Handler ytringsfriheden kun om at komme med nedsættende og racistiske bemærkninger om minoriteter og mindre privilegerede borgere i samfundet?

Som følge af Lars Hedegaards snaldrede formuleringer om kvindeundertrykkelse og pædofili i det islamiske tankegods meldte flere sig ud at Trykkefrihedsselskabet i protest heriblandt Mrutyuanjai Mishra. Han mente at der var for meget plads til racistiske ytringer og ytringsfriheden handler nu engang ikke “kun om at komme med nedsættende og racistiske bemærkninger om minoriteter og mindre privilegerede borgere i samfundet“. Men det er nu rart at den også handler om det for ikke så lang tid siden skrev Mrutyuanjai Mishra nemlig på sin blog

I maj måned i år tog nogle få sunni-muslimske jihadister til Lahore. Det lykkedes dem at dræbe ca. 100 ahmadi-muslimer, som man i Pakistan slet ikke betragter som muslimer. Angrebet var endnu et indlysende eksempel på, hvordan muslimer er grundlæggende uenige og meget intolerante over for hinanden.

Nå så sådan er muslimerne altså. Ja det er jeg jo grundlæggende enig i selv om jeg må sige at det skam ikke gælder alle muslimer.

For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means “boy player.” The men like to boast about it.

“Having a boy has become a custom for us,” Enayatullah, a 42-year-old in Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. “Whoever wants to show off should have a boy.”

(…)

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can’t even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

“How can you fall in love if you can’t see her face,” 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. “We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful.”

Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life at home. A favored Afghan expression goes: “Women are for children, boys are for pleasure.” Fundamentalist imams, exaggerating a biblical passage on menstruation, teach that women are “unclean” and therefore distasteful. One married man even asked Cardinalli’s team “how his wife could become pregnant,” her report said. When that was explained, he “reacted with disgust” and asked, “How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean?”

That helps explain why women are hidden away - and stoned to death if they are perceived to have misbehaved.

Det har ellers været fremme før. Fra PBS Frontline

In The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan, Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi (Behind Taliban Lines) returns to his native land to expose an ancient practice that has been brought back by powerful warlords, former military commanders and wealthy businessmen. Known as “bacha bazi” (literal translation: “boy play”), this illegal practice exploits street orphans and poor boys, some as young as 11, whose parents are paid to give over their sons to their new “masters.” The men dress the boys in women’s clothes and train them to sing and dance for the entertainment of themselves and their friends. According to experts, the dancing boys are used sexually by these powerful men.

Og lidt af indslaget (hele filmen kan ses her)

Et af højdepunkterne er da en tidligere general betror intervieweren at siden han er et kultiveret menneske ville han spørge sin kone om lov til at flytte sin drengesexslave hjem hos sig. I modsætning til almindelige afghanske mænd, der altså gør, hvad der passer dem. Alt i alt en klam religion og en klam kultur.

]]> http://monokultur.dk/2010/09/02/danser-med-drenge/feed/ http://monokultur.dk/2010/09/02/to-cander-der-ikke-kan-t%c3%a6nke-langt/ http://monokultur.dk/2010/09/02/to-cander-der-ikke-kan-t%c3%a6nke-langt/#comments Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:58:34 +0000 Drokles http://monokultur.dk/?p=4783 “Jeppe (cand.scient.pol.) og Thomas (cand.jur.) er hhv. formand og næstformand i Center for Positiv Integration (CePI). CePI er en tænketank med et rådgivningscenter på Nørrebro.” og de har en blog på Jyllands-Posten. Her indleder de et forsvar for racismeparagraffen og kommer med følgende grundargument.

Racisme har, på grund af racismens basale anatomi, ingen steder hjemme i et liberalt, pluralistisk og demokratisk samfund. Og med udgangspunkt i demokratiets bærende principper om lighed og frihed, er der er intet til hinder for, at samfundet sanktionerer mennesker der - som i Langballes og Hedegaards tilfælde - aktivt vælger at sætte sig uden for de grundlæggende normer om lighed og frihed. Racisme er nemlig en strukturel magtudøvelse, der i sin essens søger at begrænse friheden for visse mennesker og gøre op med normen om alle menneskers fundamentale ligeværd. Dermed er det i sidste ende et forsøg på at indskrænke demokratiet.

