Category Archives: Creeping statism

Video of police busting party for unapproved song on Youtube playlist

Posted on by

This is also rumoured to be the song that was playing.

I have a request for the readers of this site please.

As much as the event depicted in the top video, showing multiple police busting a British yard party for playing an unapproved song infuriates me, and should infuriate anyone with even the dimmest recollection of what personal liberty means, what infuriates me more is the submission shown to the police by people at a private party who had done nothing wrong whatsoever.

We need a new word which is the equivalent of dhimmitude, but refers to submission to post modern/Marxist authority. We need to name it so we can shame it and stop people from showing it.

People faced with authority on their own property for playing an “unapproved song” should  say to that authority, “This is my property and Ill play what ever song I want. Now get a warrant, arrest me, or get off my property”.

We must learn to show defiance. It is justified, it is our legal right, and much more importantly, it is our inherent right and obligation to show defiance to totalitarian and irrational authority.

If anyone knows of a word, perhaps a Russian or Polish or Czech word for showing obsequious submission to communist authority we could start with that. If not, lets make one up.

 

Some thoughts about personal security. Just because “its 2017”

Posted on by

Canada, federally and provincially, is in the process of passing multiple draconian, Marxist and totalitarian bits of legislation, each of which will end democracy and rule of law. In fact, will end Greek thought as a legal means of making personal determinations.

Below, a small excerpt from Ontario bill 89, which is being interpreted, in our view correctly, to mean that if your child wants to wear a dress and you say no, the child can and may be taken by the state and raised by the state till its somewhere between 16 and 18 years old.

“Significant changes are made to terminology.  The terms society ward and Crown ward are no longer used.  Instead, the new Act refers to children who are in interim society care or extended society care.  The new Act also does not refer to children being abandoned or to runaways.

The age of protection is increased to include 16 and 17 year olds:  societies may now apprehend and bring into care children aged 16 and 17.  Under the current Act, children may only be apprehended and brought into care until they turn 16 (although children subject to a protection order before they turn 16 may continue to receive protection services until they are 18).  As part of this change, the definition of a child being in need of protection in the new Act now specifies that a 16 or 17 year old is in need of protection in circumstances or conditions that may be prescribed by regulation.  A new authority to enter into agreements with 16 and 17 year olds in need of protection is included in this Part.

The matters to be considered in determining the best interests of a child are changed.  The current Act incudes the child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained; the new Act also includes the child’s views and wishes, and specifies that they are to be given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity.  The current Act includes the child’s cultural background; the new Act includes the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage.  The religious faith in which the child is being raised is deleted as a matter to be considered.  Added is the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.  The provision in the current Act that the best interests of an Indian or native child (referred to in the new Act as a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child) be determined by taking into consideration the importance of preserving the child’s cultural identity is expanded to also require taking into consideration the importance of the child’s connection to community.

The authority for societies to enter into voluntary agreements with persons unable to temporarily care for their children and with young persons is moved from Part II (Voluntary Access to Services) of the current Act to Part V of the new Act.  Temporary care agreements may be entered into with respect to children of any age and are no longer restricted to children younger than 16.  The authority to enter into special needs agreements is not included in the new Act.”

It is likely that if Canada has become Marxist enough to pass this bill (notice all the exemptions for non-White non Western peoples) then its Marxist enough to criminalize opposition to it in any meaningful way. Certainly if not criminalize, to marginalize, publicly humiliate and disenfranchise. As Hillary Clinton said she would do as a way of sneaking UN resolution 16/18 in light of the US 1st amendment.

Canada’s federal M103 certainly destined to become an actual law criminalizing criticism of Islam, and what else could it possibly ever be by the admission of the people who want it, and other tactics in the cauldron like E-411 are powerful indicators that the days of democracy and Greek thought, The Enlightenment, are certainly over. At least in Canada and probably in much of Western Europe. Only in the US is there any pushback in favour of people’s actual rule of themselves via constitutional law. Something Canada has only in name.

