Really?? Westerners don't like it when women wear head scarves post 1960.
I'm guessing in the USA the population wanting to ban the hajii scarf is 85%, based in English as the prefered oficial language of 77%
http://www.thelocal.se/8608/20070926/
Ban headscarves' say half of Swedes
Published: 26th September 2007 08:44 CETOnline: http://www.thelocal.se/8608/
Islamic headscarves ought to be banned at workplaces and in schools - that's the view of half the people surveyed in a new Swedish poll.The poll, the third of its kind taken by Uppsala University to measure Swedes' views of diversity, shows a rising number of people supporting a headscarf ban.
Related Articles
Failed asylum seekers to be paid to go home25th September 2007
In 2005, 43 percent wanted a ban on Islamic female head coverings. This year, 49.8 percent of the 1,065 people asked supported a ban.
The results the poll are open to some interpretation. The questionnaire asked people for their view on the banning of the 'slöja' or veil, indicating a garment covering the face as well as the top of the head, such as a burqa or a niqab. However, in common parlance, the word 'slöja' is often used to describe all sorts of female Islamic head coverings, including those that just cover the hair.
Hardening attitudes on the headscarf question were not the only sign of deteriorating race relations. More than one in three of those asked said they agreed with the statement that "many foreigners come to Sweden simply to take advantage of our social welfare."
On a more positive note, 80 percent of people said they had good experiences of contact with people of foreign origins. According to the study's authors only 5 percent have "extremely negative views" of immigrants - around the same percentage as last year, but higher than in 2005.
"There could be a link to how well the Sweden Democrats did in the last election - there are such tendencies in Sweden today," said Dr. Irving Palm, one of those behind the survey, to Svenska Dagbladet.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Iran, barbarians
An Iranian woman being buried prior to stoning.
EDIT: apparently this photo is from a film not a real stoning, does not matter, they still sone people.
Some people have been stoned FOR AN HOUR.
Now I'm all for the death penalty for murder or gruesome rapes or torture, (not adultery, derr) but stoning someone is cruel and unusual even for that.
A firing squad is the minimum
furking barbarians!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning
http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/index.html
http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/women.html
Hajji Bitch on her Knees
Even though this is way I'd like to see the hajii's, on their knees, this is insane on so many levels.
First why is a white senior citizen lady getting extra screening?
Second why the scrutiny on a senior citizen nun? (guessing a nun)
Why is a hajji working for TSA? Hajji's are the enemy.
Why can hajji chick wear the napkin on her head while working for the US government?
Who was in the wheelchair in the foreground?
This is why regular people think the government is wack.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Canadian Crime Wave
Wow, back to back
Good thing I'm a Yank! Liberalsm is wickedness!
Pitiful Pieties
http://westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2681&start=0
Politically-correct immigration policies are keeping western democracies in danger
Mark Steyn - September 17, 2007
You know the bit in the movie thrillers where the fourth or fifth killing has taken place and the police are sifting through the evidence to see what patterns they can identify?
Ha! That's fine for Hollywood fantasyland, but, in the real world, law enforcement know better than to go down that route. Let's say you arrest a bunch of guys plotting to blow up Parliament and behead the Prime Minister. Wow! Who would do such a thing? Who are these guys?
"They're all residents of Canada and for the most part, they're all citizens," said Mitch McDonell, assistant commissioner of the RCMP.
So all these people plotting to wreak havoc on Canada's Parliament were living in Canada? Anything else that might narrow it down a little more?
Assistant Commissioner McDonnell didn't think so: "They represent the broad strata of our community," he continued. "Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed."
A remarkable case. The more you look at these guys - Mohammed Dirie, Amin Mohamed Durrani, Yasim Abdi Mohamed, etc - the less they seem to have in common. Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed, some spell "Mohammed" with two "m"s, some with one, some have it as a first name, some have it as a last name, some have it as a middle name. The strata don't come any broader than that.
And as the jihad goes, so goes the Toronto crime scene. When nine citizens die in a single weekend in July, heaven forbid we should suggest these killings are connected to anything more specific than the very broadest of broad strata. Surveying the corpse count, Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario, immediately demanded that the federal government tighten up the gun registry and make the all but total handgun ban even more totally total. Is Mr. Bryant some sort of crude animatronic prototype? The political equivalent of the talking Ken doll, capable of only a handful of robotically droned generalities? Instead of "Come on, Barbie, let's go party", the
Attorney-General squeaks his new catchphrase: "No gun, no funeral."
