Category Archives: Selective enforcement

Union ‘Klansmen’ Terrorize 14-year-old Boy

Posted on by

by  Connie Hair
05/24/2010

Reminiscent of the white-hooded Ku Klux Klan showing up to terrorize families in their homes, the Service Employees International Union (SIEU) and a Chicago group called National Political Action showed up at the Maryland home of Greg Baer, deputy general counsel for corporate affairs at Bank of America last Sunday.
The White House has yet to denounce the muscle flexing by their SEIU buddies whose purpose was to intimidate the senior bank executive and make him an example to all those who might oppose the Democrats’ new finance bill now headed for conference with the House and Senate.
Baer wasn’t home that Sunday but his 14-year-old son was home alone. And frightened.?

Please click here for the rest of this story:

H/T NV

An Ethics Train Wreck, Indeed

Posted on by

As any reader of Vlad knows, May 20th was the first annual Everybody Draw Mohamed Day, and with it, many debates as to the ethics and rational of drawing a 14th century war lord when it pisses off so many morons.

Below, is the text of a debate between Gates of Vienna’s own Baron Bodissey, and an appointed ‘ethicist’ for the other side. The side that says we should not do things that offend other people and I have no idea where that is supposed to end. I guess none of us say anything.

Turns out, the ethicist had a rather unique set of ethics. I think they will be well detailed below:

Eeyore for Vlad:

The recent debate I took part in at Public Square has taken an interesting twist. Not only was my final post in the series refused for publication, but as various readers have discovered, my opponent, Jack Marshall, is not entirely what he seems to be. In addition to his deficiencies in logical reasoning, certain of Mr. Marshall’s credentials as a lawyer and an academic appear to be less than were stated in his CV.

I apologize to our readers for allowing myself to be snookered into such a shabby event. However, in my defense, I had only a couple of hours to prepare before beginning the debate — not enough time to do a thorough investigation of my opponent.

Dymphna will have more to say on the credentials issue later.

After submitting my final response for review, I posted it here, expecting that it would appear shortly at Public Square. However, instead of my post, an additional response by Mr. Marshall, “Ten Steps to An Ethics Train Wreck”, appeared two minutes before the noon deadline.

I’m not going to address what he says in his post — it’s similar to what went before, and y’all can read it for yourselves if you’re so inclined. I’m more interested in the fact that my final post was denied publication.

I wrote to the site’s owner to find out what happened, and he responded with this email:

Baron,

I can’t publish your last post as-is because I interpret most if it as a dig at PublicSquare.net itself. Attacking your opponent is one thing; going after the host of the debate is quite another. If you do not intend it that way, please edit your post accordingly and I’ll be happy to post it.

My reply:

My post contains valid criticisms of your site, which are relevant to our recently-completed “debate”.

To bill the process as a “debate” and to describe Jack Marshall as a “professional ethicist” is misleading at best. Mr. Marshall would be more accurately described as “an attorney who describes himself as an ethicist.”

To allow this type of discourse to proceed unhindered is, of course, your prerogative as the site’s administrator. In my opinion, however, to describe the process as a “debate” is a misrepresentation.

My criticisms were valid and to the point, and were clearly, reasonably, and civilly stated. If you choose to deny them a public airing on your forum, I obviously have no recourse.

I will, however, publicize this fact at our blog, and include our correspondence (with your name omitted, of course). Our blog has a wide readership, and posts of interest often go viral. So who knows? This may well increase your traffic at Public Square.

I shall also suggest to our regular readers that they visit Bloggerheads and avail themselves of the opportunity to comment on some of the posts in question, if they are so inclined.

Respectfully,
Baron Bodissey
Gates of Vienna

He wrote me one final email:
– – – – – – – – –

Baron,

I’ll go over all of the posts again to see if there’s anything I should have edited differently, but you cannot expect me to post content on my own site that would dissuade others from participating in similar exchanges in the future. What you do on your own site is, of course, your own business.

Thank you for your participating and best wishes.

So that’s it, folks. I’ve been shut out for voicing honest, civil, and valid criticism of the site that hosted the “debate”.

If you decide to avail yourself of the privilege of commenting over there, please play by Gates of Vienna’s rules. We don’t want anyone’s muddy boots tracking up the pristine carpet covering the Common Ground at Public Square.

The posts at Public Square: #1 (Baron), #2 (Marshall), #3 (Baron), #4 (Marshall), #5 (Baron), #6 (Marshall), and #8 (Marshall)

My four posts here at Gates of Vienna (including the unpublished one): #1, #3, #5, and #7

Keep an eye on this space for some of the lesser known career details about the lawyer, scholar, and ethicist Jack Marshall. Dymphna is working on it.


