists who later killed their victim, one is bound to think, unfortunately, that rarest or rare are the cases properly brought before a court.
Two female friends, Anjali and Nidhi, left a hotel at 1:30 am on a scooter. Later, street cameras show Anjali’s body dragged by a car. Crowds rioted in anger when they learnt police reported the incident as an accident.
It looks like an accident, but even so the men in the car would be culpable of hit-and-run and manslaughter.
Had the men stopped the car after the accident, the car would not have dragged the body. It remains to be seen if a car can drag a body with the occupants not noticing at once; experts will tell.
a-a) Passengers’ v. driver’s responsibility
There is 1) the accident but also 2) the hit-and-run. The other occupants of the car beside the driver would have to convince a court they did their best to prevent the hit-and-run, otherwise they are accomplices in it. If they failed to report the incident, in all likelihood complicity will be retained.
If a car passenger does not report to police after the incident (without good reason), he will be presumed to have supported the hit-and-run. What if they are all caught while still in the car? Obviously, a passenger cannot stop the driver without risking an accident, so if one passenger urges the driver to stop and the driver won’t listen, there is probably not much else the passenger could do; in this case, I think the passengers should not be presumed accomplices. Passengers can stop a driver but there is always a risk of accident, as the driver is in control of the car.
If all passengers were stoned from alcohol or otherwise, and didn’t even realize there was an accident, then again, they are not accomplices.
When actor Salman Khan’s chauffeur was found guilty of a hit-and-run while Salman, as passenger, got away with it, I assume the court had good reasons for a decision I find counterintuitive, because Salman was the boss, and the chauffeur his employee, so at first I would assume Salman gave his chauffeur the order to keep driving rather than the chauffeur took Salman “hostage.” But perhaps the chauffeur was so afraid of the consequences of the accident that he did not listen to his boss urging him to stop the car. Possibly.
This is not only an accident but also a hit-and-run, and not only a hit-and-run but also manslaughter. The difference with murder is that the driver and passengers probably didn’t intend to kill Anjali by dragging her, they had rather hoped the body would detach, alive, from under the car so they could drive away, released from this “burden.” However, the drag was an act of violence causing injuries that resulted in death: the definition of manslaughter.
Someone (a YouTube user) said “[accused] having knowledge” is enough in Indian law to characterize murder, “not only mens rea” (a legal term for “intent”). Knowledge of what, he did not tell, but I think I can connect the dots, and that puzzles me because it means Indian law has no proper distinction between murder and manslaughter, which, if true, would be a shortcoming. In the present case, for instance, the men probably knew they were committing a violent, potentially lethal act, but death was not their intent (mens rea); their intent was more likely to have the body released from the car or the car released from the body, although, in their recklessness, they were certainly aware this could provoke death.
Delhi CM, who demands a death sentence for them, seems to have another appreciation of the facts; he may think they dragged a person unknown to them with the purpose of taking her life, that they had a design to choose a random prey to torture and kill her or took the opportunity of an unexpected traffic accident to satisfy murderous instincts and they enjoyed it. But neither the chief minister nor I is a judge of the facts. The jury will settle it. In the meantime, as the chief minister talks his mind, I assume I can talk my mind too.
The facts of the case as known so far from reports by Indian media seem to point to manslaughter rather than murder, unless the men knew the victim, a point the police said they are investigating. If the men knew the victim, the police may find biographical elements in their relationships that could constitute a plausible mens rea for murder, for instance if they bore her a grudge for some reason or other. Absent a previous relationship, there seems to be no other possible mens rea other than, for instance, a murderous mindset oriented toward random gruesome acts (but if the men don’t have a criminal record, this will hardly obtain, unless a psychiatric report points to the same) or a hatred for women that would make the case a femicide, a hate crime (which the Commission for Women has hastily presumed without, in my opinion, good reason, if not the assumption that Indian males, or all males, are prone to roaming streets for killing women – but is this assumption or prejudice? To be sure, Anjali’s clothes were torn by the long drag, and this could make think of rape.)
