@ logicalman

I know that you were trying to point out the presence of double standards in the world, and the lack of fairness.  And I know that there are many justified reasons for being "cynical". 

Yet, by muddling up this trivial 'incident' with the issue of "freedom of speech", you are in essence undermining the broader necessity for understanding of the need for freedom of speech.  In a similar way, many leftists and even European 'conservatives' on this blog regularly distort the meaning of "freedom of speech" and, in so doing, help to  undermine it further.

Relevant aspects of the 'incident' that you raised are: the triviality of it, the groveling attitude of apologising western politicians which undermines respect in the muslim world for the West and which strengthens muslim fundamentalist beliefs of cultural 'superiority', etc...

We do not promote freedom of speech by cynically confusing it with triviality and with silly ACTIONS (Bush and the soldier) and with NONactions (nonapologies by muslims).

@ logicalman

 

What are you trying to say? 

Nothing in your citation has anything to do with "freedom of speech".  Neither the (foolish) action of the American soldier, nor the (short-sighted) apology of Bush (assuming there was such an apology), nor the absence of any 'Iraqi' apologies for foolish actions by Iraqis...  And no, no Iraqi soldiers are protected IN IRAQ by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Logicalman should aim to be "logical" (and better informed). 

US President George W Bush has made a personal apology over the
shooting of a Koran by an American soldier, Iraq's government has said
in a statement.

 

Now if an Iraqi soldier shoots the Bible, he's protected by US constitution re freedom of speech. 

There are more things in heaven and earth, kappert,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

 

Nice try but (still) no cigar. Try again.

 

 

@ kappert

 

Why am I not surprised by that statement? It's typical of the kappert we have all come to know and pity.

 

btw: Funny you should mention Scotland, travellers and cave dwellers.Let's see what (non)sense you can make of this:

 

http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm8518.html

This image says it all. Ridiculous measures in order to give the impression not to discriminate against Muslims.

 

 

@ kappert

 

Book recommendation:

 

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/covers/cavespea.jpg

 

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/prehist2.htm

 

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/delrey.htm

 

You see, I told you, kappert sees us ALL as kif-kif  and kin.

I see that, not for the first time, we are both thinking along the same lines. So, I'm happy to let kappert ignore my question, and answer yours instead. Either way, I think it more than  likely that he will hoist himself by his own petard. It's become a kappert trademark, and it's what kappert does best.

Why is it that I never, never read about your complaints against India, China, Vietnam, North Korea?

Why do you never openly attack those regimes? They don't respect any human rights. Attacking the Netherlands for a highly questionable transgression is ludicrous in the face of the massive and continuous breaches of HR by those countries and there is absolutely no question about it, there is continuous torture, rape and corruption by the whole political and judicial system in those countries.

Oh yes, there is some other country you attack also continuously: the US. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are your preferred topics.

Both situations are regrettable but they are addressed by the judicial system of the US and they will be solved entirely. I for one know the Arab general judiciary system and what happened in Baghdad is peanuts compared to what happens every day in every Arab and Irani jail. Why do you never protest those practices?

Guantanamo was the right temporary solution as defense against a new type of enemy and the US was right to take its time and study what to do about it.

 

In short HRW you are a bunch of leftist profiteers as usual.

From the MSNBC article:

«"As of today, immigrants wishing to settle in the Netherlands for, in particular, the purposes of marrying or forming a relationship will be required to take the civic integration examination abroad," the Immigration Ministry said in a statement.»

Precisely. If right to family life does not come in play, enjoyment of which right granted by ECHR, without being unlawfully discriminated against, does HRW claim to be violated? That claim just looks radical.

This, however:

«A censored version with no homosexual and nude material had been prepared because it is illegal to show such images in Iran and some other countries, filmmaker Walter Goverde said.»

seems wrong, if for no other reason, then because what goes on inside embassies must be subject to international treaties - not the rules on which images can or can not be shown in Iran.

Advertising homosexuality and public nudity is regretful, but otherwise I'm with the Dutch on this one. Thankfully, there is not yet any "right to immigrate" in the treaties HRW lists, and Article 14. of ECHR (non-discrimination) has no independent standing. So if the Dutch are within current decisions of the Strasbourg activist court when it comes to right to family life, they should be just fine trying to pick among those wanting to immigrate and to weed out those ill prepared to assimilate. The measure requiring to learn a bit about Netherlands before going there to live is not an unreasonable one, and Dutch government must be competent enough to decide just which groups of suitors it wants to exempt.

If anything, the EU's well intended rules, which mandate that family members of EU nationals ought to be exempted from all integration requirements, need to be done away with.

Why do you think that the Nigerians, Angolans, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Malaysians etc., haven't insisted that this should happen? 

Lest we forget, to discriminate means to use judgment, to act with discernment, to make intelligent choices. What is being demanded is that there be a lack of judgment, a lack of intelligent choices as to whom to admit and whom to deny. How very foolish! We usually ask our governments to do a good job, but then if they try we castigate them for doing so! What fools we are!

Why?

Dutch emigrants, I mean those who spent a few years working abroad at Shell plants, should pass the same test - in Nigeria, Angola, Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait, Malaysia, etc.

Guess they won't be showing them any cartoons anytime soon.  I really thought things were improving but now I am planning on leaving.