Sunday, September 17, 2006

Exercising your rights may "provoke" religious bigots to violence


AP:
An Iraqi insurgent group threatened the Vatican with a suicide attack over the Pope's remarks on Islam, said a statement posted yesterday on the web.

"We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life," said the message posted in the name of the Mujahedeen Army on a website frequently used by militant groups.
If an unbelieving white woman such as myself were to threaten authors, cartoonists, film makers, presidents and popes with violence because I found their words and images offensive, I'd justifiably be confined to an insane asylum and forced to undergo anger management sessions. Not so if you are a radical believer in the religion of peace. Your threats will be responded to with an apology.
In a broader talk rejecting any religious motivation for violence, Benedict cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman," particularly "his command to spread by the sword the faith."

The pontiff did not endorse that description, but he did not question it, and his words set off a firestorm of protests across the Muslim world.

The new Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the pope's position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that says the church "esteems" Muslims.

Benedict "thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions," Bertone said in a statement.

He noted that earlier during his German trip, Benedict warned "secularized Western culture" against holding contempt for any religion or believers.
This morning, it came from the horse's mouth:
He said, in what many described as a craven climbdown and public mea culpa unheard of by a pontiff in living memory, that "at this time I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims".

He concluded that the Vatican had already attempted to explain his controversial speech, which quoted the views of the 14th century Emperor Manuel II Paleologos in conversation with a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

The pope said, "I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect".
Don't expect the pope to ask for an apology from those that threatened to kill him for his speech. Just so long as you shut up, and turn away from Mecca when you pee, they will leave you alone.

Crossposted at Dust my Broom

42 comments:

Gordon Pasha said...

The Pope said he was sorry for the reactions of Muslims. In other words, Sorry you're a bunch of ignorant, violent savages. Not really an apology. He certainly did not say he was sorry to have said what he said.

Lisa said...

There should have been no need for the pope to clarify his comments in the first place. Expressing regret for the reaction comes across as conciliatory to the aggressors demands.

religion of pieces said...

Anti-pope hatefest outside cathedral in the other London:

http://catholiclondoner.blogspot.com/2006/09/very-rushed-post.html

Ian Scott said...

"If an unbelieving white woman such as myself were to threaten authors, cartoonists, film makers, presidents and popes with violence because I found their words and images offensive, I'd justifiably be confined to an insane asylum and forced to undergo anger management sessions."

Well, maybe - but if my observations are anything to do with the norm, you likely wouldn't be "justifiably" confined to an insane asylum.

You should check out the Western Standard blog sometime, and note that folks often quote the words of some Imman, and then use those words to justify killing and attacking Muslims.

Heck, one guy even suggested that he was shocked that citizens didn't simply go and beat up the person that was wearing a Hezbollah flag in Canada, recently.

So... it seems that some "freedom of expression" is... well... heh.. even those who claim to recognize it, don't really recognize it at all when it doesn't suit their own emotional silly thinking.

And interestingly enough, no one at the WS suggest that these commentors would be "justifiably confined" to an insane asylum.

Honey Pot said...

I thought the comment over on the WS about Easter Bunny verses Santa Claus was damn funny.

Two oppressive gods dissing each other in hopes of getting their sheep all worked up for a rumble.

Going to be a big one if the muzzies take out the pope. Doesn't look like there is any negotiating with the muzzies, when it comes to their fucked up god.

If you could find a reasonable muslim leader, (which seems to be in short supply), you could possibly convince them that they could still control their people if they tweaked their cult to resemble something less evil. I doubt if that is going to happen without a whole whack of people dying.

gm said...

Ian

Apples and Oranges.

Yes, it is true that religion is irrational and some people are crazy at WS, thanks for that, as it serves as a good deflection to point out that insanity is not confined to the spread of religion by the use of force.

Pietr said...

The actual speech by His Holiness quoted a 13th century text in which a Muslim bemoaned the contributions of Mohammed to a Koran which had hitherto stated "religion is without compulsion".

rhebner said...

'We're not a violent religion! And just to prove it, we're gonna firebomb your church, threaten your religious leaders and shoot a nun in the back!'

Lisa said...

