Interesting to take the green example. Over here in Flanders the founding father of the Green party lamented more than a decade ago that his movement has been hijacked by extreme left activists to push their red agenda under the green flag. This week I read an article about the consolidated international pirate party. http://xandernieuws.punt.nl/?id=657895&r=1&tbl_archief
Mixed with the free copying issue, which I would support, there were all sorts of neomarxist, anticapitalist and drug legalization agenda points. These varied from the mandatory left mantra of "open borders" and "free unemployment handouts, no work ethic required", even going as far as "legalize incest" http://www.piratenpartei.de/2012/04/13/piratenpartei-lehnt-inzestverbot-ab/ . Unfortunately, now they have left me no other option than to strongly oppose them, not because of the original founding ideal, but because of the unsavory red star package deal they have gotten themselves into. To put in to torrent terminology, there's some nasty left-wing spyware hitching along with the installer. Sad, really.
The search page says "Since many items in the Einstein Archives can presently be dated only within a certain range of uncertainty...". So it seems they experience trouble determining simultaneously where the document is and when he wrote it.
Actually, a correct observation should read, "people accused of hatemongering and thoughtcrime don't smile when the thoughtpolice takes their picture."
Quite right. The real God particle should be called Theon. And it will be the only hypothesized particle with two hypothesized antiparticles: the atheon and the Saton. Now there's a triplet to try and collide!
It's funny how conservatism (keeping/cherishing good things) is criticised and mocked as "people don't like the change, even if it's for the better".
Isn't democracy about the majority deciding what's for the better of said majority? And if their decision is that the change doesn't benefit enough to compensate risks, then the best decision can well be to keep the tried recipes. Any company will also avoid risky changes "for the better" before they know damn well that they *will* be.
So no matter if the losing ("progressive"?) side thinks their view is "for the better", you have to define the will of the majority as the best choice. Any other choice would be an oligarchy of self-appointed "screw the majority, I know what's best" dictators.
Yes that's what freedom of speech is about: the content, not the package. I'll conveniently ignore the rest of the name-calling flamebait and stick to this main issue.
So the content should enjoy freedom, irrespective of the package. This means the government has no right to mandate anything about podcasts, certainly not that they be "announced" beforehand, just as the Belgian constitution (!) states they have no right to ask that of newspapers ("art. 18 The printing press is free; censorship can never be instated"). The only restriction is that the originator be known, and this is respected because his name is all over the broadcast.
The only possible abuse of freedom of speech is the one calling for and applauding restrictions for some of it.
Yes and I think throwing stuff in Boston's harbour and refusing to pay taxes to the British was considered treason too, long ago. The VB also are fed up with the Flemish paying taxes for subsidizing the permanent deficit in Wallonia, in exchange for which they get Walloon vetoes about Flemish wishes.
Treason in my dictionary would be opening borders to anyone trying to get into the country, especially militant islamists that are a danger to democracy.
Funny how one person's treason can be another person's moral duty.
As a concerned Flemish citizen I agree provided "racist" "fascistoid" and "nazi" follow the Godwin-definition and don't carry any intellectually significant meaning.
Verstrepen spreads the other point of view of people that want an independent Flanders and want a firm stand against crime, curb the hyperinflated immigration and stop the socialist superstate that is being created.
I already commented in other posts about the so-called "racism/discrimination" legal term being redefined to harm the VB. Read the law on http://flemishrepublic.org/ and shiver: any "expressing the intention of discriminating on the basis of age" for example now is punishable, unless you prove you are innocent. Being convicted under such an Orwellian law is an honor, not a blemish.
A police state is one that attacks the free speech of their citizens and dissenting opinions, like Belgium anno 2006. The VB wants police to arrest common criminals, this is not a "police state" but plain core business.
Ah, so funny, these defenders of free censorship. Some more interesting facts:
Yes, the Vlaams Belang is Belgium's worst nightmare, but because it wants Flanders' independence, not because it is national-socialist. On the contrary, it is not socialist at all, only Flemish nationalist. Flemish nationalists are like the Irish, but without the terrorism: they just want to live in an independent Flanders and want to jettison the foreign Wallonia that constantly wants other policies and has undemocratic vetoing power. Nothing remotely connected with the expansionist German national socialist.
The only kind of people that need to be sickened of fear in Flanders are those that defend the VB points of view. They are kicked out of labour unions, ostracised, and as in the Jurgen Verstrepen case fined.
By all means remain anonymous if you like, but don't play a sad victim here. Anonymity here only protects you from getting humiliated with facts.