Racisme er altså forkert fordi det er udemokratisk. Og det, der er udemokratisk kan man altså forbyde at blive ytret - i demokratiets navn. Det lyder slet ikke, som et totalitært skråplan.

Siden vi taler om Jesper Langballe og Lars Hedegaards venten på dom og at det hele derfor handler om islam og muslimer så kan man ifølge Jeppe (cand.scient.pol.) og Thomas (cand.jur.) med al ret sige

Islam har, på grund af Islams basale anatomi, ingen steder hjemme i et liberalt, pluralistisk og demokratisk samfund. Og med udgangspunkt i demokratiets bærende principper om lighed og frihed, er der er intet til hinder for, at samfundet sanktionerer mennesker der - som i Zubai But Hussein og Wahid Petersens tilfælde - aktivt vælger at sætte sig uden for de grundlæggende normer om lighed og frihed. Islam er nemlig en strukturel magtudøvelse, der i sin essens søger at begrænse friheden for visse mennesker og gøre op med normen om alle menneskers fundamentale ligeværd. Dermed er det i sidste ende et forsøg på at indskrænke demokratiet.

Og det gælder selvfølgelig også for nazisme, marxisme, feminisme og Radikale Venstre fordi de fornægter virkeligheden. Men siden Isalm jo er antidemokratisk og skal forbydes, hvorledes vil Jeppe (cand.scient.pol.) og Thomas (cand.jur.) da så dømme Langballe og Hedegaard for netop at advare mod de antidemokratiske tanker?

Siden Muhammedkarikaturerne satte verden i brand, har vi fået ytringsfrihed på hjernen.

Man henviser til den, selv når sager helt åbenlyst handler om noget ganske andet. Vi ser det, når V’s og K’s ordførere helt absurd vil have udsendt valgobservatører til et af verdens stærkeste demokratier, Sverige, fordi Sverigedemokraternas fremmedfjendske tendenser ikke nyder helt samme respekt blandt svenskerne, som Dansk Folkepartis ditto gør herhjemme.

Fra en anden artikel i Politiken

Journalisten, der har lavet den omstridte valgreklame for det indvandrerkritiske Sverigedemokraterne, har mistet sit arbejde som freelancer for det statslige Sveriges Radio.

Sveriges Radio begrunder opsigelsen af journalist Anders Königsson med, at det skader stationens troværdighed, hvis journalisterne ved siden af også arbejder for politiske partier.

(…)

En del af det tekniske arbejde blev udført i Danmark: Ingen svenske firmaer ville påtage sig arbejdet.

(…)

Den afvisning og den omstændighed, at svenske vælgere skal trække valgsedlerne til det parti, de vil stemme på, i fuld offentlighed har fået danske valgeksperter og politikere til at kritisere Sverige.

I det mindste kunne Tøger da læse sin egen avis.

Efter den seneste måneds ødelæggende oversvømmelser får Pakistans kristne en håndsrækning fra danske kirker og missionsselskaber, som har indsamlet op mod en million kroner til kirker i det katastroferamte, overvejende muslimske land, skriver Kristeligt Dagblad.

De danske kirker og missionsselskaber begrunder deres støtte direkte til trosfællerne med, at Pakistans kristne bliver diskrimineret - trods Vestens milliardbidrag til nødhjælpsindsatsen.

(…)

Dansk Røde Kors’ generalsekretær, Anders Ladekarl, er ikke begejstret for danske kirkers hjælp til Pakistans kirker.

- Det er i modstrid med vores princip om, at den humanitære bistand skal være neutral og deles ud til alle efter behov. Vi kritiserer jo også Taleban for at ville fremme bestemte religiøse holdninger ved at dele bistand ud, siger han.