Ian;

You are missing the point of my post. There are crazies everywhere but I'm not talking about all crazies. Is there a reason I should be talking about a few emotionally silly people that stop by the WS rather than a large group of people who vow to wipe out the Western world? That Western World also includes us Canadian libertarians Ian. Excuse me for thinking that death threats and riots and calls for the popes death by militant Imams is more of a threat to our liberties and hence more worthy of attention.

Just as in the case of the Danish cartoons, radical Muslims are initiating unjustifiable acts of violence, this time over words rather than an image. In no way can such violence be justified in the name of self defence. I'm not a fan of the pope, but for Christ sakes, he was not preaching hatred nor calling on Christians to strap on bombs and blow up Muslims. As a libertarian, I would think the Muslim reaction would outrage you too.

The pope has twice "apologized" for the radical reaction, but that is not good enough for the bloodhounds who will not be satisfied until the pope converts to Islam. Radical Muslims do not care about freedom of speech and expression. In fact, in Europe, they have effectively managed to impose their own fucked up beliefs and obtain special privileges, not by virtue of the individuality of their members, but by virtue of their governmentally recognized special group status.

gm said...

How about Theo Van Gogh killed because he made a movie critical of Islam.

Does This Make You Angry?
PJM in LA
September 18, 2006 12:29 PM

Lieuwe van Gogh—thirteen-year-old son of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered by Islamists—is finding his life in increasing danger in his native Netherlands, while the Dutch police do nothing.

Honey Pot said...

Lisa, how's about we do something fun and exciting this weekend? I no longer am in need of my Mustafa shag doll, and I thought we could put a turbin with a fake bomb on it, duct tape him on the end of my mop, write allah across his tallywhacker,and burn him in effigy down in front of city hall.

I figure it takes nothing to piss the muzzies off, and we could take some of the heat off the poor old popester. He might be thankful, and let us ride around in the popemobile with him.

Why should the muzzies have all the fun? I wonder if I need to get a permit to burn an effigy? Who would call to get permission? the local mosque?

Honey Pot said...

Workers at Turkey's Directorate General for Religious Affairs, or Diyanet, petitioned for the arrest of the Pontiff when he makes a scheduled visit to Turkey in November

After an al Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq vowed war on "worshippers of the cross" on Monday, Italian media said an al Qaeda group in Egypt called on Tuesday for him to be punished by strict Islamic sharia law for insulting their religion.-Reuters

Sharia law?....wasn't that what Marion Boyd of the ndp was fighting like a banshee to bring to Ontario. Yoohoo, nutcases in the ndp.... I don't think catlick christians are going to take kindly to you condoning the cutting off of the pope's tongue for offending the fucktards of the death cult of islam.

For fucksake, the pope takes it upon himself to visit one of these bumhole backward countries, who must surely be lacking in tourism dollars, and they want to arrest him. Must be a pre-requisite to belong to islam, to not only kill all non-muslims, but to be stupid too.

Honey Pot said...

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently verified.

The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam. -wftv.com


.....I know they are proving Benny's point, over and over again, but you would think there would be a muzzie somewhere in the world who would have enough brains to realize that.

Let me get my crystal ball out.....ohhhh I see the muzzie's sending suicide bombers into the vatican, grinning thinking they have accomplished something for their fucked up god.....now I see giant bombs being dropped on the middle east..."hark! what is that sucking sound I hear?"...it is the sound of a million muslims, kissing their asses good-bye.

Ian Scott said...

Lisa,

My comment had nothing to do with any of my feelings about what some Muslims say or call for.

It had everything to do with your statement that you would be "justifiably confined to an insane asylum."

I did not miss the point of your post, I don't think. I chose however, to quote your words and point out that it is not likely the case you would be "justifiably confined."

The title of your post has to do with one excercising "rights," and you've also posted an image that some (insanely) deem offensive.

In response to your "justifiably confined" statement, in context, I point out that there are insane thinkers who are "provoked" by the sight of a flag and who call for "street justice" in the beating and killing of someone who wears a flag that the insane thinker finds "offensive."

Life itself is a "threat," Lisa. We're ALL going to die someday, who can ever predict the hour?

I personally do not find the "threat" of Islamic extremism to be all that threatening. As libertarians and critical thinkers, root causes for events are important. It is rubbish that Islam "hates us for our freedoms," the silly call to war that is often used to support wars in Iraq or the propping up of "friendly dictators" when it suits.