c/ Police conduct
As for police conduct, which has been questioned, we heard that a first police report talked of an accident, and this triggered street demonstrations or riots. If there was only “accident” in this report, then truly the report seems light, as a hit-and-run was also obvious. But a hit-and-run is not yet, per se, a murder/manslaughter either. Assuming the report was about accident and hit-and-run, one could still be puzzled and ask: How did the men not notice there was a body under their car? I have been watching Indian channels on YouTube these last days, and since the Anjali case surfaced, already two other car drag incidents occurred in India, as in Hardoi (Uttar Pradesh) yesterday, Jan 6, when a cyclist was dragged by a car over one kilometer before the driver stopped. On videos, we see pedestrians rushing toward the vehicle to alert the driver that he was dragging somebody; apparently, the driver had not noticed it at once. In the Delhi case, I read some people say a “decent” driver’s not noticing is impossible, but is it so certain? For one, it probably depends on the condition of the roads: where a car ceaselessly bounces up and down due to the road’s unevenness, it probably takes longer to notice the presence of a dragged burden under one’s car. Nevertheless, in case police did sloppy work, this is not evidence of coverup yet rather than incompetence or neglect. Even if police try to protect a politician among the car passengers (or is he the driver? – One of the accused is a local BJP politician), Nidhi’s interview in front of cameras can be of no help in that regard, as far as I can see, contrary to what is said by some: Nidhi’s testimony as we know it (see iii) can’t cast the least shadow of a doubt on the main facts, unless something escapes me. If the testimony can’t change nothing in that respect, I fail to see why police would have staged it.
Assuming police are trying to protect the BJP politician, their best asset for this at the present stage would be Nidhi, that is, they would shift attention from the men to Nidhi. She would be the one responsible for the accident and the men would have noticed nothing, neither the accident nor the drag, they’re cleared. If police staged Nidhi’s interview, as some suggest, they would have knowingly induced her to tell lies, such as “Anjali was drunk and I wasn’t, and yet she insisted to drive” which would, unanticipated by her, later be dispelled by forensic expertise (no alcohol found by the postmortem) and cast serious doubts on her personality. Therefore, if the claim is police interference, insistence on charging Nidhi is not quite consistent, because Nidhi’s words may have been staged: apparently an attempt to clear herself but in fact a trap diabolically laid for her by police.
The victim’s friend
Nidhi was witness to a hit-and-run that would likely result in homicide, seeing Anjali dragged away under a car. She probably ran for her life, thinking: “If these monsters notice me, a witness to their crime, they’ll want to kill me too, so indifferent are they to strangers’ life.” Then she went back home. Why not to the police? At 2 am in the morning, the safest was straight home. Perhaps she didn’t even know where the police station is, nor was there anybody around to tell her, or she didn’t dare ask, for that would have shown she was helpless and men could have raped her. And she didn’t have police number on her phone: who cares about that at 20 something? So, Hindustan Times says she went home, probably thinking of asking for advice. She then did nothing for the next two days: if this means she reported on her own initiative after three days, then she finally reported. Why so long? Perhaps the first day she was completely out of her mind, then the second day she thought it was already too late and she hoped she would escape investigation, and the third day she had remorse and reported.
But Nidhi’s behavior is a secondary and minor question, just as the accident is secondary in importance to the possible crimes, hit-and-run and manslaughter. Absent further elements that may surface later, in the previous paragraph I attempt an explanation. Some added in the meantime elements about her criminal record (drugs), and the hypothesis that she hid for two days to allow time to erase traces of alcohol or drugs in her blood (she would have been the one intoxicated and not, as she said, Anjali). But all in all, it is not clear how her behavior could be of great relevance to the main issue, unless one nurtures the idea of a premeditated murder of Anjali in which Nidhi would be implicated. Even if Nidhi were found liable for not reporting and/or the accident (cf. the allegation that cameras show she had her hands on the handle a few moments before the accident), that wouldn’t change the elements regarding hit-and-run and manslaughter.
The Commissions for Women
Does the National Commission for Women make a statement each time a woman dies a violent death in India or is there something special here?
The Commissions for Women, national commission and Delhi commission, add fuel to the fire; I now suspect one or the other instigated or incited the riots, or at least provoked them by making provocative statements. Who first claimed it was a femicide, with rape and what not, in defiance of the police report? (Anjali’s clothes were torn due to, according to expertise, the drag, but as the body was half-naked people at the CW thought it likely was a case of rape and murder.)
Delhi Commission then sharply criticized Nidhi’s interview and threatened her with legal action for her “character assassination” of Anjali (who Nidhi said was drunk and yet insisted on driving the scooter). Is it character assassination when Delhi chief minister demands death penalty for the men in the car, who are still presumed innocent (like all accused before a judgment)? Is it character assassination when one or the other Commission for Women spins a femicide yarn out of thin air? Bureaucrats would be the only ones allowed to talk? – I think the Commission for Women is embarrassed by their femicide spin in defiance of the preliminary police report. So-called “character assassination” is allowed in a trial and then (in a trial) it is no slander: when you are accused of something, you are allowed to defend yourself, and that may mean to shift responsibility onto others’ shoulders. (Of course, if you are found to be lying, your defense will be disregarded.)