Eller også har offeret mere brug for hjælp end gerningsmanden. Fra Christian Post

Pointing to alleged discrimination against minorities in distribution of humanitarian aid, Paul added that Christians in severely flood-damaged areas in Punjab Province have been neglected. The majority of the effected Christians in Punjab are in Narowal, Shakargarh, Muzzafargarh, Rahim Yar Khan and Layyah, he said.

“The Christians living around Maralla, Narowal, and Shakargarh were shifted to the U.N.- administered camps, but they are facing problems in the camps,” he said. “There are reports that the Christians are not given tents, clean water and food. In most of the camps the Christians have totally been ignored.”

Jeg ved ikke hvilken bistand Taleban deler ud ved siden af deres skolepigemassakrer men de holdninger Taleban vil fremme kan nok summeres op således

Authorities on Wednesday recovered the bodies of three Christian relief workers who had been kidnapped and killed by members of the Pakistani Taliban in the flood-ravaged country, area officials said.

(…)

“The Taliban had warned about attacks on foreigner aid workers and Christian organizations,” the ISPR source said. “All the international humanitarian organizations have been notified, and their security has also been increased.”

Og Taleban er jo ikke et løsrevet fænomen, som Christian Post også kan fortælle

The head of a Muslim village last week ordered 250 Christian families to leave their homes in Khanewal district, Punjab Province, local residents said.

Abdul Sattar Khan, head of village No. 123/10R, Katcha Khoh, and other area Muslim residents ordered the expulsions after Christian residents objected too strenuously to sexual assaults by Muslims on Christian girls and women, said a locally elected Christian official, Emmanuel Masih.

Most of the village’s Christian men work in the fields of Muslim land owners, while most of the Christian women and girls work as servants in the homes of Muslim families, said Rasheed Masih, a Christian in the village who added that the impoverished Christians were living in appalling conditions.

The Muslim employers have used their positions of power to routinely sexually assault the Christian women and girls, whose complaints grew so shrill that four Christian men – Emmanuel Masih, Rasheed Masih, his younger brother Shehzad Anjum and Yousaf Masih Khokhar – sternly confronted the Muslims, only to be told that all Christians were to leave the village at once.

Hvis Danmark absolut skal hjælpe muslimer i Pakistan kan vi sende dem tæpper og telte syet i Dannebrogsflag. Så kan de selv bestemme om de vil krybe i dem eller brænde dem for at få varmen.

The United Nations needs to revise the way it manages its assessments of climate change, with the scientists involved more open to alternative views, more transparent about possible conflicts of interest and more careful to avoid making policy prescriptions, an independent review panel said Monday.

The review panel also recommended that the senior officials involved in producing the periodic assessments serve in their voluntary positions for only one report — a statement interpreted to suggest that the current chairman of the climate panel, Rajendra K. Pachauri, step down.

Nedenstående er klimapanelets mest berømte frembringelse i kampen for at vinde masserne.

Ross McKitrick, der sammen med Steven McIntyre afslørede Ishockeystav grafen som værende en konstrueret misrepræsentation af virkeligheden, udtrykte i Financial Post for nogle dage siden skepsis i forhold til rapportens uafhængighed og gav sine bud på nogle grundproblemer i IPPC

Rajendra Pachauri, asked the Inter-Academy Council (IAC) to review IPCC procedures. The IAC is a little-known branch of the Inter-Academy Panel, itself a little-known committee that connects national academic societies. It was a safe choice for Pachauri. The last IAC report was a glowing tribute to alternative energy schemes, coauthored by Pachauri himself, along with current Obama administration appointee Stephen Chu and a group of others. So I do not expect much independence of mind or hard-headed objectivity from the IAC.

(…)

Selection of Working Group Chairs and Lead Authors appears to be under the control of a small circle of people committed to a predetermined view on global warming. In combination with the fact that the review process is toothless, this guarantees that the report contents are predictable given the names of the Lead Authors. Indeed there is not much point even publishing the report anymore: Once the list of Lead Authors is known, we can all guess what the conclusions will be. I am sure that there are many areas in the IPCC report where the conclusions will be sound. But in the areas where I have detailed knowledge and experience, this has not been the case.

