Thursday, February 09, 2006
Europe betrays the natural rights of man
The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday.
In an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show "prudence" when covering religion.
"The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression," he told the newspaper. "We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right."
If Europe agrees to this, we can assume that it will no longer stand up for any principle worth defending.
We have said it before and will say it again: the right of free speech is an entirely meaningless construct for speakers and writers who do not offend people. Popular speech that offends nobody needs no right to protect it. The right of free speech is only important for people who speak and write unpopular or offensive things. In a world of free people governed by laws, the only legitimate "consequences of exercising that right of free expression" are that sometimes the reaction to unpopular speech will be such that the speaker needs to be defended. That is why we have police, courts and, yes, sometimes armies.
CWCID: LGF.
11 Comments:
By 
Charlottesvillain, at
Thu Feb 09, 05:10:00 PM:
Basically, a new way for the French to surrender. Where is the angry, militant Europe you have warned us about.
Their blood is in the water and the sharks are circling. Europe is doomed.
By 
, at
Thu Feb 09, 05:28:00 PM:
Someone please refresh my memory: How many American soldiers were killed in Europe during WWII, and what exactly did they die for? Was it the liberation of Europe, or merely the postponement of their conquest until the Euros found someone else to appease? With developments like this, I honestly can't remmeber anymore.
Maybe it is time to dig up the American cemeteries "over there" and bring the remains of our fallen soldiers back home after all.
By , at
Thu Feb 09, 05:42:00 PM:
Does anyone here have the slightest knowlege of European history? Are you aware that the European tradition of free speech is different from the American one?
That, for example, Nazi imagery has been illegal in Germany since the end of the war? Can you imagine any reasons why that might be? Most countries still have laws banning blasphemy or images that offend religious sensibilities. You don't like it? Don't move there.
Someone please refresh my memory: How many American soldiers were killed in Europe during WWII, and what exactly did they die for?
Total deaths for the USA in World War II: 418,000. Both theaters.
Total deaths for France in World War II: 562,000. And while they were fighting the German Army, FDR was trying to get the isolationists in the Republican Party to approve re-armament.
By Final Historian, at
Thu Feb 09, 05:43:00 PM:
-Joshua
I fear that we saved Europe from the Germans and the Russians, only to have it conquered by the Arabs.
"Does anyone here have the slightest knowlege of European history? Are you aware that the European tradition of free speech is different from the American one?"
If by different, you mean, flimsy and half-hearted, yes, I know that. Free Speech is dying in Europe right now. If you are too blind to see that, then it only goes to prove that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Feb 09, 05:48:00 PM:
Yes. The European "tradition" of free speech is different, but since it does not actually involve very much free speech we have always hoped that they would aspire for more.
And, yes, we are well aware of all the European casualties in World War II. Indeed, we are well aware of all the European casualties in the three ruinous Franco-German wars between 1871 and 1945. None of that is to Europe's credit, either.
And, no, nobody here would defend the isolationists in the Republican party for their opposition to earlier intervention.
Indeed, most of us wish that today's Democrats, who so frequently cite FDR for his commitment to social welfare, would reflect his willingness to go to war against fascists.
By , at
Thu Feb 09, 06:04:00 PM:
To Joshua:
gringoVoltaire: "I may disagree but will defend to the death your right to patronize the mooslim mob--especially if you'll defend my free speech with equal committment."
now at gringoman.com DEATH TO THE IMAMS?
By , at
Thu Feb 09, 06:54:00 PM:
Indeed, most of us wish that today's Democrats, who so frequently cite FDR for his commitment to social welfare, would reflect his willingness to go to war against fascists.
FDR went to war against Hitler's regime after Hitler declared war on us. Within four years Allied troops were standing in the ruins of German cities and Hitler's regime was gone.
FDR went to war against Japan after Japan attacked us. Within four years American troops were standing in the smoking ruins of Tokyo and that regime was gone.
In both cases American troops faced essentially NO postwar resistance. In both cases reconstruction was swift and thorough. The US Government was not in the habit back then of losing track of billions of dollars by handing it over to corrupt local warlords.
Remind us again how invading Iraq has advanced the cause of "social welfare." Let alone the effort to bring the 9/11 masterminds to justice.
By , at
Thu Feb 09, 07:50:00 PM:
"FDR went to war against Hitler's regime after Hitler declared war on us. Within four years Allied troops were standing in the ruins of German cities and Hitler's regime was gone.
FDR went to war against Japan after Japan attacked us. Within four years American troops were standing in the smoking ruins of Tokyo and that regime was gone."
So then the complaint of the Petulant Left is that we didn't reduce Kabul and Baghdad to smoking ruins?
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Feb 09, 10:43:00 PM:
Al Qaeda quite precisely declared war on us in 1998. Saddam had given the United States numerous casus belli, whatever the stated reasons wisely or unwisely advanced by the Bush administration. I don't understand how the FDR analogy breaks down.
While FDR might appreciate the zeal with which today's Democrats have defended his Social Security program, he would be appalled at their unwillingness to deploy American power. (FDR even invaded Iran fer chrissakes, for no reason better than that it was necessary to secure the Lend Lease supply lines to the Soviet Union.)
By Papa Ray, at
Fri Feb 10, 04:04:00 PM:
If you want to read about [e]urope not to far into the future, Read:JANE SCULLY- Hatred of the Angels, Chapter One: Faith Square. You will have to scroll down a little over half way to find it. She is going to publish the whole book on this web site.
It will reinforce to the bone what you are saying.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
By , at
Sun Feb 12, 03:29:00 PM:
The Euroweenie Chicken Union strikes again dont you think the national Emblem of the European Union should be a chicken against a background of yellow and 70s chicken footprint peace signs