Really? One day in the not too distant future, there will be one surviving legal gun owner in Canada - an octogenarian Newfoundland farmer who still has his grandfather's shotgun. But doubtless Mr. Bryant will be blaming him for the 20 gun deaths in TO that weekend. Despite the reflex pandering of lazy politicians, there remains no connection between legal gun ownership and murder rates. Actually, that's not true. If you look at the Top Ten countries with the lowest homicide rates, at least half of them have some of the highest gun-ownership rates in the world: Switzerland, Norway and Finland have more guns than Canada but lower crime rates.
More nuanced types recognize that neither Canadian long guns nor the modest number of legally registered Canadian handguns have anything to do with Toronto gang crime, and suggest instead that we need to crack down on guns coming in from the lawless cowboy country to the south. Well, we could try, I suppose. What level of scrutiny do you reckon would be necessary to secure a porous border strung out across thousands of miles on which 90 per cent of the Canadian economy depends? Canucks are already complaining about increased inspection times on shopping trips south, but if you want to install a huge Maple Curtain along the 49th parallel, go ahead.
And, when you've run the numbers for that project, maybe it's worth asking the Mayor of Toronto and the Attorney-General of Ontario why they cannot do the citizens of a mature democracy the courtesy of addressing the question honestly. There is no "Canadian" murder epidemic or "Ontario" murder epidemic. There is a problem within one very narrow stratum of Toronto society (as no RCMP assistant commissioner is ever likely to say). Innocent Madowo, "a former Zimbabwean journalist living in Toronto", wrote a column the other day headlined "Our Community's Scourge" - "our" meaning "black". But he does his community an injustice. It would be truer to say violent crime is the West Indian community's scourge, and truer still to say it's the Jamaican community's. In contrast to gun-infested Switzerland and Norway, Jamaica has one of the highest murder rates on the planet, and it exports its pathologies to wherever the Jamaican diaspora settles. In Britain, as in Toronto, gun crime is largely a Jamaican gang problem--"Yardies", as they call them. The only difference is that the United Kingdom has implemented to the nth degree all the policies Michael Bryant wants enacted here, and with the predictable result that the coppers would rather hassle the cranky farmer with the unlicensed shotgun than take on the rather more demanding task of going after Yardies with Uzis.
In The Toronto Sun the other day, Michael Coren mentioned some of the particular characteristics of Jamaican society: "The levels of fatherless families in the country's urban centres are staggering. This culture has been transferred to Canada," he wrote, noting that, in return for pointing out the obvious, he would be damned as "racist". In fact, there is nothing about being born with a particular skin colour that mandates a dysfunctional culture in which male role models are either absent, criminal or more benignly feckless. Race is immutable, but culture isn't. Not long before my first child was born, I asked a young Jamaican lady who worked for me in London whether her father had been present at her birth. She gave a huge laugh. "Are you joking?" she said. "He wasn't present ten minutes after conception." These were certainly not the qualities Colin Powell, a child of Jamaican immigrants, associated with his community. "American blacks sometimes regard Americans of West Indian origin as uppity and arrogant," he wrote in his autobiography. "The feeling, I imagine, grows out of an impressive record of accomplishment by West Indians. What explains that success? For one thing, the British ended slavery in the Caribbean in 1833, well over a generation before America did... They told my ancestors that they were now British citizens with all the rights of any subject of the Crown. That was an exaggeration: still, the British did establish good schools and made attendance mandatory. They filled the lower ranks of the civil service with blacks. Consequently, West Indians had an opportunity to develop attitudes of independence, self-responsibility and self-worth."
Today, "self-worth" is valued, but entirely detached from "self-responsibility". At a London club last month, a former British heavyweight boxing champion politely asked three young men if they would respect the no-smoking ban. They shot him in the face at point-blank range. He had "disrespected" them. As in Toronto, the perpetrators were black and so were the victims. It's easy for Canadian media sob-sisters to indulge, as Michael Coren says, in sentimentalized blather about the four-year olds caught in the crossfire. But what are you going to do about it? In practical terms, the guilt-ridden white liberal would rather go on blaming rural white gun-owners and implicitly accept random intra-Jamaican gun-death as just another feature of the heartwarming multicultural mosaic, in the same way that we accept gas-sniffing as a time-honoured native tradition practiced on the tundra ever since the first Innu popped the tank of the first Honda Civic back in 1478. In neither case does liberal "compassion" or multicultural squeamishness seem to be doing anything for the designated victim class.