“Rave Parties in Saudi Arabia: Crown Prince MBS Stuns the Old Guard with Modernization Push.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 2023)
At the same time, Italy criminalizes rave parties. In Italy now, organizing a rave party will owe you up to six years imprisonment. The law has just been passed. Italians have had enough and know better than MBS.
Rave party means hundreds or thousands of people gathered in the dark with loud music covering everything. Alcohol and drugs will circulate uncontrolled in Saudi raves because tourists are now welcome in the Kingdom, which delivered no tourist visa until a couple of years ago. But the main concern is probably the opening of the land of Islamic holy sites to cultural forms that are increasingly considered, in the very West where they originated, as repellent and degenerate, even if rave parties did not imply invasion of property and noise pollution on several square kilometers, so much so that it’s just got banned in Italy.
I don’t know the rules about alcohol and tourists in KSA; I only know the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where tourists can get alcohol at hotels and private homes. I am told the rules are not the same. However, KSA, the new tourist destination, will likely follow UAE’s example, for you can’t invite a drunkard to your place and deprive them of their booze.
P.S. “Woman Who Went Topless After Argentina’s World Cup Win Escapes Arrest in Qatar. An Argentine woman, seen flashing in videos from the stadium, has appeared to have escaped any action.” (News18, Dec 22, 2022)
One of the strange things about the moon is that, while you need launch pad and rocket to escape Earth’s atmosphere, it only takes a little aluminum foil bug to escape the moon’s. I know gravity is not the same but you’d almost believe a man will get lost in the lunar skies instead of remaining on the lunar surface, so easy it is to escape the satellite’s atmosphere.
“China Restarts ‘Mission Nepal’ Against India. A purported China dove has been made Prime Minister.” (Firstpost, YouTube, Jan 2023)
A combined invasion of India by China and Nepal would be dramatic for India.
A medical use of cannabis was contrived as a wedge for recreational use. At Woodstock, no one said a word about medical use but they had a lot to say about recreational or existential or philosophical or whatever use. Medical use was contrived by people who had smoked weed at Woodstock and were looking for a way to make their new pastime accepted by society. That is, they perjure the Hippocratic Oath. From recreational and illegal to medical to recreational and legal.
The Air India Flight’s
Urinating and Indecent Exposure Case
“Drunk man on Air India’s New York-Delhi flight urinates on woman co-passenger.” (HT, YouTube, Jan 2023)
The regulator wants sanctions against the “negligent” cabin crew, but pay attention that the crew is also a victim of the indecent exposure (“After urinating, the man continued to stand there, exposing himself”), even if they were not urinated upon (this a crime I am unable to define legally at this stage, having no example in mind). Air hostesses and even stewards were in a state of shock, as victims themselves, and could not properly handle the passenger who was shamelessly exposing his parts to them. All in all, I think the National Commission for Women should make a statement.
The indecent exposure dimension of the incident has been completely played down so far and this is shocking in its own right. Crew hostesses have a right to damages, just like the lady who was urinated upon in addition to damages for being urinated upon. Indecent exposure is in the Indian criminal code (sadhus being outside the purview of the considered section). Therefore, you can’t sanction the crew as if they had not endured something foul themselves.
“Indian criminal code is not applicable in aircraft flying over foreign airspace. Also, if the man is a foreign citizen and he urinated when the aircraft was flying over foreign air space, then India does not have any jurisdiction. It is the country in whose airspace the aircraft was when the crime was committed, that has the right of jurisdiction and the right to conduct investigation and trial in that country’s court and punishment in that country’s jail.” (B.) – It is the Indian national regulator wants sanctions against the “negligent” crew; therefore, I assume the sanctions must be taken with due consideration to Indian legislation.
The crew evidently reported the incident to their management, and it is the managers who didn’t report. One must not confuse two different things: 1) the handling in the cabin of a crazy man who was a danger to everybody. If you think that intentionally urinating on people is common and does not betray an altered, potentially dangerous state of mind, just let us know. Then, 2) the report to authorities, and it is the management or direction’s duty, because clearly this kind of decision is deferred to the latter. I am therefore confident the company’s management or direction will be sanctioned for not reporting the dreadful incident to authorities and the cabin crew will get damages for being harassed by a sex freak.
Had a steward knocked the freak out, he would be the one prosecuted, for assault and battery. And the crew are not pledged to protect from piss a passenger’s body with their own bodies. “Preventing this [a crime] from happening,” as a YouTube user wants it, by “pinning him [the freak] down” is no more the crew’s than the passengers’ responsibility, it’s called a citizen’s arrest. If their employment contracts include arrest power, like contracts of bouncers in nightclubs, then all right, the cabin crew may be sanctioned, but I doubt the contract of an Air India hostess includes such things.