"Hate" in the Orwellian sense is shorthand newspeak for "a point of view that I hate".
Yes the biggest party in Flanders:
http://polling2004.belgium.be/en/vla/results/resul ts_graph_etop.html
(note that the cartel CD&V+N-VA is composed of two parties and N-VA scores around the electoral threshold of 5%, the reason why they were compelled to form the carte)
It's quite logical that if you count the French-speaking Walloon part, the VB scores zero. But all other Flemish parties also score zero there, just as all Walloon parties score zero in Flanders. So the argument stands: largest party, in Flanders or even Belgium.
I hope this kind of reality, with URLs included, is better checkable than random assertions.
And again: why should these trivia even play a role in the discussion about the usurpation of dictatorial powers by the Belgian government?
The "Vlaams Belang" is nothing even remotely near those insane people-burning racists. There are colored people that are member of the VB, a point of view the Ku Klux Klan would find a bit "problematic". As I mentioned in a previous reply, this entire "racism" thing is one big vilification by the people that can't find any proper arguments.
But this has nothing to do with the crux of the question: what kind of impertinence does the Belgian government have, that they think they can impose "broadcast permission" acts on their citizens? This is news worthy of originating in China, not the heart of Europe.
Of course you're right. Just as when a dam cracks, the initial trickle of water is negligeable.
Get your filthy paws of the Internet, you damn dirty rabbit (http://www.hansverreyt.org/frePas/cartoon_6.gif), I would say to Belgium's prime minister.
Imagine it works for Flanders, then Europe... Just how long would America stand up to the joint lobbys of large media corporations protecting their traditional networks and the political parties trying to squelch dissident voices?
Actually, this point should be irrelevant to the discussion. So what if it was a radio station operated by a political party, a member of a party (as is the case here) or by a private person that may or may not have a privately held preference for a party?
The problem is that the government systematically tries to cut off media access to an opinion and a person holding it. Especially when the point of view of this person is already constantly targeted for vilification in the left-wing biased media, this constitutes plain censorship.
The World War 2 arguments are plain Godwinesque and could just as well apply to the government's point of view: unlicensed radio receivers for the British broadcasts would also spell trouble with the "acting government" back then.
And indeed, the air time on public television was a fact. Until the government parties decided to scrap it... because *they* had all the media access they needed and wanted to deprive that other party that didn't. Guess which party that was...
Something's very rotten in the state of Belgium.
Slashdot Mirror
They started by stripping out the rightward shift and rotate instructions from the instruction set.
Interesting to take the green example. Over here in Flanders the founding father of the Green party lamented more than a decade ago that his movement has been hijacked by extreme left activists to push their red agenda under the green flag. This week I read an article about the consolidated international pirate party. http://xandernieuws.punt.nl/?id=657895&r=1&tbl_archief Mixed with the free copying issue, which I would support, there were all sorts of neomarxist, anticapitalist and drug legalization agenda points. These varied from the mandatory left mantra of "open borders" and "free unemployment handouts, no work ethic required", even going as far as "legalize incest" http://www.piratenpartei.de/2012/04/13/piratenpartei-lehnt-inzestverbot-ab/ . Unfortunately, now they have left me no other option than to strongly oppose them, not because of the original founding ideal, but because of the unsavory red star package deal they have gotten themselves into. To put in to torrent terminology, there's some nasty left-wing spyware hitching along with the installer. Sad, really.
The search page says "Since many items in the Einstein Archives can presently be dated only within a certain range of uncertainty...". So it seems they experience trouble determining simultaneously where the document is and when he wrote it.
... if I can prove they both are possible and impossible?
Actually, a correct observation should read, "people accused of hatemongering and thoughtcrime don't smile when the thoughtpolice takes their picture."
... but do you think they'd bother to have a look at the diodes down my left side? Of course not!
Quite right. The real God particle should be called Theon.
And it will be the only hypothesized particle with two hypothesized antiparticles: the atheon and the Saton. Now there's a triplet to try and collide!
It's funny how conservatism (keeping/cherishing good things) is criticised and mocked as "people don't like the change, even if it's for the better". Isn't democracy about the majority deciding what's for the better of said majority? And if their decision is that the change doesn't benefit enough to compensate risks, then the best decision can well be to keep the tried recipes. Any company will also avoid risky changes "for the better" before they know damn well that they *will* be. So no matter if the losing ("progressive"?) side thinks their view is "for the better", you have to define the will of the majority as the best choice. Any other choice would be an oligarchy of self-appointed "screw the majority, I know what's best" dictators.
