@ pdvhYou say "I know, it’s in those hate-speech books, Bible and Koran, that people
from the same sex having sexual relations should be punished and killed
in the most horrible way. But can’t you guys just interpret that
allegorically, just like you do with most of the other nonsense and
leave gay people alone?"

When was
the last time some Christians banded together and killed a Homosexual
in the public square, or anywhere for that matter? Oh no its the big
bad Christians slaughtering homosexuals again! You have made a
leftist style attempt to "compromise" and have a balanced opinion by
lumping many religions into the one basket, when really you beef is
only really with Islam. Yes the bible says homosexuality is wicked, and
Christianity will not apologize for that. After all, you wouldn't want
to have a double standard on free speech would you? But the matter is
between that person and God. Nowhere in the new testament does it
condone executions. Jesus actually says love the sinner but hate the
sin. As for "leaving gay people alone" that is precisely what many
Christians do but it is never enough for those of the ultra-leftist
militant homosexuals won't be happy until they receive some kind of
special status above the rest of society and see to it that traditional
values are compromised and ruined to make them feel special. e.g.
accusing the church of being homophobic because they don't appoint gay
clergy. You attack Christianity while totally ignoring that through
things like the reformation the foundations of our free western
societies were built. You take for granted values like Free Speech and
the equality of all men under god. Rights which had to be fought for by
men with great conviction.

• @ lancegrundy: you are spot on correct. 

• @ marcfrans: your
  beliefs on free speech are way too long winded and complicated. Try to
  sum it up in one sentence please. 

• @ KA: yes its going to be interesting
  to see what the leftists do in future because eventually a point will
  come when they cannot appease both Islam with its strict values and the
  liberal homosexuals. It just shows leftists dont really have any values
  or beliefs except appeasement and compromise, which is actually their
  core beliefs. If they really believe in freedom equality etc they
  wouldn't have pandered to the turkish diplomats. Also, I wonder why the
  homosexual lobby we'rent "outraged"? Maybe because they're scared if
  they clash with Islam, for the first time ever they might end of with a
  real enemy.

Well at least Attaturk could have been married in Belgium.  Maybe he would have a been a little nicer ruler out of the closet and happily married.

Firstly, I fail to understand the Turkish embassy's concern. If Kemal was not homosexual, than the matter is simply a historical innacuracy. If he was indeed homosexual or bi-sexual, or if the evidence is inconclusive, than the Turkish embassy and Mr. Seki in particular, are homophobic, because why should allegations of homosexuality impinge on Kemal's achievements or on Turkish national history or pride? While people may view homosexuality as immoral, people view many things as immoral e.g. does the Lewinsky affair actually change Clinton's legacy?

Secondly, it disgusts me that these commissars of political correctness and multiculturalism enforce "acceptance" on indigenous Europeans, but pander to the sensibilities of foreigners such that the former are repressed and the latter are given free reign. Why? Because until Europeans start assassinating these oikophobes at random, engaging in civil disobedience, rioting and violent opposition, they will never be feared like the 'newcomers' especially Muslims are. Clearly oikophobes have little respect for democracy, grassroots social movements or private society, economics and politics and are only halted by fear, such as that of Muslim communities. If Europeans act like Muslims, perhaps they will be able to live like Muslims in a world of their own making.

With this : Who the f*ck cares? ?.. you lost all my respect..

This book will have the same effect on youths as when a priest would say: 'Thy shall not fornicate'. The effect is fornicating zero.

If she really wants to do something about homophobic feelings, she should buy herself a nice pair of American cowboy boots and kick all those butts that are hanging out on the streets back to school or into a job. Their midst is the prime breeding ground for homophobia.

The more she talks about it the more the youths will enjoy doing it.

And who has to pay for all this nonsense, free speech or not?

@ pvdh

1) Why you are "not serious"?  Come on.  What about your first 4-word little sentence?  What about your assertion that "cartoons, burning flags, calling Attaturk gay..." are supposed to be "fundamental rights"?  Unless of course, you are playing 'devil's advocate', which would really make you unserious in this context.   If you want to make a mockery of what truly ought to be a fundamental human right - freedom of political speech - you are well on the way....

2) For the rest, I agree with everything you wrote this time about "sensitivity, toleration of hate speech, etc...".  But, how you square that with your past support for Belgian laws that explicitly criminalise certain political opinions, and that are being used to ban a political party on the basis of its program or 'opinions' (not physical deeds), remains a great mystery.  The suspicion that you are not being "serious", i.e. sarcastically playing devil's advocate, is therefore justified.