Insult To a Foreign Head of State
and French Hypocrisy
“Iran threatens France over Charlie Hebdo’s ‘offensive’ cartoons of Khamenei.” (HT, YouTube, Jan 2023)
“U.S. backs France on freedom of expression.” Why did U.S. not stand up for freedom of expression when French President Macron filed a complaint against a poster depicting him as Hitler? (See Law 27) Was there no concern about freedom of expression then? Let’s wait and see French government’s response to Iran, but if their answer is that freedom of expression is guaranteed in France, I urge the media to ask them why Macron lodged a complaint when he saw a picture of him as Hitler, and several other instances of executive attempts at stifling speech.
As far as hate speech is concerned, it tends to be permitted in France to abuse Islam, but not other communities. This is the problem, which in fact makes Iran’s overall position not contrary to freedom of speech as far as France is concerned, since their demand amounts to asking the same legal protection from hate speech for Islam as other communities have in France, that is, to stop discrimination against Islam. If France is a free-speech country, then Iran’s demand is that France be a nondiscriminatory free-speech country.
French law represses speech, make no mistake about it. As to the present controversy, there was in France a crime of insult to heads of foreign states (like Ayatollah Khamenei) until 2004, after France was condemned for this legislation by the European Court of Human Rights. But as with the specific crime of insult against the national President, which was cancelled in 2013, again after a condemnation of France by the ECHR, and replaced by the more common crime of public insult, a foreign head of state is still allowed to sue people in France for insulting them. This is to let Ayatollah Khamenei know that French laws unreservedly support his concern, and he is welcome to sue Charlie Hebdo and ask for damages.
The saffron bikini in Pathaan movie, which has aroused anger among Hindus, is a useless provocation. Artists must pay heed. The ire was certainly anticipated by all in the business and yet they did not refrain. An excuse such as “We thought the color was nice for the dance scene” would be frivolous; another color, less charged with sensitive symbolism, would have been as fine. So why?
Saffron bikini v. national flag bikini
Excerpts from All India Roundup, Aug 13, 2015: “10 celebrities who insulted the Indian national flag.”
“[Tennis player] Sania Mirza was pictured sitting with her bare feet that appeared to rest on a table next to an Indian flag. Isn’t [it] shameful!”
“[Cricket player] Sachin Tendulkar was accused of insulting the Indian flag, when pictures of Tendulkar celebrating his birthday on March 2010 by cutting a tricolour cake went viral.”
“Back in 2000, designer Malini Ramani also landed herself in trouble when she wore a flag dress.”
“Bollywood’s bold actress Mallika Sherawat got embroiled in legal trouble when she draped herself with the tricolour.” [She was nude but draped in the flag.]
“King [Shahrukh] Khan was booked by Pune police for allegedly insulting the national flag. He was booked on the Compliant of LJP national secretary Ravi Brahme that SRK allegedly insulted the tricolour in a video uploaded on youtube.”
“However small-time actress and model Gehna Vashisht must be severely condemned for her indecent act and was rightly taught a lesson by the people by wearing a tricolour like a bikini.” [She was assaulted by an angry mob and then arrested by police.]
“A case was filed against Bollywood star Amitabh Bachchan for covering his body with the national flag in a manner insulting the national flag.”
“Narendra Modi…has been accused of insulting the national flag by a social worker of Pondicherry, who has lodged a complaint against Modi for wiping his face using the tricolour scarf he was wearing.”
So much sensitivity over national symbols in that country, but saffron bikinis are okay even though saffron is also a symbol? If those complaining about a national flag bikini don’t see a problem in a saffron bikini, they are double-faced.
“‘I killed 25 Afghans and I am not sorry’: Prince Harry’s chilling confession.” (HT, YouTube, Jan 2023)
If HT got its content from the leaked Spanish version, I think there is a translation mistake. Prince Harry did not “serve in the army,” the army is serving him as hereditary Prince of the British Kingdom. However much I would like to think he is a citizen like the others, and a soldier like the others, the medieval concept of his hereditary function is an obstacle to such a feeling. I might not be the only one.
Prince Harry is the only one thinking he did war like the others. Come on, guys, break the news to him. – I will believe a British Prince did a soldier job when he dies on the front, but it never happens.
Any military command knowing what military intelligence is would never send such a sensitive target on a military front. Imagine the Taliban getting intelligence that Harry is in chopper #9: all Taliban rockets on the spot would be for poor Harry. No, he must have comfortably enjoyed his trip across the beautiful land.
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. « 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 ce que vous voulez, travailleurs ?
C’est ce 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
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 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 UK 2.9
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, then 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!
Harry the PRIVILEGED Nazi.
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.