British ban on Dutch politician backfires
We read:
"The hasty ban on Wilders, which was obviously adopted by Gordon Brown's government as a gesture of appeasement to the very active Muslim fundamentalist wing in British politics, thereupon made it almost inevitable that the same government's decision to invite some representatives of Hezbollah to London would itself have to be reversed. The plan had been to get some civilian spokesman of the party's Lebanese wing to meet with officials and academics to discuss possible areas of common interest—this was in line with the British government's recent decision to resume contacts with Hezbollah in Beirut, on the assumption that a distinction can be made between its elected parliamentary wing and its military one. Even if you think that this is based on a naive assumption, the British are at least entitled to try it.
But now they find that one ban leads to another, for the sake of appearances and "even-handedness," so that having refused hospitality to one Dutchman, they are compelled to deny themselves the pleasure of sitting down with one or two Lebanese.
Source
11 comments:
Welcome to The Peoples Republic of Britain.
The British was so pathetic. Has anyone seen footage of the anarchists protesting at the G20 summit? O'reilly was praising the cops for their self-control.
It's like these people have it backwards, they believe in censorship but tolerate vandalism. Why aren't the cops shooting? Where's the tear gas?
What kind of people fear free speech but tolerate public disorder?
Oh so you want a bloodbath because of a few anarchists and trouble-makers that the media like to highlight because the speeches of politicians are rather boring to film all the time when the public much prefer to see a good fight.
"These people": are you generalizing about 60+ million people?
"Oh so you want a bloodbath "
---Yes I do. There's no right to free looting, there's no right to assault. Banks in England are telling their employees to wear casual clothing in case some of the nutjobs decide to attack them.
I'm not against peaceful demonstrations, but these anarchists are anything but peaceful, I saw them destroy a bank window, I saw them hitting police officers and doing worse.
A bloodbath accomplishes the following.
1. It removes undesirables from society.
2. It sends a message to future undesirables.
3. It preserves law and order.
At least in France they get it!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090402/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nato_summit_protests
("These people": are you generalizing about 60+ million people?)
60+ Million people? Another liberal dreamer. Those protestors are the same Marxists, communists, and anarchists who "protest" any gathering of government officials. Notice how they never protest and riot in places like Iran, Russia, N. Korea? Because they'd all be shot on the spot, the same thing that should've happened to them in London!
"These people" who are doing this protesting are a floating group of "professional" protesters who have been doing all sorts of protests for years.
One thing they usually have in common is no actual grasp of the issues they are protesting about.
"Why aren't the cops shooting?"
Brit cops aren't allowed to carry weapons, let alone capable of using them.
And even if they'd use them (as do the very few special response units), the paperwork associated with every round expended, every innocent bystander hit (I don't think they've hit an actual criminal in decades) is enough to make them hessitate long enough for the target to disarm them.
Well aren't there such things as tazers and pepper-spays, rather than lethal bullets -? Or can't modern technology that can take us to Mars, etc. find a better way for the police to immobilize people without death or severe injury -??
"Well aren't there such things as tazers and pepper-spays, rather than lethal bullets -?"
---Those do exist and cops sometimes use them. However, dead hooligans are unlikely to attack again.
"Or can't modern technology that can take us to Mars, etc. find a better way for the police to immobilize people without death or severe injury -??"
---Why do you care about immobilizing people without death or injury? Your compassion is misdirected! I have compassion for the former criminal that wants to turn his life around after spending time in prison, I have compassion for the victim of a crime, but if I see some assholes destroying private property, blocking traffic, throwing eggs at civilians or cops, I have no compassion for those bastards.
If you saw the initial protest, you noticed how very undermanned the British police were, (the pansy mentality of Brit officials) which was one of the main reasons the "protest" (see riot) got out of control. Another cause for the escalation in violence is the fact that British police are ruled by political correctness, which explains their lack of response to the provocation and outright assaults on them. That behavior is simply fuel for the anarchists.
At least someone was smart enough to triple their numbers the next day, even though their response (or lack thereof) was still a show of weakness.
Bobby - if a hooligan/protester is shot dead, how can he/she reform in prison?
Post a Comment