As for those on the hard-hearted right, no-one is proposing to limit or constrain immigration from Jamaica. Even typing that sentence feels vaguely ridiculous in an advanced western democracy. But let's suppose the Mayor and everyone else is right and all the guns used in Jamaican gun crime are smuggled in from the United States. What's easier to quarantine? A vast neighbour with whom we share a land border running across a continental land mass? Or a tiny island surrounded by water? In neither Canada nor Britain nor anywhere else is it politically feasible to propose that perhaps Jamaicans should be subjected to special immigration scrutiny. Forty years ago, it was accepted in Canada, the United States and Australia that sovereign nations had the right to operate discretionary immigration policies - that's to say, being under no obligation to admit anyone, they could pick and choose whom they did. Today, it's equally widely accepted that discretionary immigration policies are discriminatory and indefensible: if you're going to let people in, then all 200 or so nations on the face of the earth are equally valid--Slovenes and Saudis, Japanese and Jamaicans. To orient immigration policy to favour certain sources would be racist.
I wonder how long these pieties can endure. A recent study of terrorist suspects arrested in Britain between 2001 and 2005 revealed that one in four of them was admitted to the country as an asylum seeker. They included, for example, Muktar Said Ibrahim, one of the four men who attempted unsuccessfully to self-detonate on the London Tube two weeks after the July 7th slaughter. In other words, young men taken in and given sanctuary by Britain thank their hosts by trying to kill them. Will any changes be made to immigration procedures? Or will the British simply accept that a one-in-four terrorist/refugee ratio is simply part of the privilege of being a progressive social-democratic society? Just as we accept that allowing parts of Toronto to, in effect, assimilate with Kingston, Jamaica is the price we pay for being able to congratulate ourselves on our boundless, boundless tolerance.
Good thing I'm a Yank! Liberalsm is wickedness!
Pitiful Pieties
http://westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2681&start=0
Politically-correct immigration policies are keeping western democracies in danger
Mark Steyn - September 17, 2007
You know the bit in the movie thrillers where the fourth or fifth killing has taken place and the police are sifting through the evidence to see what patterns they can identify?
Ha! That's fine for Hollywood fantasyland, but, in the real world, law enforcement know better than to go down that route. Let's say you arrest a bunch of guys plotting to blow up Parliament and behead the Prime Minister. Wow! Who would do such a thing? Who are these guys?
"They're all residents of Canada and for the most part, they're all citizens," said Mitch McDonell, assistant commissioner of the RCMP.
So all these people plotting to wreak havoc on Canada's Parliament were living in Canada? Anything else that might narrow it down a little more?
Assistant Commissioner McDonnell didn't think so: "They represent the broad strata of our community," he continued. "Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed."
A remarkable case. The more you look at these guys - Mohammed Dirie, Amin Mohamed Durrani, Yasim Abdi Mohamed, etc - the less they seem to have in common. Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed, some spell "Mohammed" with two "m"s, some with one, some have it as a first name, some have it as a last name, some have it as a middle name. The strata don't come any broader than that.
And as the jihad goes, so goes the Toronto crime scene. When nine citizens die in a single weekend in July, heaven forbid we should suggest these killings are connected to anything more specific than the very broadest of broad strata. Surveying the corpse count, Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario, immediately demanded that the federal government tighten up the gun registry and make the all but total handgun ban even more totally total. Is Mr. Bryant some sort of crude animatronic prototype? The political equivalent of the talking Ken doll, capable of only a handful of robotically droned generalities? Instead of "Come on, Barbie, let's go party", the
Attorney-General squeaks his new catchphrase: "No gun, no funeral."
Really? One day in the not too distant future, there will be one surviving legal gun owner in Canada - an octogenarian Newfoundland farmer who still has his grandfather's shotgun. But doubtless Mr. Bryant will be blaming him for the 20 gun deaths in TO that weekend. Despite the reflex pandering of lazy politicians, there remains no connection between legal gun ownership and murder rates. Actually, that's not true. If you look at the Top Ten countries with the lowest homicide rates, at least half of them have some of the highest gun-ownership rates in the world: Switzerland, Norway and Finland have more guns than Canada but lower crime rates.