To the point:

Some years ago I had a conversation with two security experts. One was American, a lawyer and had considerable experience with the various security apparatus of the USA. The other, a top level computer security person with powerful credentials and more importantly, a practical record of accomplishment in the security field which adds more weight in some ways than many academics in the field for this article.

The discussion was. on the pros and cons of using an encrypted messaging/calling application like Signal on your phone. Signal has been in the news recently because Obama appointees and hires in the usual departments of the deconstruction of America brick by brick like ‘climate change’ and so on, have been installing it to hide their activities  from President Trump, who is less enthusiastic about their mission to destroy industrial society in the USA.

The opinions on using encrypted or hidden comms went like this:

US Security expert:

can likely monitor any communications you have no matter how. One shouldn’t bother to use Signal or other programs like that if you genuinely want your communications to be private.

However you SHOULD use encryption, Signal or otherwise. The reason being that the NSA and similar agencies use the flimsy and thin excuse that they merely gather all signals out there in the aether because they are out there to grab and look at them cause they are just floating by. If you encrypt your communications you are at least demanding your legal 4th amendment rights*  to privacy.

So while the NSA is still reading your private communications and violating your right to privacy wholesale and often for trivial purposes (*2) using encryption means they have to actually go to a judge to get a warrant to violate your rights before they can actually use that information to act against you, as you asserted your rights by attempting to make your communications private.

Canadian security expert:

Signal is an open source PGP based encryption program which would take the entire computing power of ALL NSA COMPUTERS to crack even one text message several years to do. So use it. Your comms will be safe.

ME:

Any google device is spying on you. Google has become Orwell Meets Kafka meets Hillary Clinton.  If you use a google device, you have no privacy in almost any way. Google submits to data requests from the NSA without warrants. So you have no protection under US constitutional laws. And the chances are that google devices can read your texts before they are encrypted, and the other side’s messages after they are decrypted.

Social media? Forget about it. You may as well call the police and read your posts yourself. Which will at least annoy them as they prefer to get it illegally cause its easier to sort that way.

We have already seen in 2016 how authorities, police in fact, went to people’s homes and warned or arrested people in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany just for posting on their own social media accounts things which opposed government policy on mass immigration and the destruction of their civilizations and cultures.

This is days away in Canada.

Just having an opinion contrary to government policy is now known by authorities that have no business knowing it, and acted upon in ways ranging from actual arrest to firing to public humiliation.

Apple make a big splash last year about protecting the data on their devices from US authorities. The story was amazingly fishy. I do not believe a word of it.

By the way Canadians, Canada has a nearly identical well funded agency to the NSA, and we don’t even have a 4th amendment or anything nearly as useful as that. Just in case you thought you could sigh with relief.

If you want privacy, write a letter, hand deliver it, and then burn it after you show it to them.

But definitely use Signal or a similar app. At least then you force them to at least pretend to obey the law. The American expert makes the point. At least take your right to privacy. Make them prove that they had a probable cause to Big Brother you.

For technically minded people, you may find this a worthy Sunday afternoon project:

Thank you for everything ML.

Eeyore for VladTepesBlog

*(in the USA Canadians may or may not have anything like that as our constitution is nearly incomprehensible)

*2 NSA employees were caught spying on lovers to check for sexual fidelity

Creator of The People’s Cube, faces 5 YEARS JAIL for anti-terror posters

Posted on by

This is a much more important story than most that you will find on the MSM this week. Please help make people aware of it.

Write up at The Rebel here:

Cultural Marxists successfully destroy right of freedom of association with “anti-discrimination” in Norway

Posted on by

A Norwegian hairdresser who has a clear understanding of Islam and its values, was fined 10,000 Kroner (About $2000.00 Cdn.) Monday, September 12 2016 for denying service to a woman in a muslim head cloth.