Note: I corrected two typos (a single orthographic metathesis and a repeated word) and a mistakenly used word (“Blogbusters” for “Bloggerheads”) in my email response to the site’s owner. Otherwise the email exchange reproduced above is verbatim.

“One is Not an Ethicist Because One Says So”

by Dymphna

The Baron has already presented the facts of this debacle , that is, the purported “debate” between him and a self-appointed ethicist named Jack Marshall on the merits of “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day”.

Speeding around the learning curve can be dangerous. Not having much time, we failed to practice due diligence in checking out the Baron’s opponent. As a result, Gates of Vienna ended up stuck in one mess of a tar baby — one that was put in our path by a website named Public Square. However, we could have gone around that mess instead of jumping in. Our bad, but then that’s the nature of tar babies: they look so darn attractive.

But as soon as I saw the first paragraph by this fellow, Jack Marshall, I knew things wouldn’t go well:

My name is Jack Marshall, and I’m a professional ethicist, which means that I think about, write and teach how we determine what is right and wrong for a living. I apply ethical analysis to everything under the sun on my own blog…

Leaving aside the condescension in this blurb, look at the sentence construction, specifically,

“I think about…etc…how we determine what is right and wrong for a living”…

So how does this fellow determine what is right and wrong about a living? Obviously, he doesn’t. What he had attempted to say, however syntactically garbled, was that he made a living by teaching, writing, etc., about ethics.

This syntactical confusion was a bright red flag, a warning that the Baron’s opponent in this debate wasn’t a clear thinker.

He is worse than that. The judgment of his peers on Mr. Marshall finds him wanting ethically. That is, he presents himself as having credentials and experience he doesn’t possess.

But let me start at the beginning, when Mr. Marshall was fisked three ways to Sunday for his humorless attack on another lawyer.
– – – – – – – – –
It seems that Eric Turkewitz, an attorney practicing in New York, had played an April’s Fool joke on the New York Times by claiming that he’d been appointed to serve as the official White House law blogger. On April 2nd, he gleefully retold the story:

Continue Reading →

Selective enforcement of hate speech laws becomes more overt, less subtle in bias

Posted on by

Sweden. By Ted Ekeroth who is the brother of Kent Ekeroth, who occasionally speaks for the Swedish Democratic party, ‘SverigeDemokraterna’

The truth is liable to prosecution in Sweden

Posted on 2010-05-20 by Ted Ekeroth
Skånepartiets posterSkånepartiets poster

This blog and ”Jihad in Malmö” as well as several newspapers reported that Skånepartiets party chairman Carl P Herslow is being charged with ”incitement to racial hatred” after he was on the town square in Malmö with a picture of Muhammad and 6-year-old Aisha.

The image stems from the generally accepted fact in Islam that Muhammad married a 6-year-old girl and raped her at 9-years old. The image, which can be seen here on the left, is therefore something that is described in the Islamic texts about Muhammad – the muslims primary role model. How this ”profet” lived is something that muslims strive to live by, as he is ”the perfect man” according to their beliefs.

That Mohammed sexually assaulted young children is therefore no secret (read the hadith on jihad in Malmö). Yet JK chooses to prosecute him for incitement to racial hatred (”hets mot folkgrupp”).

Put that in relation to what went down in the mosque at ”Medborgarplatsen” in Stockholm. The mosque sold anti-Semitic tapes in 2005 – Jews were compared to monkeys, pigs and diseases, and that the ”Final Solution” for Jews was a ”jihad” – holy war.

”O Allah, annihilate the Jews, O Allah, annihilate the Jews! O Allah curse them and expulsions them and let them whipped with suffering. O Allah, of heaven and earth! ”

Then Justice Chancellor at the time, Göran Lambertz, began a preliminary investigation on the incitement of hatred, but decided to close the case on the grounds that the ties were ”very critical of the Jews” but otherwise there was no violation of Swedish law.

So, in Sweden today, you can prosecute a man for telling an established truth that is openly described in Islamic texts, but to prosecute Muslims call for the murder of Jews is not hate speech according to the Chancellor.

The selling of audio tapes where you incite the mass murder of Jews is of course something different than publicly showing what Muhammed did. The first should be criminalized and the second shouldn’t. But instead Sweden acts just the opposite.