There is absolute utter hypocricy on both sides of this; the Muslims who call for violence and those here in N. America who also call for violence.

Do you seriously believe that there is a threat that an Islamic army could soon be running through the streets of London, Ontario, and taking over the country, and insisting that we all use Sharia law??

I'd love to know how exactly this "threat" would ever become a reality.

Well, I suppose through political maneouverings, where idiot politicians might take us to war instead of actually acknowledging OUR liberties and freedoms and allowing us to practice them, it might happen.

I for one think there is more of a threat of dying from the State controlled water supply because the State Officer In Charge didn't quite do his job one night, and people got sick and died. Instead of letting me dig a well on my property, and being responsible for my own water supply, I must "fear" some irresponsible statist water controller.

In the scheme of things, I would suggest there is a greater possibility that loved ones would die because of some Statist not doing their job, than from some Muslim Immams 10,000 miles away.

And no Lisa, you probably wouldn't be "justifiably confined" to anything, against your will. Possibly, but not probably.

Honey Pot said...

Ian, it wasn't that long ago that Marion Boyd of the ndp was pushing for sharia law here in Ontario. She got her assed kicked real good for that, but if no one was paying attention, the probability of Ontario becoming the new mecca of the western world, could have came to be. What do you suppose would have happened if she was successful in allowing the muslims their own law in Ontario? They are unlike christians who you can tell to go fuck off and leave you alone. It doesn't work that way with islam, they are a dangerous militant death cult.

Ian Scott said...

HoneyPot, your comment shows a bit of a lack of knowledge about what was actually being proposed.

First, it was voluntary.

Second, it was to do with civil law, not criminal law.

Thirdly, it was not to do with how the judiciary would handle Muslims and their issues, but rather to be used when there was voluntary agreement for parties seeking solutions during mediation.

In fact, up to that point in time, other mediated agreements based on various ideologies were allowed in Ontario, and if agreement was reached through such mediation, it was beyond the judiciary.

In Ontario, some mediated disputes using interpretations of "Christian law" and "Jewish law" (where different from recognized civil case law) were allowed in Ontario.

Muslims would not have had their "own law" per se; but would have had the ability to come to binding mediated solutions based on Sharia law, when both parties voluntarily agreed to such mediation based on Sharia law.

No different than what some other religious groups enjoyed as far as civil law matters.

What do you think of ANY regulation of ANY consentual agreements or activities, Honey Pot?

Perhaps we can start with that question first, then go on to discuss this matter of Sharia law in Ontario.

Ian Scott said...

And another thing, Honey Pot,
"They are unlike christians who you can tell to go fuck off and leave you alone."

You don't know too many fundamentalist Christians, I can tell. For there are a number of them that would quite enjoy seeing you in jail for opening a store on the Sabbath Day or showing a movie with "dirty" scenes in it in your theatre.

I would be willing to bet that you would far prefer to life in Canada in the late 20th and early 21st century to that life dominated by the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec, or Upper Canada by the "Orangemen," circa 19th century/early 20th century.

Indeed, there are a number of counties throughout the United States where prohibition continues. Fundamental Christians ensure that any place of business selling alcohol to a customer that wants it, risks going to jail for engaging in that "immoral" business.

And whilst some counties are not totally prohibitionist, I think you'd have a hard problem after telling the Christian Sherif of some county in Alabama to go fuck off after he and his deputees have just raided the establishment you were enjoying a beer in - the crime? Selling alcohol on the Sabbath Day.

Would he call for your beheading? Probably not.. that wouldn't be politically correct. But indeed, he'd call you a "law and order" problem and possibly might slap you up the side of your face when you told him to "fuck off."

This argument that America stands for "liberty and freedom" is bullshit.

HoneyPotSugarScoop said...

What do you think of ANY regulation of ANY consentual agreements or activities, Honey Pot?-Ian

I think consensual agreements or activities are swell Ian, as long as both persons are in equal status. A muslim woman has about as much rights as a camel under islamic law.

This could not happen using sharia law as females are considered non-persons under the islamic death cult.

It is not necessary to live in the quasi-civilized world, and take up the cross, to enjoy the rights and freedoms that we enjoy. You can argue our freedoms are stymied, but I assure you they are more than you would be getting under the backward islamic rule.