3) Most importantly, your debunking of 'sensitivity' and your defense of the freedom to be "able to say what we think" should NOT be limited to the (political) fight against "racists, fascists, religious and nationalist zealots".  Those are all 'labels' that can mean anything in different peoples' minds, and therefore can be arbitrarily attached to anybody, appropriately as well as inappropriately.  Your comment about the misuse of "sensitivity" should apply to all "zealots", including naive-left zealots (that actually dominate the Belgian parliament and executive government today).  Freedom of speech should apply to all citizens of a polity, and no one's 'sensitivity' should be misused to interfere with that fundamental human right (that is only genuinely defended in very few places in the world). In fact, it is hard to imagine someone to whom the label "zealot" could be more appropriately applied than to those who abuse the law (legal system) to 'shut up' their political opponents. It is the most distinguishing characteristic that 'unites' both parts of Eurabia today.    

The simple answer to the question posed below - “Who the f*** cares?” is that normal people don’t care. The only people who really do care are the ‘diversity’ obsessed Leftists who have been promulgating this 'divide-and-conquer-Western-society' nonsense since the 1960s.

The Left’s diversity agenda is all about stressing people’s differences over their similarities in a mis-guided, but so far highly successful, attempt to deconstruct our civilisation. By constantly accentuating the differences between people because of their colour, sexuality, religion or whatever the Left has essentially atomised Western society into of mish-mash of competing special interest groups. This outcome is, of course, the exact opposite of the ‘imagine all the people living life in peace’ world they profess to want.

@ pvdh

Can't you be serious anymore?

"Publishing cartoons, burning American flags, or calling Attaturk gay..." are NOT "fundamental rights".  They are rather specific - and typically unimportant - actions.  The right of "freedom of (political) speech means the freedom to express political opinions, i.e. it means that opinions can and should not in themselves be 'criminalised'.  It does not mean that expressing opinions anywhere and anyplace under any circumstances should be tolerated.  In any concrete situation one has to make a rational judgement as to what really matters in that situation.   Let's test this in your three examples. 

1) Cartoons usually express opinions about persons or 'situations' in a 'funny', often insulting, way.   The underlying opinions should be tolerated in the public sphere, for instance in a magazine that no one must buy.  But it should not be 'tolerated' that you can go and harass somebody else with your 'opinions'.  For instance, if you go and paint a Mohammed-cartoon on the front door of a muslim, or anybody's front door for that matter, then the central issue is not your opinion but the harassment.  Neither should you be allowed to harass Verhofstadt with some unflattering cartoon in front of his house every day.  Your freedom to express an opinion in a reasonable or appropriate setting should not be confused with harassing other individual people in a near-physical way.

2) Burning an American flag is a rather infantile way of indirectly saying "America sucks".  You should have the freedom to hold such (misguided) opinion, but you should not be able to harass other people with it.   For instance you have no "right" to block me driving on the public road with your infantile flag burning.  It would be best if you could explain in a reasoned discourse why "America sucks in your opinion", and failing that I could live with your flag burning if you do it in a rational way in a designated place (like your own backyard, not mine) or in a public demonstration, in advance approved by the local authorities so they can take the necessary measures to protect other individuals from possible irrational actions by America-haters.

3) You should have to right to believe and say that Attaturk was "gay" (for instance in a book published in Belgium or in Turkey).  However, you have no "right" to air time on Turkish televsion to express your belief, and neither do you have a "right" to interrupt the French Parliament in its proceedings and bore the parliamentarians with your 'opinions' on Attaturk's sexual orientation.    

It is high time that adult Belgians, like the leftist PVDH and the rightist Kapitein Andre, can develop an adult or grown-up interpretation of "fundamental rights" (like freedom of speech).  So there is no more need to 'hide' violations of freedom of speech with smokescreens, or irelevant 'nonissues', like Polish school curricula or American-flagburning.  

A list of "famous homosexuals"?

To learn children what?

And here is a change of mind from my side:

We should stop The “extremely sensitive” nonsense right here and now.

Publishing Mohamed cartoons, burning American flags or calling Atatürk gay is a fundamental right. No matter what national or religious feeling we may hurt.

Freedom of speech above all!

Belgian hand-wringing over hurting Turkish sensibilities aside, WAS Atatürk a homosexual? Or bi? Does anybody out there know?

Peter Kiss