The hairdresser, Merete Hodne, who has a shop in Byrne SW Norway, refused service for the exact reasons a Jewish person may wish to refuse service to someone in a Nazi uniform. In fact that was her defense. And it is a reasonable and certainly accurate defense.

“To me, the hijab is an extreme political symbol. I don’t feel good when I see people wearing a hijab. They came in and asked what it would cost to get hair highlights and I said that I do not accept people like them and that they should go to another stylist and then they left again,” Hodne said.

If we decide Nazism is bad because of its fanatical degree of racial, and socialist -ideological purity, and consequent desire to exterminate those who represent anything different or impede Nazi manifest destiny, then Islam is every bit as bad or worse, and the uniform of the Muslim may as well have the twin lightning strikes of the SS.

At least the Nazis liked Music and art. They stole it rather than destroyed it, which means they valued it.

Slowly but surely, Frankfurt School descendants have been replacing natural and obvious individual rights with phony collective ones, using the language of human rights to do so.

We have here a jurisprudence level proof of that in Norway, although it happens everywhere now, even if new faux legal mechanisms like Canada’s “Human Rights Commissions” have to be inserted to circumnavigate real rights. Like the right to an attorney for example.

Already there have been several cases where a Muslim women applied for a job as a hairdresser, or in a hairdressing studio, only to appear at work someday after getting the job in a full head-cloth, fired for basically being antithetical to the nature of the work, not to mention being deceptive in the job application, and then suing the employer. Variations of this tactic are being waged across the Western world by muslims in fact, and in Canada as well such as the UPS suit.

That was a particularly good one as the employer was placed between what should be illegal anti-discrimination rules and actual valid safety regulations at the work place. In that case, women who wore long loose flowing garments at a UPS facility were told that it violated Ontario’s safety laws for working on ladders. They sued, and they received an out of court settlement. Which means they won. Policies will change to suit muslims, since you can not, not hire them because they insist on dressing in an unsafe manner.

From the Toronto Star:

The women, all devout Muslims, lost their jobs in 2005 because they refused to hike their skirts above the knee over their long pants.

They argued that Islam requires them to be fully covered for modesty and alleged discrimination on the basis of religion and gender.

UPS said the ankle-length skirts were a safety hazard as workers climb ladders up to six metres high. Only “a gap in the process” allowed the women to work at UPS for up to two years without being told their clothing posed a risk, a UPS manager previously told the tribunal.

Yes, they were wearing long pants. This was more a political matter than one of modesty. Like most of Islam is, such as the Burkini issue. A uniform rather than any religious desire to cover up at the beach.

VladTepesBlog has articles on the UPS case. Searching Google for it will give more detailed accounts.

In this UK example, a muslim woman who wears a head-cloth that covers all her hair in typical muslim fashion, was refused a job at a London hair salon and successfully sued for discrimination.

In practical terms, this would be like a basketball team refusing to hire a guy with no arms and then the team losing a law suit for discrimination against the disabled.

In this 2007 case, a Muslim showed up for a trial day, a day in which it was to be determined if she would get the job or not, and was told that the “funky punky urban” nature of the Salon meant that employees would have to have that kind of haircut and show their hair.

Needless to say, she was told her head-cloth was a deal breaker and was not given the job. She sued for over a year’s worth of the owner’s salary and never worked an hour there.

This case deserves a little thought.

The woman was being sued for “religious discrimination” although at no point did she tell the muslima what to believe. She owner explained that a woman in a baseball cap or cowboy hat also would have been denied the job for obvious reasons.

As there was no interference with religious belief this is defacto not about religious belief.

This is about dhimmitude. About a Muslim’s right to trample all over natural and liberal law. About a muslim’s right to attach any activity they want to their religious belief and claim that it is discrimination, not only to prevent them from doing any activity which can be seen as Islamic, such as slaughtering sheep in the streets of big cities like Paris, but even much much more harsh examples as we see in cities across England where police refuse to interfere with giant muslim rape and sex slave gangs for fear of being branded a racist.