More nuanced types recognize that neither Canadian long guns nor the modest number of legally registered Canadian handguns have anything to do with Toronto gang crime, and suggest instead that we need to crack down on guns coming in from the lawless cowboy country to the south. Well, we could try, I suppose. What level of scrutiny do you reckon would be necessary to secure a porous border strung out across thousands of miles on which 90 per cent of the Canadian economy depends? Canucks are already complaining about increased inspection times on shopping trips south, but if you want to install a huge Maple Curtain along the 49th parallel, go ahead.
And, when you've run the numbers for that project, maybe it's worth asking the Mayor of Toronto and the Attorney-General of Ontario why they cannot do the citizens of a mature democracy the courtesy of addressing the question honestly. There is no "Canadian" murder epidemic or "Ontario" murder epidemic. There is a problem within one very narrow stratum of Toronto society (as no RCMP assistant commissioner is ever likely to say). Innocent Madowo, "a former Zimbabwean journalist living in Toronto", wrote a column the other day headlined "Our Community's Scourge" - "our" meaning "black". But he does his community an injustice. It would be truer to say violent crime is the West Indian community's scourge, and truer still to say it's the Jamaican community's. In contrast to gun-infested Switzerland and Norway, Jamaica has one of the highest murder rates on the planet, and it exports its pathologies to wherever the Jamaican diaspora settles. In Britain, as in Toronto, gun crime is largely a Jamaican gang problem--"Yardies", as they call them. The only difference is that the United Kingdom has implemented to the nth degree all the policies Michael Bryant wants enacted here, and with the predictable result that the coppers would rather hassle the cranky farmer with the unlicensed shotgun than take on the rather more demanding task of going after Yardies with Uzis.
In The Toronto Sun the other day, Michael Coren mentioned some of the particular characteristics of Jamaican society: "The levels of fatherless families in the country's urban centres are staggering. This culture has been transferred to Canada," he wrote, noting that, in return for pointing out the obvious, he would be damned as "racist". In fact, there is nothing about being born with a particular skin colour that mandates a dysfunctional culture in which male role models are either absent, criminal or more benignly feckless. Race is immutable, but culture isn't. Not long before my first child was born, I asked a young Jamaican lady who worked for me in London whether her father had been present at her birth. She gave a huge laugh. "Are you joking?" she said. "He wasn't present ten minutes after conception." These were certainly not the qualities Colin Powell, a child of Jamaican immigrants, associated with his community. "American blacks sometimes regard Americans of West Indian origin as uppity and arrogant," he wrote in his autobiography. "The feeling, I imagine, grows out of an impressive record of accomplishment by West Indians. What explains that success? For one thing, the British ended slavery in the Caribbean in 1833, well over a generation before America did... They told my ancestors that they were now British citizens with all the rights of any subject of the Crown. That was an exaggeration: still, the British did establish good schools and made attendance mandatory. They filled the lower ranks of the civil service with blacks. Consequently, West Indians had an opportunity to develop attitudes of independence, self-responsibility and self-worth."
Today, "self-worth" is valued, but entirely detached from "self-responsibility". At a London club last month, a former British heavyweight boxing champion politely asked three young men if they would respect the no-smoking ban. They shot him in the face at point-blank range. He had "disrespected" them. As in Toronto, the perpetrators were black and so were the victims. It's easy for Canadian media sob-sisters to indulge, as Michael Coren says, in sentimentalized blather about the four-year olds caught in the crossfire. But what are you going to do about it? In practical terms, the guilt-ridden white liberal would rather go on blaming rural white gun-owners and implicitly accept random intra-Jamaican gun-death as just another feature of the heartwarming multicultural mosaic, in the same way that we accept gas-sniffing as a time-honoured native tradition practiced on the tundra ever since the first Innu popped the tank of the first Honda Civic back in 1478. In neither case does liberal "compassion" or multicultural squeamishness seem to be doing anything for the designated victim class.
