If I Get Hurt, Blame Father Leman

By Paul Belien, of The Brussels Journal

During the past few weeks I have been under attack from the Belgian Left and the media. In February the editor in chief of the mass circulation weekly Knack (a supposedly centrist publication) wrote a piece entitled "Paul Belien and His Pals," claiming that I was part of a neo-con conspiracy, led by Daniel Pipes (whom until then I had never met or spoken) and the Danish journalist Flemming Rose (of the Muhammad cartoons), who wanted "to anger radical but also moderate Muslims into violent action. Their [=the conspirators'] goal is to persuade public opinion in Europe and America once and for all that all Muslims are violent and dangerous, so that the `clash' [=the world war against Muslims] in Palestine, Iran and Syria can really kick off."

This goal, according to Knack, would be the real reason why The Brussels Journal reported about the Danish cartoon affair (although in our reporting we have always stressed the important role of moderate Muslims - which, if we did not believe moderate Muslims existed, we would not have done).

Today Father Johan Leman, a Catholic priest of the Order of Saint Dominic (the inquisition order) and a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven, has joined the chorus. Father Leman is the previous president of the CEOOR (Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism), the inquisition center of the Belgian government. In today's news broadcast on the national radio he says that the CEOOR has been negligent because it has not already started prosecutions against me.

According to Father Leman I have incited racial hatred, with the result that extremist or unbalanced people, such as Hans Van Themsche, have decided to take the law into their own hands and shoot immigrants. Father Leman blames the Belgian authorities and the CEOOR for not punishing me. In the reverend father's own logic, if his hate speech against me should lead to extremist and unbalanced people threatening or hurting ("punish") me in any way he is the culprit.

Source



BOULDER HOTLINE DILEMMAS

There's a famous joke that goes like this: What's the difference between a Rottweiler and a Jewish mother? Eventually, the Rottweiler lets go. Now, some Jews may find that joke offensive. I don't. But if you're insulted, and you live in Boulder, you're in luck. Soon enough, you may be able to report me to the authorities.

Tuesday, the Boulder City Council will take up the matter of allocating public funding for a "hate hotline," which would give residents an opportunity to report incidents in which Boulderites use tactless language. "Our concern - and there are many - is that there is no confidentiality, no legal confidentiality," explains Judd Golden, chairman of the Boulder American Civil Liberties Union, which has not yet taken an official position on the hate-line. "So it's potentially chilling if people think they are providing this information in confidence and then that information were provided to the government or the government sought access to it. That would chill free speech."

Golden says the agenda item on the hotline is "extensive" and a "real dilemma" for the ACLU. There are some very "broad standards" laid out in the resolution. There is, for instance, the policy statement condemning the usual individual or collective acts of racism and bigotry. Great. But it also condemns those who attack "personal beliefs and values." "Well, for the ACLU, that goes over the line," Golden says. "You can't object to free speech just because someone is a Republican or a Democrat." What would happen to the bumper- sticker industry?

So, it seems that since purifying our thoughts is still beyond technology's reach, Boulder will now attempt to achieve politically correct speech codes in other ways.

The council should realize, however ugly it may be, Americans still have the constitutional right to be racist, homophobic, Jew-hating or even to make bad jokes - as anyone who's heard the one about the redneck who invented the ejection seat on the helicopter can tell you.

The most serious question, however, is will the hate-line folks forward their files to the Boulder police or City Council? "The devil's in the details," says Golden. "That's the question. There is no present indication that they intend to do anything like that in the future." Intention? Sorry, that's not good enough. But that's not even the worst part of it. You could - possibly - rationalize this if it weren't utterly useless.

Phillip Martinez beat up a 22-year-old African-American mechanical-engineering student named Andrew Sterling last year in Boulder. He was sentenced to the maximum of 16 years in prison. The jury wisely decided to drop "ethnic intimidation" charges. Would a hate-line have helped Sterling? Martinez was from Lafayette, not Boulder. He was drunk. He may not have even cared that Sterling was black.

Should everyone keep the hate-line number on their cellphone speed dial from now on? And remember, only call if your attacker uses racist or insensitive language while beating you to a pulp. After all, according to hate-law advocates, it's not genuine hate unless the perpetrator makes fun of your heritage.