If a women in a cowboy hat claimed to be a cultural or native Texan, and claimed the cowboy hat was her necessary show of belonging to her native or adopted culture, no court would take her case or certainly she would never win an anti-discrimination suit.

This is about Islamic supremacy, not human rights. There is no right to display of religious belief uber alles. Just ask the Christian stewardesses who have been told they cannot wear a cross on some airlines while their muslim coworkers wear a hijab with no questions asked.

The pernicious nature of this judgment is that it has been decided for all people now in the UK that wearing a cross is not a religious requirement, while wearing muslim uniforms is one.

This is both not true, there is no requirement for muslims to dress a certain way other than as part of the hijra to islamify an area. (This would be advancing sharia domination but there is no specific requirement to cover hair) and pernicious as it means the court has taken a role for itself which so far steps over its role in a free society as to be the casus belli of French and American revolutions.

The Norwegian hair salon owner took the brave step of actually using her natural right of freedom of association, instead of any work-around to deny having a Muslim on staff or as a client. This was a very brave stance. Most of us submit to the Marxist-sharia matrix being created for us by using some mealy mouthed work around on these issues to temporarily get the effect we want by claiming some other issue.

In Canada, Muslims have no problem exercising that right and the provincial and federal governments in Canada even pay for it.

Anyone wishing to contribute to Merete Hodne, the Norwegian hairdresser’s legal appeal fund, and she is appealing, please pay pal to: co********@***il.com

or transfer funds to:

account no# is 33351044107. Vipps 41516033

 

 

Terrorism: BFMTV and Le Monde won’t broadcast any more images of terrorists

Posted on by

A original translation by Ava Lon with much thanks!

From BFMTV France:

While the [terrorist] attacks are increasing in France, the debate on a possible “glorification” of terrorism has been revived in the French media. BFMTV and Le Monde have decided not to broadcast pictures of the authors of the attacks. Elements of reflection.

Can the media image of the attackers influence candidates for jihad, and push them to take action? After the attacks of Nice and Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, the debate was revived in the French media, including by Jérôme Fenoglio, editorial director of Le Monde, which published an editorial this morning to this effect.

“Following the Nice attack, we will not publish any more photographs of authors of the killings, to avoid the possible effects of posthumous glorification,” says the reporter, who calls for a “lot of introspection” in the French media.

A position shared and adopted by BFMTV on all media. Following the attack in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, the channel has decided not to publish the photograph of Adel Kermiche, the suspect of the murder of the father Hamel. [Is he still a suspect if he was killed at the scene? — translator]

“Faced with the accumulation of attacks in France, we do not want to create a rogues’ gallery of terrorists. So we stop publishing their photos, which does not prevent a work of investigation on their profile and their background. The only exception to this principle is the wanted posters, the search notices from law enforcement, that can help investigators,” commented Alexis Delahousse, deputy managing editor of BFMTV.

Shortly after the attack on 14 July in Nice, a petition was even officially launched to ask the CSA [Superior Council of Audiovisual (Content), a French institution whose role is to regulate the various electronic media in France, such as radio and television. Its predecessor, the Haute Autorité de la Communication Audiovisuelle, was created by the Socialist Party] to control the dissemination of such images. If this petition already has 70,000 signatories, the debate is however not new.

Photos that cause a scandal

Back in 2012, many readers and viewers were moved by the publication of photographs of Mohamed Merah, the perpetrator of the killings of Toulouse and Montauban, where we saw the terrorist laughing at the wheel of his car.

Similar reactions were observed in the aftermath of the attack on 14 July in Nice, during which 84 people were killed by a truck careening at full speed along la Promenade des Anglais. The press then diffused a more “advantageous” photo of Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, the author of the killing. We see him lying on the beach and showing off his muscles in a triumphant pose.