As for those on the hard-hearted right, no-one is proposing to limit or constrain immigration from Jamaica. Even typing that sentence feels vaguely ridiculous in an advanced western democracy. But let's suppose the Mayor and everyone else is right and all the guns used in Jamaican gun crime are smuggled in from the United States. What's easier to quarantine? A vast neighbour with whom we share a land border running across a continental land mass? Or a tiny island surrounded by water? In neither Canada nor Britain nor anywhere else is it politically feasible to propose that perhaps Jamaicans should be subjected to special immigration scrutiny. Forty years ago, it was accepted in Canada, the United States and Australia that sovereign nations had the right to operate discretionary immigration policies - that's to say, being under no obligation to admit anyone, they could pick and choose whom they did. Today, it's equally widely accepted that discretionary immigration policies are discriminatory and indefensible: if you're going to let people in, then all 200 or so nations on the face of the earth are equally valid--Slovenes and Saudis, Japanese and Jamaicans. To orient immigration policy to favour certain sources would be racist.
I wonder how long these pieties can endure. A recent study of terrorist suspects arrested in Britain between 2001 and 2005 revealed that one in four of them was admitted to the country as an asylum seeker. They included, for example, Muktar Said Ibrahim, one of the four men who attempted unsuccessfully to self-detonate on the London Tube two weeks after the July 7th slaughter. In other words, young men taken in and given sanctuary by Britain thank their hosts by trying to kill them. Will any changes be made to immigration procedures? Or will the British simply accept that a one-in-four terrorist/refugee ratio is simply part of the privilege of being a progressive social-democratic society? Just as we accept that allowing parts of Toronto to, in effect, assimilate with Kingston, Jamaica is the price we pay for being able to congratulate ourselves on our boundless, boundless tolerance.
F*CK! there is crime in Canada?
See criminals commit crime.....
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2652&start=0
Crimes and misconceptions
From the amount of violence on our streets, to who or what's to blame for it, Canadians have got the wrong idea
Jordan Michael Smith - July 30, 2007
In the dead of night this past June 6, David Lucio's van careened down Picton Street in downtown London, Ont., with the retired police superintendent dead at the wheel--shot in the head by a .40-calibre Glock pistol. The killer, police inspector Kelly Johnson, Lucio's mistress until their split the day before, sat in the passenger seat and followed up her grisly crime by turning the gun on herself as the van smashed into her condo building.
The violent drama quickly filled headlines, but what might seem like a clear case of cold-blooded murder was portrayed by police brass and the media as simply two deaths of equally tragic proportions. "They were both good people," said Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino, carefully adding that "[Johnson] had the respect of a lot of people." Another retired superintendent, Rick Gillespie, said he was sad "for what happened to the two of them."
But Lucio's father, Doug, is furious at the depiction of his son's killer as a victim, and he contacted London newspapers to make his voice heard, despite his desire for privacy. "She killed him," he raged. "She murdered him--premeditated. Nobody's discussing that." Normally, a killer doesn't receive the type of sympathy Johnson has gotten, says Heidi Illingworth, executive director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. "Maybe people think women can't do that sort of thing. We certainly see where [Lucio's] family is coming from," she says.
In the wake of Johnson's murder-suicide, the search for answers began with her job. A London Free Press news article held that police officers were ready culprits to commit suicide or violence, calling law enforcement a "high-pressure job that demands complete control." Dan Newman, a retired officer and mental health counsellor was quoted as saying, "If you write down the . . . characteristics that go with policing . . . it's not that illogical that there'd be suicide-homicides."
But data shows that police officers are actually less likely to commit suicide than civilians. Robert Loo, a retired clinical psychologist with the University of Lethbridge, found the number of suicides in the RCMP over 23 years to be less than half the average for civilian males. Similarly, "The Toronto Police Service has not had a suicide in more than 15 years," says Roger Dodson, manager of the Toronto Police Association's Employee and Family Assistance Program, despite facing the highest levels of gang activity in the country.
Richard Dolman, a researcher who has consulted with police forces in British Columbia, points out that suicides among officers are lower since "they have support systems for post-traumatic stresses," a factor Dodson agrees has made the difference in driving down suicides among Toronto police officers. Johnson had access to several different counselling services, and as a high-ranking officer, she undoubtedly knew about them, says Amanda Pfeffer, spokesperson for the London force. "We have a 24/7 critical stress management system--access to counselling services outside the force, totally paid for," she says. Still, the London Free Press instinctively called for counselling services to be improved alongside tougher psychological testing.