I realize shaira law was to be introduced into civil law, and not criminal law. The problem with that is that muslim males do not see sitting their wives on fire when he tires of her, as a crime. They would not use the mainstream judicial system, and would cry discrimination, when they were forced to.

Honey Pot said...

Did you read what sharia law is Ian? I did, found it interesting abd quite evil.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them [first], [Next], refuse to share their beds, [And last] beat them [lightly]; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means [of annoyance]: For Allah is Most High, great [above you all]." [[[Qur'an]] 4:34 English translation: Yusuf Ali.

....so pretty well this is stating, slap her around, and if that doesn't work, kick the shit out of her.

What a gentle reilion of peace those muzzies got going on....

Sahi Muslim No. 4206: "A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God's forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her."

Ian, wasn't that kind of the muzzies to allow her to give birth, and wean the child before they stoned her to death?

yeppers, that sharia law is a swell thing, it is akin to getting your ass reamed out with a wire brush methinks.

Ian Scott said...

Honey Pot,

"Did you read what sharia law is Ian?"

I am no scholar on Islam, but yes, I have read about it, generally speaking.

"I did, found it interesting abd quite evil."

Hopefully, your interest will motivate you to read more. I find much of Sharia and Jewish and Christian law to be "quite evil" too.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means....."

Yeah, so? I can quote from both Old Testament and New Testament scripture and come up with English translations that "prove" that fundamental Christians also believe that it's ok for a man to punish his wife.

What you are failing to realize is that this is called "hermenuitics," - the study of how texts are interpreted.

If you would take your interest in Sharia law a bit further, you might also find that not all Muslims interpret their Scriptures the same manner as the translation you have quoted from, just as not all Christian denominations translate St. Paul's words on the status of women in the Christian Church, the same way.

There are some Christian sects where beating oneself is required in order to pay remission for sins. This is evil, in my opinion. My point being is that one may take the extreme views of some - but it is wrong to suggest that all those who identify with a religious group share the same extreme views.

The option of Sharia Law in Ontario for CIVIL matters has nothing to do with criminal matters whatsoever; but everything to do with division of property and child care.

Hell, I wouldn't want to subject myself to Sharia Law - but if some want to, then hell, who am I to tell them that they are "evil" for doing so?

"Ian, wasn't that kind of the muzzies to allow her to give birth, and wean the child before they stoned her to death?"

Perhaps with your interest in Sharia Law, you might also be motivated to study Jewish Law and take some quotes from the Old Testament.

And I can then sarcastically respond, "Honey Pot, wasn't it kind of those Jews to ensure that stonings were carried out along certain civil requirements?"

Look, I'm not defending Sharia Law by any means here.

But there is so much silly hysterical rhetoric going on that is based on unrealistic fears - maybe some need to do some study on risk management or something.

As I wrote above, I have far more to be concerned about with regard to Statists here in Canada than I have to be concerned about Muslim armies invading the country and FORCING everyone (as opposed to making CIVIL Sharia an OPTION) to obey Sharia Law.

Getting back to the basics of what liberty and inherent rights are, and demanding those will have a far greater effect on increasing "security" of the person.

Lisa said...

Yes, I agree Ian - the statists are the problem and it is through these same statists that "special interest groups", including Muslims, will gain more power over liberty and inherent rights via legislation and unjust laws. I've no problem with Muslims, so long as they behave and act like the individuals they are, rather than as a member of a gorging herd. My disdain extends to all people who play the diversity and tolerance card when what they are looking for is power, "extra" rights and free stuff.

The increase in state security and surveillance in the name of terror is understandable when radical muslims are publicly threatening to blow up your planes and buildings - that is essentially what we are paying the government to do - that is to protect our life, liberty and property. On the other hand, government is by nature corrupt and so lacking strong checks and balances to its power, these security measures necessarily end up infringing on those liberties and rights they claim to protect. Worse still, when the government expands the scope of security to include freedom from hurt feelings and sensibilities, these surveillance measures become more frightening and invasive still.

That said, government is not going away any time soon and neither is radical Islam. And the libertarian goal of minimizing or obliterating government altogether will not be served so long as religious and special interest groups gain increasing control of politicians' and the public's sympathies. I really do suggest you read "The Force of Reason" by Oriana Fallaci in order to understand what is happening in Europe. No, she is not exactly a libertarian, but she is one pissed off Italian who has seen first hand the effects of religious intolerance on Western Society at the hands of Muslims.