A vision all the more shocking, since at the same time several videos showing the victims of the attack — injured or dead — circulating on social networks. However, the decision not to broadcast the photographs of bombers poses several deeper questions. Several jihad specialists question and doubt the effectiveness of such a measure in the fight against radicalization. And David Thomson, RFI journalist and the author of a book on the lives of several French jihadists (The French jihadists, ed. les Arènes), doesn’t expect a decrease in terrorism.

A view reinforced by the fact that for several years ISIS has disseminated its propaganda with its own media channels. On social networks or via its QAMA agency, the terrorist organization propagates, after every attack or almost all, pictures of those responsible, rendering obsolete any attempt of the traditional media to “obscure” them.

This editorial choice designed to avoid an effect “star Terrorist Acts” will however not affect the terrorist intensity in France

— David Thomson (@_DavidThomson) 27 July 2016

Besides the problem of any possible “glorification” of terrorism, there’s the problem of the conspiracy theory. After every attack, every major event, the conspiracy-mongers from all sides attack the official version and try, usually by misinterpreting images, to discredit the facts. How to fight against these theories and their authors, while casting a veil over the pictures of the terrorists?

Should their names be removed?

On 27 July, following statements of Le Monde and BFMTV, it was the turn of Europe 1 to decide not to broadcast pictures of terrorists, and adding banishment of their names, a first in the media.

@ Europe1 decides not to mention on the air the names of the authors of the killings. Their photos will no longer appear on europe1.fr

— Henry de Laguérie (@henrydelaguerie) 27 July 2016

Problem: the media and the judiciary are not on the same wavelength. While during the day on Tuesday the media were broadcasting the initials of one of the alleged perpetrators of the attack of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, Prosecutor François Molins gave the full name of the man killed on the steps of the church.

Once the investigation is officially launched, and these elements published by the justice, what impact the non-dissemination by the media of these can have on the public, at a time when social networks often transmit information faster than traditional channels? This is the position taken by BFMTV, and assistant editor Alexis Delahousse explains that “if François Molins gives the name, then we will too.”

Again, the conspiracy theory is not far away. On Twitter the extreme right regularly calls authors of articles about the various facts or acts of terrorism, and in which full names are not given. Each time, the press is suspected and accused of deliberately withholding these names in order to cover up the extent of the particular case.

@franceinfo [French news agency] You may reveal the name of the Islamist # of #Magnanville https://twitter.com/FrkGuiot/status/742586297592713216 …

— Franck GUIOT (@FrkGuiot) 14 June 2016

German State TV runs afoul of the Stasi censors

Posted on by

An original translation by Nash Montana, and video by Egri Nok with much thanks!

From this German language version of RT’s website.

Amadeu Foundation demands deletion of ZDF satire piece about the foundation’s censorship madness on the internet

An unmasking of unprecedented proportion is plaguing the Amadeu Antonio Foundation of the ex-Stasi employer Anetta Kahane. She has just recently been crowned as the supreme watchdog in relation to “hate speech on the internet” by Heiko Maas, Germany’s Minister of Justice. And because of a ZDF piece which satirizes this, the Foundation has now activated the Board of Censors (Fernsehrat) to have the satire piece removed from its mediatheque.

When one engages anti-German opinion extremists such as the Amadeu Antonio Foundation as consultants against “hate speech on the internet”, this is the same making the fox guard the henhouse. Insofar as it would be reasonable to question the judgment of Heiko Maas at the time of his decision, when he made Anetta Kahane — who once earned her bread as the STASI Informant “Victoria” — and her Amadeu Antonio Foundation the top consultant in his “task force against Hate speech on the internet”.

On one hand the political milieu from which Kahane stems is famous for launching massive hate campaigns against those that dare to think differently and whose face they just don’t like at the moment, and on the other hand they demand as the self appointed thought police full and complete censorship for the slightest of infractions. The fervor with which the thought police find racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and whatever else they think they find, reminds one astonishingly of symptoms of persecution paranoia.