A major problem with the IPCC is that the assignments for Lead Authors (LA’s) often put them in the position of reviewing not only their own work but also that of their critics. There is too much conflict of interest built into the report-writing process, and what few safeguards are in place are ineffective.

(…)

The IPCC “peer review” process is not like the one academic journals use, in which reviewers actually have the authority to recommend rejection and require changes; instead it is more like a limited, voluntary public comment process. Since the IPCC gives Lead Authors the sole right to determine content and accept or dismiss comments, it is more like a weblog than an academic report.

In addition, no one is assigned the role of reviewing a particular section or chapter. It is conceivable that parts of a report might not be read by any reviewers: Nothing in the IPCC procedures prevents this.

Although there are more than 140 governments in the IPCC, only 23 governments submitted any review comments on the 2007 IPCC scientific report, and more than half of the comments were from only two countries: the United States and Australia. Not one African country submitted a comment, nor did any Middle Eastern or Arabic countries, nor did Russia nor the former Soviet states. Brazil submitted comments on three chapters and Chile commented on one chapter; other than that, there were no comments from any South American countries. None of the small island states in the Pacific submitted comments. In Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic commented on one chapter, and Hungary commented on three chapters; other than that, there were no comments from any government in Eastern Europe.

Roy Spencer er på sin blog mere skeptisk end Ross McKitrick

The reason why is because the IPCC process was never created to achieve what the U.N. claims, and what most people believe it exists for.

The IPCC was created to use the scientific community to build a case for regulating CO2 emissions. Period.

While you might believe otherwise, climate scientists back in the 1980s did not get together and decide “let’s create the IPCC and investigate the evidence for and against manmade climate change”. Instead, politicians and politically savvy opportunists saw global warming as the perfect excuse for instituting policies that would never have been achieved on their own merits.

Maybe some scientists thought they helped dream up the IPCC to help save humanity from itself. But the process was instigated by politicians and U.N. bureaucrats who misrepresented what they were trying to accomplish. Some people are gifted in their ability to get others to think that they came up with an idea, when in fact they were artfully guided into it.

Det konsensus, som alskens politikere og aktivister hævder at IPCC repræsenterer er altså skabt af IPCC selv. IPCC er ikke et ledende organ for klimaforskning, men et ekkokammer.

As Caroline May of BigGovernment.com notes, Warmist worship is rooted not in facts, but in “blind adherence to an unproven principle”:

“This unquestioned adherence to the theory of Global Warming bears all the markings of what traditionally would be recognized as a religion. Complete with sin (the emitting of carbon dioxide), scriptures (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports), commandments (drive a Prius, use Compact Florescent Light bulbs, do not eat meat etc.), indulgences (carbon offsets), proselytism, prophets (Al Gore), priests (scientists), prophecy and apocalypse (floods, hurricanes, dead polar bears), infidels (Warming skeptics), and salvation (the halting of carbon emitting industrial progress) . . . .”

(…)

As columnist Don Feder notes, the new Church of Mother Earth, is rooted in the secular doctrines of Marxism. It is a quasi-religion that promises to take adherents to the Promised Land of “rigid control, central planning, rationing, pre-industrial living standards and flagellation to purge us of our sins.”

The late Michael Crichton, a celebrated author who penned Jurassic Park and several other best-selling novels, condemned the religious-like aspects of environmentalism as far back as 2003 in a speech to San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club:

“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism,” Crichton observed. “Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists . . . a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

“There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability.”

Artiklen og mange af dens henvisninger er ganske skægge at læse.

Efter at være blevet udsat for den ufrie verdens selvretfærdige blodrus, var USA i begyndelsen en beundringsværdig repræsentant for den frie verden. Det handlede netop ikke om religion, lød det. Islam skulle ikke forklare eller stå til regnskab for selvmordskaprerne [11 september]. Ligesom kristendommen aldrig er holdt ansvarlig for gaskamrene. Eller katolicismen skulle bøde for Omagh-bomben i Nordirland. En trosretnings ekstremistiske galninge skal ikke - selvmordsnoter om martyrium eller ej - have lov til at patentere selve troens udlægning, uanset hvor spektakulært eller frygtindgydende, de insisterer på at gøre det.