I too am concerned about government monopolies on essentials like water and health care for example, but the socialist sympathies of our governments to calls for greater rights for the downtrodden is what grounds their monopoly in the first place.

Ian Scott said...

Lisa,

"Yes, I agree Ian - the statists are the problem and it is through these same statists that "special interest groups", including Muslims, will gain more power over liberty and inherent rights via legislation and unjust laws."

Well, if you agree that is the problem, then shouldn't that be where the majority of attention and energy is spent?

Do you seriously fear Muslims that much? Do you really believe that there is some strategy in place that is realistic, that will enable radical Islam to take over the world and rule over everyone?

"I've no problem with Muslims, so long as they behave and act like the individuals they are, rather than as a member of a gorging herd."

My experience with Muslims has been that of observing them act as individuals, along with a system of faith that in many respects, is similar to other systems of faith.

How does a "member of a gorging herd" act, exactly, anyhow?

I can point to what I see as "gorging herd" activity by Statists - far more realistic threats to me than Muslims in Canada are.

"The increase in state security and surveillance in the name of terror is understandable when radical muslims are publicly threatening to blow up your planes and buildings"

What threats, exactly, are you referring to? Real threats? Or veiled threats that are mostly out of the realm of possibility?

What buildings or planes in Canada, can you point to, specifically, that were threatened to be blown up by Muslims?

"And the libertarian goal of minimizing or obliterating government altogether will not be served so long as religious and special interest groups gain increasing control of politicians' and the public's sympathies."

My response to that would be to help others recognize truth and insane thinking. It truly is silly to be more worried about an act of Muslim terror in London, Ontario than to worry about water quality and regulations imposed by Statists.

I personally do not fear Muslim terrorism. I resent those who have some "fear" to ask me to help pay for the alleviations of their fears. Just as you are not responsible for my fears, I am not responsible for yours.

"I really do suggest you read "The Force of Reason" by Oriana Fallaci in order to understand what is happening in Europe. No, she is not exactly a libertarian, but she is one pissed off Italian who has seen first hand the effects of religious intolerance on Western Society at the hands of Muslims."

Religious intolerance has been going on since the dawn of time. It is ONLY with understanding of inherent rights and liberty that there will ever be any major steps toward eliminating religious intolerance.

Hell, the Roman Catholics and Protestants have been through this themselves, fighting each other for centuries. It was not until folks like Voltaire and Paine came along, and used reason, that religious intolerance among stupid, power hungry, immoral Christian Sect leaders had less "public sympathy."

Reason, in the long term, will prevail over the sword, Lisa.

"but the socialist sympathies of our governments to calls for greater rights for the downtrodden is what grounds their monopoly in the first place."

Then I guess we should know where we ought to be spending our energies, no? Not fighting some mythical enemy that doesn't even have a face - but fighting against that which claims to know what is best for us, when in fact, they really don't.

Honey Pot said...

Ian, I will give you that, all religions stem from barbaric behaviour, implementing it, and controlling it. It is just that the other major religious forces in the world don't practise the barbaric tactics. Sure the catlicks have the occassional exorcism of some poor mentally ill person, but beside that they are pretty tame.

Ian Scott said...

you think so, Honey Pot? May I suggest you do some history studies, and get back to me on what occurred with regard to the "other major religions" to back away from practicing barbaric tactics?

You think it was inherent in the religions themselves?

Think again. That is NOT what history shows us at all.

No religious war has ever resulted in a gross benefit of liberty for all.

Liberty has been won through reason. Not war.

Ian Scott said...

I should clarify that last statement.. .liberty has been won through reason.. and in some cases, revolt. But not warring with other nations.

You're not going to increase your liberty or have any government recognize inherent rights with war against other principalities.

Hell, check out the net results of WW2. It might have saved the world from a Hitler, but at the same time, it resulted in hundreds of millions, politically negotiated, being subjected to absolute tyranny.

Including half of Berlin.

Honey Pot said...