Just how deep that paranoia is truly anchored shows itself in how the “anti-German milieu” of the radical Left handles criticism about their own modus operandi. Even when the criticism comes along in obvious humorous ways, the professional snitches smell “hate speech”, which then has to immediately be deleted. And now all will be approved under the support of the Minister of Justice in German-speaking social media.

What this means in practical terms is something the ZDF moderator Achim Winter is currently experiencing first-hand. In a humorous satirical man-in-the-street segment, the “Hallo Deutschland” reporter made a little bit of fun of the Amadeu Antonio Foundation and hinted, between the lines, at possible problems that could be created due to their censorship mania.

He also makes jokes about one or the other quirk of the new-left new-speakers. What is one even allowed to say anymore in Germany? Apparently, not very much. Because what follows his report is an unprecedented unmasking of the Amadeu Antonio Foundation as well as of the mainstream media such as Die Zeit or Tagesspiegel.

In a letter to the ZDF, the Foundation first described Winter’s segment as “disturbing”. In familiar victim mentality, they whine about how “deeply affected” they are. And they also bring out the big cannons: the hate-speech experts immediately went to the Board of Censors as well as to the ZDF directors.

One could of course categorize the segment as satire, but it could also be understood as something completely different. The foundation is made the “butt of the joke”, as was Kahane’s chairman Andreas Zick. And something like that apparently comes close to an aggravated insult to Her Majesty itself. Therefore the demand: The satire piece from Achim Winter has to be deleted from the mediatheque! A measure which just recently was also taken in the Böhmermann-Erdogan debacle [the infamous satirical goat-molesting poem].

No less absurd is the demand for censorship of the Amadeu Antonio Foundation against a harmless fun piece is the journalistic support that Tilman Steffen in Die Zeit and by way of second publication presented in the Tagesspiegel. Over entire paragraphs the article protocols the twitter activity of Achim Winter and gets put in the kind of context that makes the argumentation of Kahane and Zick seem plausible. What could be proven: It’s exactly that kind of thought-policing that Winter had made fun of in his piece and had shown as being problematic, that then immediately has been applied in reaction to his piece against his person. And just so that everybody really gets what the exact accusation is, the article about Achim Winter was published under the tag “Right-wing extremism”.

It can be largely predicted how this is going to go from now on: The probability is very high that in the coming days a finely tuned hate campaign against Winter will be launched, during which, among other things, tweets will be unearthed and according to the contact co-guilt principle, the social context of the moderator will be put in the desired spotlight. All that with the maximum goal to chase Winter out of his reporter’s job. The list of those who have been robbed of their basis of existence through the ideological mania of self-appointed Leftists is long. And the internet is a beloved weapon of choice. And so we can clearly see in the case of Achim Winter, what the real problem is in Germany: The most dangerous “hate speakers” are currently advising the Federal Ministry of Justice.

kahane-commies

 

Germany: First nationwide raid against hate posts on the internet

Posted on by

An original translation by Nash Montana 

From this German language website

Because hate on the Internet is rising, the BKA (Bundeskriminalamt, Federal Criminal Police Office) wants to set an example: this morning sixty apartments were searched nationwide. One emphasis is on Bavaria — that’s where the accusations weigh especially heavily.

 

On Wednesday, in their first nationwide operation to fight against hate crime on the Internet, the police searched the homes of sixty accused in fourteen states, among them eleven suspects from Berlin. The goal is to counter rapidly accelerating “verbal radicalism” and related criminal offenses on the net, the BKA explains in Wiesbaden. The supposed anonymity of the Internet lowers inhibitions about writing hate speech.