Nu har vi haft denne islam-terror diskussion kørende på højtryk i alle landets medier i ni år. Det svarer til et helt forløb i Folkeskolen. Men Kastrup sidder fast i nulte klasse. År efter år må han se sine nye kammerater rykke videre, mens han blot ser sit skæg gro. For det er et krav for at rykke videre at man har forstået det basale, nemlig at definitionen af terrorister handler om mål. I dette, som langt de fleste tilfælde om dannelsen af en islamisk stat, død over de vantro. Dette mål er selve troens udlægning! Og det ændrer naragtigt fejlagtige og ganske usmagelige analogier ikke ved. Derfor lægger man vægten på at de var muslimske terrorister og ikke at de var glatbarberede terrorister.

Kastrup anklager direkte Ralf Pittelkow og Karen Jespersen for med deres nye bog at spekulere i at holde “…frygten kørende og honorarerne flydende“ (Berlingske Tidende honorerer vel også Kastrup for hans meninger?). Frygten er frygten for islam, islamofobien, som hans overskrift direkte slår fast, dette dejlige begreb, der ifølge Robert Redeker “…først blev brugt af radikale islamister imod feminister“, som ”…et våben smedet af islamisterne for at tjene deres mål om at påtvinge verdens deres totalitære vision, og hvis rødder rækker ned i dybeste åndsformørkelse.” som mennesker, der er uenige med Kastrup lider af. Og det er vi stolte af. Det viser at vi kan tænke.

Redeker har så ganske ret i at ordet islamofobi er et våben, som har den side effekt at med overtagelse af islamisternes sprog overtages også deres verdensbillede. Kastrup bruger her sigende betegnelsen “Selvmordskaprere” om de terrorister, der myrdede i tusindvis, et ord der ikke afslører andet end ulovlig besættelse af et fartøj med sit eget liv, som indsats. Der er ikke langt til blot at kalde dem selvmodsaktivister.

Og følgeligt er Kastrups sympati derfor lagt hos den religion, der vil lægge et sejrsmonument ved massegraven af dets ofre. Ground Zero moskeen er, siger Kastrup, “…ret beset et islamisk kulturcenter. Med tilhørende bederum.” Et islamisk kulturcenter med tilhørende bederum er en moske. Det er ikke et sted, hvor man studerer islamisk dans, sang og satire.

I samme misforståelse spørger Kastrup “…hvornår begynder folk som Pittelkow og Jespersen at fortælle opbyggelige historier? At berette om løsninger?“ Lige så snart man finder en opbyggelig islamisk historie vel. Lige så snart man finder en islamisk løsning vel. Altså en opbyggelig islamisk løsning, der ikke omhandler uryddelsen af alt urent.

I andre kan gå videre, men Mads, du må sidde tilbage indtil du får det lært.

The NIC assembled a number of inter-agency expert scientific teams to estimate the quantity of BP Deepwater Horizon oil that has been released from the well and the fate of that oil. One team, led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Director Marcia McNutt, calculated the flow rate and total oil released. This team announced on August 2, 2010, that an estimated total of 4.9 million barrels of oil had been released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well.

A second team, led by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a tool called the Oil Budget Calculator to determine what happened to the oil. Using the 4.9 million barrel estimate as its input, along with both direct measurements and scientific estimates, the OBC calculated what happened to the spilled oil. It was found that almost three quarters of the oil spilled by the Deepwater Horizon accident has vanished from the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

About 45% of the oil either evaporated, dispersed naturally or was burned at the well head. Another 26%, nearly 53 million gallons, of the oil is still in the water or onshore in a form that could, possibly, cause further ecological damage. The remaining oil—around five times the amount spilled in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez—remains a threat to sea life and Gulf Coast marshes, said Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But the spill no longer poses a threat to the Florida Keys or the East Coast, according to the report by NOAA and the Interior Department. The implication of the report, which claimed that most of the oil that leaked into the gulf could be accounted for, was that future damage might be less than had been feared.

Andet havde heller ikke været til at bære.