Talking about a police state....well anyway my son has a band, and he practises once a week with the guys in the basement, and tonight was the night. He always cuts it out by 11:00. It is never excessive noise, can't really hear it from the outside of the house, mabye the drum base from time to time. Well, anyway the police have been here...oh about nine times, tonight would be the tenth. They come and say hello, and that is about it. They can never answer the question as to who is calling just that it is the same person. We asked all the neighbours if the music bothered them, and they said they couldn't even here it. So we just chalked it up to the secret neighourhood nut and let it go. Figured if the police had nothing better to do than come visit once a week, so be it. Sort of terrible waste of taxpayer money, but it will keep them safe from coming in contact with dangerous criminals.
I must say the male police officers that came were very polite, and saw no need to play robocop.

Well that was until tonight, when two female coppers, who I can only assume were suffering from a severe case of pms, show at the door. Though there was no noise except the stero playing in the basement, they decided a ticket was needed to be handed out. Nothing like a ticket for nothing to piss a person off. My son tried to tell one of the feminazi's, that this is a weekly occurence, and he felt he had a right to practise his music until a reasonable time at night. He wanted to know who keeps complainning as did I. She of course, took that as a challenge. She said she was not allowed to give the name out. I find that strange that a person can lay a complaint against you, have the police sent to your home repeatedly, and you have no right to know who it is. My son asked her to take him to the persons house right now, as to get this settled. My son was angry and he said if his band was playing Frank Sinatra, the old bitch would be masturbating her dog to it. That was uncalled for, but he was mad, and he is very passionate. The music is not what I would listen to, but it isn't ear shattering.
I kept waiting for one of the officers to start playing good cop, but it wasn't to be. He insulted them by being male methinks. He said why aren't you two up on Dundas St, picking up crack whores or something useful. They said we just left there, which we all know is a lie. Of course I had to get my two cents in and I started asking questions. I notice police don't like to be asked questions about the law, perhaps because they don't know much about it. I asked her how she could write a ticket with no complaintant? She said she was ticketing my son for being loud, his voice is the only thing I could assume she was referring to. My son then did raise his voice, and went on about this being Canada and not a police state. She didn't like that much, and she started yelling at him. I gently remeinded her that she should be careful she could be breaking some noise bylaw. She didn't like that much. Anyway after she wrote the ticket she wanted to talk some more but my son told her to get to hell out of the house, and go out and do something useful for the money she is getting paid. I told my son to be more compliant, afterall these were female cops and they could shoot you and get away with it. Now have to go to court and fight the ticket, which is $95.00. It is going to be odd to fight a noise complaint ticket against a phatom complainner. More tax money wasted to have the two cops show up in court. No fucking wonder they are always whining for more cops, if they are sending them out on something as stupid as this. I know they have to protect the female cops by giving them useless things to do, but they should teach them some people skills. Oh what we have to do in this country to play our music. Oh and I noticed she took my license plate number down as she was walking out the driveway. She must of thought that she was using some fear tactic on me. Fuck her and the westervelt college who crank cops out after a six week cours.

Ian Scott said...

Honey Pot.. with all due respect, your story is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say and point out for months.

The reality is, here in Canada, you are more likely to be "done" by statist fools that are paid by tax dollars, than you are by any Islamic extremist group.

It is absolutely silly for anyone to focus their energies on the most least risky threat just because that threat might make the biggest news, when the other threats, although not making the news, mean much more as far as how we live our lives.

As pointed out, re one of your earlier comments, it is most unlikely that anyone would ever force you to wear a shower curtain.. and make you look fat.

However, idiots, that we here in Canada, and have allowed to usurp "servanthood," can make our lives unbearable or at least, with extra shit we don't want.

All of us can dream on about what it might be like to be taken over by exremist Islamists... but the fact of the matter is.. it is more likely that we'll have to endure stupid, idiot, statist officers that have nothing to do with Islam.

Islamic politics can NEVER take over an individual's spirit. Ever.

But, an individual spirit,that gives itself up to Statism, is bound by that Statism it gives itself up to, regardless of how "nice" the Statists appear to us at first glance.

We'll make a true libertarian out of you yet, Honey Pot :)

Mike said...

Honey Pot.. with all due respect, your story is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say and point out for months.

This friend of mine got busted for jaywalking at the corner of Colborne and Dundas. No, this wasn't back during the McCarthy witch hunt hysteria -- this was as recently as 1993.

The cops never pulled their guns, but what do you think would have happened to him if he hadn't paid his ticket? These Christian enforcers would surely have applied the harsh Biblical doctrine of "Render unto Caesar", demonstrating the intolerance of all systems of belief other than libertarian nihilism.