25 police precincts worked together at a national level for this raid. Investigations are made based on the suspicion of sedition, related to the use of emblems of organizations that are unconstitutional. The offending language is also connected with utterances against refugees, say the Berlin state police. One investigation from the prosecutor’s office in Kempten assumed particular importance, the BKA announced. According to the information, it concerned a secret Facebook group in which the users glorify national socialism as well as exchanging xenophobic and anti-Semitic content. According to the police, with regard to that group, about forty homes of suspects were searched in thirteen states.

BKA chief: putting a stop to the coarsening of language

“The number of cases of politically right motivated hate criminality on the Internet has also risen in the wake of the European refugee situation,” says BKA chief Holger Münch. “The hate criminality on the net must not poison the social climate.” Attacks on refugee shelters are often the result of radicalization that begins on the Internet. “Therefore we have to put a stop to the coarsening of language, and investigate punishable content on the Internet.” With this operation the citizens also must become more sensitive, the BKA says. Whoever finds hate posts on the Internet should immediately report them.

Federal minister of justice Heiko Maas (SPD, Socialists) welcomed the operation. “The determined action of the administration should make everyone think before they pound on the keys to post on Facebook,” the minister says. “The creators of punishable hate posts are looking at punishments that will hurt. The Internet is not a lawless room. There is no tolerance for punishable offenses on the net.” Maas also warned that the citizens and society as well carry responsibility to counter radical incitement. “Analog as well as digital, it stands: We cannot leave the field to radical haters. The silent majority can no longer be silent.” Minister of the Interior Thomas de Maizière (CDU, Christian Democrats) said: “We have moral principles, online as well as offline.” Verbal violence is not acceptable and it lays the ground for real violence. “Our law also works on the Internet,” says de Maizière.

Just how much this topic has gained focus in political debates is revealed also through earlier remarks made by the Minister of Justice. The trolls have in the meantime become monsters, Maas wrote last November 2015 in the Tagesspiegel. Next to Islamic hate preachers who move about on the net, it is mostly German ‘anger citizens’ who spread hate. And with the rising number of refugees in Germany, the persecution of that group of people has risen. But the persecution of refugees is hard to counter with just Facebook regulations: subsequent to those, posts are only deleted that disparage ethnic groups, sexual orientation or gender. Refugees are not acknowledged as a group.

Stress with the employer

Hate comments on the Internet are punished with relatively high monetary penalties. “Merkel has to be stoned more often,” one user wrote, and had to pay €2000. Someone who posted in a group that was collecting donations for asylum seekers wrote that he would donate a hand grenade and a gas cylinder; he had to pay €7500 as the penalty for sedition. Many states have in the meantime installed so-called “Internet watches”, where hate comments can be reported online.

A person who posts hate speech under his real name should in the meantime fully expect that other users will tell that person’s employer. This is what happened to an employee of Condor Security, who wrote on Facebook that he wanted to plow down refugees with a snow plow. A short while later the company announced that they had let the man go. Another example: A Hermes [similar to FedEx] delivery man commented on the picture of the dead three-year-old Aydan Kurdi at the beach in Lesbos “We are not grieving; we are celebrating it.” He also lost his job. The man was also charged with “denigration of the memory of the deceased”.

Married couple sentenced for anti immigration Facebook group

Posted on by

An original translation by Nash Montana

amtsgericht-dachau-440x257

From Merkur.De

Vierkirchen – A Vierkirchen couple was in front of the district court in Dachau being accused of sedition. The husband had created a group that was hostile towards refugees.

Due to the supposed anonymity on the internet, the number of rightwing radical language groups is increasing. But a married couple from Vierkirchen found out that there is no guaranteed anonymity. About a year ago, Peter M., 27, created a facebook group called “Anti Refugee Movement”. Since he and his wife, Melanie M., 26, are the administrators of the group, they now had to stand trial in court for the charge of sedition.

M.’s description of the group was, “The war and economic refugees are swarming our country. They bring terror, fear, suffering. They rape our women and put our children in danger. It has to be stopped.” He added a picture of the German flag – and just like that,  the creation of a radical rightwing group was finished, so says Judge Lukas Neubeck.