Now, Coloradans don't always consider Boulder a reality-based community. But we all betray a serious lack of confidence in our system of freedoms when we take these sorts of measures. When that incomparable dope the Rev. Fred Phelps and his hate-mongering brood hit town mocking dead soldiers and gays, we handed them their biggest victory: curbing free speech through legislation to shut them up.

"These things have come up with attempts to criminalize hate speech on campus, those kinds of situations," explains Golden. "Certainly, if it just provides an opportunity to call and have a welcome voice and some kinds of soothing response to their concerns, that would be fine. Speech is good." Speech is good? Well, not always. But it should generally be free.

Source



BRITAIN'S POLITICALLY CORRECT TOP COP IN TROUBLE

Britain's top policeman came under fresh pressure today as the leader of London's beat bobbies said they had "no confidence" in him. Speaking on behalf of London's 24,000 constables, Peter Smyth said a series of "well-publicised, embarrassing gaffes" by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair had undermined the force. Mr Smyth labelled Sir Ian's modernisation schemes "ill-considered" and said hundreds of experienced officers had been taken off the beat.

During a session at the Police Federation annual conference Mr Smyth told new Police Minister Liam Byrne: "On behalf of the 24,000 constables in London and at the request of my branch board I am telling you that we have no confidence in this commissioner." To applause from delegates, Mr Smyth added: "Can you tell us what you are going to do to restore police and public confidence in this commissioner?"

His public attack at the conference in Bournemouth is a fresh blow to beleaguered Sir Ian. The commissioner has weathered a series of controversies including the row over his secretly-taped telephone calls with ministers and what were seen as insensitive comments about the Soham murders. He is also under investigation for comments he made after the police shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes last year, over which he has faced calls for his resignation. Re-igniting the long-standing opposition to civilian patrol officers by some sections of the rank and file, Mr Smyth dismissed them as appearing like "gaggles of lost shoppers".

Some police oppose the introduction of community support officers, whom they have labelled "plastic policemen" and "yellow-clad numpties", believing the money should be spent on extra police officers instead. Mr Smyth condemned Sir Ian's reorganisation of the way the Met handles telephone calls from the public. The "Metcall" system could "at best only be described as unreliable, and that's if it works at all", he said. Metcall will have taken 900 officers off the beat by the end of next year, Mr Smyth said. "Meanwhile an ever-growing army of community support officers who walk around like gaggles of lost shoppers have been recruited to take the places of these experienced officers in the streets," said Mr Smyth.

Source



Over-hyped Da Vinci: Free debate on religion is integral to a democratic society

An editorial in "The Australian" newspaper:

Robust argument over the Christian Gospels provoked by the Hollywood version of Dan Brown's best-selling The Da Vinci Code is a sign of a healthy democracy, and calls for the film to be banned, censored or boycotted are misguided. The violent protests that erupted earlier this year after a Danish newspaper published caricatures of the prophet Mohammed underlined the crucial role of freedom of expression in liberal society. The persecution of the Somali-born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali is another reminder that free speech is a precious commodity not to be squandered. Ms Hirsi Ali has been under 24-hour police protection since she penned the script that persuaded an Islamic radical to murder film director Theo Van Gogh two years ago. She now plans to quit politics and leave her adopted home, The Netherlands, for the US.

The fact that debate over The Da Vinci Code has been carried out peacefully over the airwaves and in print says much for civilised values. And despite the fear and anger from some sections of the Catholic Church over what it sees as a challenge to the authority of the New Testament, Brown's fiction that Jesus and Mary Magdalene produced children whose lineage remains in Europe today is nothing more than a ripping yarn playing to people's love of conspiracy theories. Whether the novel's phenomenal success will be repeated with the film version remains to be seen. Early reviews suggest the book has not translated well to the screen.

A preview of Ron Howard's movie at the Cannes Film Festival reportedly drew reactions from critics ranging from tepid praise for escapist entertainment to jeering at its melodramatic style. It seems to The Australian that church leaders in Britain are making too much of a survey that found two-thirds of more than 1000 Britons who read Brown's thriller believe its far-fetched claims. Christianity has flourished for more than 2000 years and is surely sufficiently strong to withstand an assault from what is essentially an airport potboiler. Melbourne's Archbishop Denis Hart is sensible in his advice to Catholics this week that they are free to see The Da Vinci Code, but should remember its central claims are untrue.

Source