What difference would it have made to him if he were shot by a SWAT team for resisting being sent to some Abu Ghraib for delinquent jaywalking offenders, versus being beheaded by the Rusty Sword of Righteousness for being an atheist fornicator? Reason tells us there would be no difference.

The apparatus of violence is lurking everywhere, empowered by the statists.

Honey Pot said...

I couldn't sleep worth a damn last night, thinking of those two parking meter maids with the guns. I was wondering what would have happened if I hadn't been there to witness their incompetence in handling a routine call. Would they have shot my son, when he spoke up to defend his rights? Neither of them were bigger than a pint of piss, so physical restraint would have been out of the question,if not downright comical. If you think about it, a female police officer is a very scarey thing, if they do not possess the skills to defuse a situation. To keep in control of a situation they would need to draw their guns. I will never forget when a female officer here in London, accidently on purpose killed a mentally handicapped man. He was drinking and mouthy. Everyone in the hood knew the guy, and knew he meant no harm. Just when he was drinking he would get very loud, growl even. It was obvious he was slow ,and if you talked to him for ten minutes you would see he was at the mental age of about 12 years old. The female police officer threw him on the ground, handcuffed him, and put a foot on the back of his neck, to hold him there. He drowned in his own blood. I think she got desk duty for a month for that. He was a nobody in the eyes of the law... the guy she killed. No money, no status, but his sister misses him very much. Never thought about it for a long time, until last night. Female police officers would have to use excessive force in dealing with people, if the only tactic they were taught in police school is the intimidation tactic. That doesn't work, they would have to use excessive physical force, or their guns.

Honey Pot said...

Ian if I were to become a libertarian Ian, what would it entail? Could I still be a mouthy bitch?

MapMaster said...

My dear Honey Pot, being a mouthy bitch is the number one job requirement for becoming a libertarian.

Ian Scott said...

LOL! What mapmaster said.

Pietr said...

Let me get this straight.
In the War of Independence of 1776, Ian would have argued with the Redcoats?
They would have bayoneted him just for fun.
The War won liberty, because the war was for good reason.
Half of Berlin was enslaved?
Well I suppose our fathers should have mutinied for not being ordered to use reason against Hitler-I mean apart from all those immense acts of military engineering-but wait,is he also advocating that we should then have gone to WAR with the USSR for the sake of Eastern Berlin?
Blame war for not being reasoned,then say we haven't had enough war?
I'm afraid that doesn't show much ability to REASON.
And while we are at it, the WAR PREPARATIONS of NATO bankrupted the Warsaw Pact in the 80s;the human wave of East Berliners finally tore down the Berlin Wall.
Hey Map, just how many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

Ian Scott said...

Soreheaduk,

I clarified my statement in a further comment:

"I should clarify that last statement.. .liberty has been won through reason.. and in some cases, revolt."

The "war of independence" was in fact, a revolt.

As far as your question about going to war with the USSR, if indeed your rational is the correct one for having gone to war against Germany, then yes - it follows that war with the USSR should also have been waged - not just for East Berlin, but for all of Eastern Europe.

That human wave of East Berliners was "revolt," Sorehead.

One result of World War 2 was much of Europe living under tyranny.

Honey Pot said...

Ian, there is no reason in islam, well any religion actually, but islam is fucked up real bad like. It is not like they have a live and let live philosphy. Their main objective is to convert us all to their voodoo cult, by force if necessary. Not like we would have a choice in the matter. If someone choses to belong to that fucked up relgion, I don't have a problem with it, but I do have a problem if they want to make me abide by their fucked up rules.

Ian Scott said...

"Ian, there is no reason in islam,"

Partially correct. All mystical beliefs are based on unproveable premises - and the religious beliefs are then "reasoned" from those premises.

"Their main objective is to convert us all to their voodoo cult,"

The Great Mandate: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel." - Jesus' words to his disciples.

Now, agreed, the New Testament does not suggest using force to convert the heathen to Christianity, however some Christian sects, including Roman Catholicism have certainly used force in attempts to "convert." Here in Canada, one only has to look at Roman Catholic run Native Schools. 20th century attrocities can be also listed if you'd like.