Why? The answer is simple. This time it’s the Muslims who feel ”wronged”. No threats of violence were expressed, no lies have been said – only a presentation of Muhammad’s life.

The truth is liable to prosecution in Sweden, 2010.

Democrats deny purple heart to Pvt. Long

Posted on by

Readers of Vlad I’m sure will be aware of the long standing plea we have made to award Pvt’s Long, who was killed in a terrorist attack at the recruiting center, as well as another man who was injured in the shooting, the Purple Heart award for being wounded in the line of duty.

Both men where in uniform. Both men where on duty. They where shot by an enemy of the United States and an avowed ally of the Islamist enemies of the USA.

Yet for political reasons, where denied the award.

Here is the video I did for these men when it happened, and below that, an excellent article by Diana West:

May 19

Written by: Diana West
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 3:24 PM

The House Armed Services Committee today approved an amendment to the 2011 defense authorization bill that declares the 2009 shootings at the Little Rock recruiting station and at Ft. Hood to be acts of war. Or at least a lawyerly equivalent as acts “of an enemy of the United States.” This provision will enable the government to provide, as Marine Times reports, a “one-time payment equal to what those killed and wounded would have received if they were in a combat zone at the time of the shootings.”

But no Purple Hearts.

Killed by Muslims professing jihad, these battle dead will lie in their graves unrecognized by the US government whose uniform they wore.

Another disgrace.

The Marine Times story hints at some distasteful Democrat bargaining over this  — bargaining  I’d like to know more about.

The addition of the June 1 Little Rock shooting to the amendment was part of a compromise on a provision pushed by Republicans to make a point that the war on terror has hit home. As part of the compromise, the final bill also was narrowed so that casualties of the two shootings are not eligible for a Purple Heart or other combat-related benefits that Republicans had wanted in the bill.

How do they live with themselves?

Blazing Cat Fur busts the CJC. Again.

Posted on by

From Blazing Cat Fur:

Shiksa’s can never be Victims Says Canadian Jewish Congress….Pedophiles… well that’s different

Hypocrisy thy name is the Canadian Jewish Congress. The CJC is in a lather because the Toronto Police Services Board listed “non-jewish shikse” as a new category of victim group. Shiksa is a pejorative term for gentile women. We had fun with that in my earlier post.

I speculated that the CJC was up in arms over the emergent Shiksa Rights Movement simply because it was an embarassment to the Jewish Community and could in fact be used against the community itself. Now I know I’m right.

The Toronto Police Services Board have evidently also included “Pedophiles” as a new victim group in their latest report, which is not yet public, according to this article in the National Post.

For the rest click over to Blazing

Could a Texan fire a colt 45 as a form of ritual self defence?

Posted on by

If the British government has seen fit to allow Muslims to throw shoes as a legitimate form of ‘traditional ritual protest’ including but not limited to, ski boots and wooden clogs, then why could a Texan who might have had a shoe thrown at him shoot the mother fucker in traditional Texas form? I mean is it not a law and a culture within Texas as a sacred aspect of their individualism that they have the right of lethal self defence? My guess is, the Brits would tell them to stay home if they like their culture so much. One commenter from the originating site said something rather interesting as well…

“Peter Reid wrote:

“Shoes, and particularly the soles of shoes, are regarded as ritually unclean in the Islamic world.”
This is disturbing, because there is a saying in Islam: “A woman’s heaven lies beneath the soles of her husband’s feet.”

Sounds like downtrodden to me.”

In the meantime, from The Times Online:

Met allows Islamic protesters to throw shoes

Protesters throw shoes at a placard of Barack Obama in Jakarta, Indonesia

Protesters throw shoes at a placard of Barack Obama in Jakarta, Indonesia

David Leppard

SCOTLAND YARD has bowed to Islamic sensitivities and accepted that Muslims are entitled to throw shoes in ritual protest — which could have the unintended consequence of politicians or the police being hit.

News of the concession by the Metropolitan police has come to light amid a series of trials of more than 70 mostly Muslim demonstrators who were charged with violent disorder after last year’s Gaza protests outside the Israeli embassy in London.

Aquib Salim, 21, an IT student at Queen Mary, London University, who was involved in a shoe-throwing incident, is almost certain to avoid a prison sentence as a result.

Chris Holt, Salim’s solicitor, said he was likely to get a suspended sentence after he pleaded guilty to a single charge of throwing a stick at police lines.

“The court accepted that the earlier shoe-throwing incident was simply a ritual form of protest and therefore not a criminal act of violence,” Holt said. Continue Reading →