The group grew astoundingly fast: In only two months, it gained 900 members. One Facebook user however, whose disposition was in direct opposition to that of M., stumbled over the group and reported it to the administration of the social network. They checked the group – and found it to be indiscriminate.

Therefore the Facebook user went to a police station in Lübeck. They found out that the group was created on a PC from Vierkirchen. So they forwarded the case to the Kripo (Criminal Police) in Fürstenfeldbruck.

The couple came without their lawyer, she had – according to Judge Lukas Neubeck – laid down her mandate right before the main trial. They brought their ten month old son who sat on his mothers lap during the trial.

“One can’t even say anything critical at all to the topic of refugees without immediately being branded a Nazi. I just wanted to create a forum for discussion where people could voice their opinions about the refugees. I’ve never gave it much thought as to the exact phrasing, I didn’t mean it like that”, the accused tried to justify himself.

M. kept asserting that he checked out all members of the group and that he had repeatedly suggested in his posts that he didn’t want to read any radical rightwing utterances – but he couldn’t prove it, the group has been deleted in the meantime.

After repeated inquiry by Judge Neubeck, M. then said at some point that he doesn’t actually have anything to do with refugees, and that he distances himself. That the only thing that bothers him is “the actions of the chancellor”. M. used the male ‘Kanzler’, instead of female ‘Kanzlerin’ in front of the judge, to which Neubeck indicated to him that Germany has a female chancellor and not a male chancellor. “Furthermore you are exactly not distancing yourself with this group from refugees. The description of the group is a stringing together of pure generalizations with a very clear radical rightwing background.”

M. was sentenced to nine months prison on probation, and his wife was sentenced to a monetary fine of 120 daily rates at 10 Euro. Judge Neubeck: “I hope that you understand the seriousness of the situation. If I find you sitting here again on the bench, you will land in prison.”

[Ed: Immigration is a government policy. One of the most important ones. The right to criticize it is the central pillar of democratic procedure. Imprisoning those who dare question it is defacto totalitarianism.]

 

 

What happens if you criticize the European Union with solid authoritative analysis?

Posted on by

Please read these two articles by Diana West on Vladimir Bukovski

#1 Silencing Bukovsky

#2  FLASH: British Court Imposes Gag Order on Bukovsky Libel Proceeding

What kinds of things does he say?

H/T Xanthippa, Diana West, Andrew Bostom.

Remarks Geert Wilders during court session today

Posted on by

Mr President, Members of the Court,

For more than eleven years, I have been living under death threats. Every day, I am reminded of this. Even today. This morning, I was driven here in a convoy of armored cars, with sirens, flashing lights, and surrounded by bodyguards. And not only today, but every day.

I will be brought home in the same way. Home is a safe-house. My office is a shielded room. And when I have to stand in court, it is here, in a bunker at Schiphol.

For more than eleven years already, I have been paying a heavy price. And I think that you as well as I know why. I am paying that price for the same reason as why I am standing in the dock for the second time. Because I dare to criticize Islam and mention the Moroccan problem.

“Freedom is the power that we have over ourselves,” said the great Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius. His statue stands at the entrance of the Supreme Court in The Hague. Hugo Grotius is the symbol of Dutch law. But once he was on trial himself. He was sentenced to life because he had fought on the side of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt for Dutch freedoms. But Grotius escaped in a coffin and fled to Antwerp.

Sometimes I wish that I could escape myself. But I know that I cannot. I would have to pay a price which I do not want to pay. I would have to shut up. And I cannot. I do not want that. And I will not do it. Freedom of expression is the only freedom I still have. And, forgive me, I will never give it up.

So here I stand again.

And I honestly think it is a disgrace that I have to stand here.

Millions of people in this country and abroad think so, too.

Continue Reading →