Yes that's what freedom of speech is about: the content, not the package. I'll conveniently ignore the rest of the name-calling flamebait and stick to this main issue.
So the content should enjoy freedom, irrespective of the package. This means the government has no right to mandate anything about podcasts, certainly not that they be "announced" beforehand, just as the Belgian constitution (!) states they have no right to ask that of newspapers ("art. 18 The printing press is free; censorship can never be instated"). The only restriction is that the originator be known, and this is respected because his name is all over the broadcast.
The only possible abuse of freedom of speech is the one calling for and applauding restrictions for some of it.
Yes and I think throwing stuff in Boston's harbour and refusing to pay taxes to the British was considered treason too, long ago. The VB also are fed up with the Flemish paying taxes for subsidizing the permanent deficit in Wallonia, in exchange for which they get Walloon vetoes about Flemish wishes.
Treason in my dictionary would be opening borders to anyone trying to get into the country, especially militant islamists that are a danger to democracy.
Funny how one person's treason can be another person's moral duty.
As a concerned Flemish citizen I agree provided "racist" "fascistoid" and "nazi" follow the Godwin-definition and don't carry any intellectually significant meaning.
Verstrepen spreads the other point of view of people that want an independent Flanders and want a firm stand against crime, curb the hyperinflated immigration and stop the socialist superstate that is being created.
I already commented in other posts about the so-called "racism/discrimination" legal term being redefined to harm the VB. Read the law on http://flemishrepublic.org/ and shiver: any "expressing the intention of discriminating on the basis of age" for example now is punishable, unless you prove you are innocent. Being convicted under such an Orwellian law is an honor, not a blemish.
A police state is one that attacks the free speech of their citizens and dissenting opinions, like Belgium anno 2006. The VB wants police to arrest common criminals, this is not a "police state" but plain core business.
Ah, so funny, these defenders of free censorship. Some more interesting facts:
By all means remain anonymous if you like, but don't play a sad victim here. Anonymity here only protects you from getting humiliated with facts.
"Hate" in the Orwellian sense is shorthand newspeak for "a point of view that I hate".
Correctness check indeed:
Easily verified on his curriculum: http://jurgenverstrepen.typepad.com/about.html
(note that the cartel CD&V+N-VA is composed of two parties and N-VA scores around the electoral threshold of 5%, the reason why they were compelled to form the carte)
It's quite logical that if you count the French-speaking Walloon part, the VB scores zero. But all other Flemish parties also score zero there, just as all Walloon parties score zero in Flanders. So the argument stands: largest party, in Flanders or even Belgium.
I hope this kind of reality, with URLs included, is better checkable than random assertions.
And again: why should these trivia even play a role in the discussion about the usurpation of dictatorial powers by the Belgian government?
The "Vlaams Belang" is nothing even remotely near those insane people-burning racists. There are colored people that are member of the VB, a point of view the Ku Klux Klan would find a bit "problematic". As I mentioned in a previous reply, this entire "racism" thing is one big vilification by the people that can't find any proper arguments.
But this has nothing to do with the crux of the question: what kind of impertinence does the Belgian government have, that they think they can impose "broadcast permission" acts on their citizens? This is news worthy of originating in China, not the heart of Europe.
Of course you're right. Just as when a dam cracks, the initial trickle of water is negligeable., I would say to Belgium's prime minister.
Get your filthy paws of the Internet, you damn dirty rabbit (http://www.hansverreyt.org/frePas/cartoon_6.gif)
Imagine it works for Flanders, then Europe... Just how long would America stand up to the joint lobbys of large media corporations protecting their traditional networks and the political parties trying to squelch dissident voices?
Actually, this point should be irrelevant to the discussion. So what if it was a radio station operated by a political party, a member of a party (as is the case here) or by a private person that may or may not have a privately held preference for a party? ... because *they* had all the media access they needed and wanted to deprive that other party that didn't. Guess which party that was...
The problem is that the government systematically tries to cut off media access to an opinion and a person holding it. Especially when the point of view of this person is already constantly targeted for vilification in the left-wing biased media, this constitutes plain censorship.
The World War 2 arguments are plain Godwinesque and could just as well apply to the government's point of view: unlicensed radio receivers for the British broadcasts would also spell trouble with the "acting government" back then.
And indeed, the air time on public television was a fact. Until the government parties decided to scrap it
Something's very rotten in the state of Belgium.