To a Budhist in Viet Nam, it likely would have appeared that RC's wanted to convert the world (at least the world known to Budhists) to Roman Catholicism.

"but I do have a problem if they want to make me abide by their fucked up rules"

Me too. Absolute agreement with you. Including the fucked up rules that many Fundamental Christians and Roman Catholics would have us live under as well. Today, they use more political persuassion attempts as their "old" ways are not going to work very well in North America anymore.

Pietr said...

Okay Ian, I must've missed that sorry and all that.
But to describe the 1776 War as a revolt?
It was pretty fundamental; they didn't only commit acts of violence until the Brits listened, and they didn't make terms, they actually evicted their rulers, which is a revolution rather than a revolt.

Ian Scott said...

SoreheadUK, what do you think the "British Subjects" of the American states were actualling doing, during their "revolution?"

They were revolting.

The first major revolt was what has become known as "The Boston Tea Party."

The peoples of the American states that took up arms against their "rulers" were in fact, British Subjects, and after reading the words of Thomas Paine and others who reasoned that the individual was sovereign over his own personhood basically said, "Fuck The King" when the King imposed higher taxes.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that the tax increase was, in today's terms, quite miniscule. But this idea that individuals were soveriegn over themselves, and that therefore it was unreasonable for a King to impose higher taxes to fund his own interests, was enough to motivate "revolt," which culminated in the war of independance.

Ian Scott said...

As another aside, it's also interesting to note that some of the politics that went on during the war involved "religion."

The "Loyalists" who fled to Canada and refused to take up arms did so on Protestant religious beliefs, which at the time, held to the belief that God ordained "kingship" (which from the Jewish story as reported in 1 Samuel, is actually false), and in the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

On the other hand, the folks who believed in revolt and argued for it, were "Deists," not Christians of any type.

Ben Franklin, Paine, Thomas Jefferson and others shared very little in common with either Protestant or Roman Catholic Christians, although they did believe in a "Supreme Being." Paine is sometimes "maligned" by Christians who falsely report that he as an atheist, which is not correct at all.

Pietr said...

As far as God ordaining Kingship was concerned, in the English Civil War 150 years earlier the king had already been deposed and executed by the Parliamentarians.
The Kingship was restored,as a constitutional measure, but never again allowed to regard itself in any practical sense as ordained by god.(Although the sovereign was and still is the titular Head of the Church of England, which until recently sent Lord Bishops to the upper house.)

The Boston Tea Tax was supposed to be imposed to help pay for the military protection of the American Colonies; the overall tax burden was very much less than domestic Britain, but the per capita military expenditure was very much more.
Which is to say it wasn't about money.
It was about freedom.

Ian Scott said...

"As far as God ordaining Kingship was concerned, in the English Civil War 150 years earlier the king had already been deposed and executed by the Parliamentarians.:

In a sense, yes. However, that does not remove the religious point of view that many had, in regard to The King being The Defender Of The Faith, taken on my by Protestants, who at the same time, took on the idea of Ordaining Kingship and Monarchy, from a religious perspective.... that God ordained the king to rule.. and was indeeed, the idea of many of the "loyalists" that fled the American states to what is now Canada.

To deny this, would be horseshit.

"The Boston Tea Tax was supposed to be imposed to help pay for the military protection of the American Colonies; the overall tax burden was very much less than domestic Britain, but the per capita military expenditure was very much more.
Which is to say it wasn't about money.
It was about freedom."

Whatever you say. The peoples of Boston surely didn't see the tax as promoting "freedom."

The fact of the matter is, they were so pissed of with the extra tax, they revolted against it.

Ian Scott said...

Sorehead:

"As far as God ordaining Kingship was concerned, in the English Civil War 150 years earlier the king had already been deposed and executed by the Parliamentarians."

Fuck, dude, as a follow up, you really have no clue, do you, about the Protestant Christian beliefs of those living in America, do you?

Whatever any civil war (I suppose you mean the Glorious Revolution, which was indeed mostly Protestants Vs. Roman Catholics) ended up with politically, the fact of the matter was, many protestant Christians, because finally, there was a monarch that "defended the Protestant faith," were quite enamoured with monarchy.

The early years of Upper Canada, and even Canada in later years, depended upon this attitude of loyalty to the Crown, mostly out of a religous perspective and belief in the ordaining of Kingship by God.