Inevitably, Johnson's weapon also faced public scrutiny. She wasn't supposed to be in possession of her gun when she shot Lucio, a fact that was highlighted repeatedly. "Johnson's police pistol, which she wasn't authorized to have, was found in the van," one story read. Another mentioned that the London police rely on the honour system with officers and their guns, implying that Johnson's crime could have been avoided had the force enacted stricter gun controls. In response to Lucio's family's demand for an inquest, London police Chief Murray Faulkner resorted to scapegoating the weapon, and is letting an outside agency examine department procedure regarding off-duty access to guns.
However, statistics suggest that any gun control measures are unlikely to make any serious dents in crime. Guns, for starters, are not the weapons of choice for a majority of murderers. "While a third of the homicides in 2005 were by use of a firearm, 30 per cent of homicide victims were stabbed to death, 22 per cent were beaten, and 7 per cent were strangled or suffocated," reports Statistics Canada's Homicide in Canada, 2005 survey. With Johnson determined to execute her ex-lover, and with plenty of options to choose from aside from her service sidearm, the availability of a firearm likely was not the determining factor in her decision to carry out her plan.
Gun crimes, however, capture the attention of the public in ways other attacks do not. In Vancouver in late May, for instance, 13-year-old Chris Poeun was stabbed to death in a brawl with other youngsters outside a science museum. The case attracted little attention, but the May 23 shooting of 15-year-old Jordan Manners at his high school, C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute in Toronto, filled headlines across the country, attracted thousands of mourners, and led to politicking by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Toronto Mayor David Miller as they capitalized on the public's fear and called for stricter gun control laws. "Let's call on governments to pass the laws to stop the guns from coming across the borders," Layton said, ignoring the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, which already outlaw gun smuggling.
Experts say that while it may be understandable for people to want to take action when a tragedy occurs, basing laws on isolated incidents is ultimately futile. At Montreal's Dawson College last year, for instance, Kimveer Gill wounded 19 individuals and killed 18-year- old Anastasia DeSousa during his September rampage. This past June 15, alongside DeSousa's parents, Quebec Premier Jean Charest introduced legislation dubbed "Anastasia's Law," banning firearms on public transport and in educational institutions--despite current laws mandating that firearms be kept in the dwelling of the owner.
"I think all of us who experienced the events of this tragedy close to a year ago, in the aftermath thought that there must be something positive that comes of this," Mr. Charest said. Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant was also on hand and simplistically quipped, "No gun, no gun crime; no gun, no tragedy."
But since very few killings actually take place at schools, restrictions on guns at educational institutions are more symbolic than substantive. Just two per cent of homicides in 2005 occurred in public institutions of any type, including high schools, hospitals and even prisons. In the words of Statistics Canada's 2005 homicide survey: "Similar to previous years, almost two-thirds (61 per cent) of homicide incidents in 2005 occurred in a private residence."
The primary culprits responsible for the public's heightened fear of shootings are the local media, says Barry Glassner, author of Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things. "They have this motto: 'If it bleeds, it leads.' So people have this perception that crime is going on all around them," says Glassner, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California. He also points to politicians who exploit fear of crime as an election issue, and to marketing agencies and companies that sell home and car alarms to the fearful.
If citizens feel unsafe, says criminology professor Gary Mauser of Simon Fraser University, it is wise to look at patterns among criminals themselves rather than only the weapons and methods they are using. "It's young men who are committing these crimes, groups of them," he says. By all accounts, the greatest trend in criminality has been the rise of gangs. In 1995, just 3.6 per cent of homicides were gang-related. In 2005, that number had multiplied to 16.3 per cent. Moreover, these were not accidents or crimes of passion but the "settling of accounts."
Additionally, random acts of violence in which normally law-abiding individuals, such as Johnson, just snap, are exceptionally rare. In 2005, for instance, almost two-thirds of adults accused of homicide had a previous Canadian criminal record. Among those adults with a criminal history, 62 per cent had a prior conviction for a violent offence, leading critics to suggest we need to return to a more traditional model of blame rooted in individual accountability.
Cultural patterns have also proven valuable in predicting violent crime. The 2006 Criminal Intelligence Service Canada annual report says that in Alberta, for example, "Most street gangs obtain illicit drugs from Asian criminal groups and outlaw motorcycle gangs." About Quebec it says, "There are approximately 50 established and emerging street gangs identified, most of which are ethnically homogenous, such as those of Caribbean or Hispanic composition."
According to Michael Chettleburgh, author of Young Thugs: Inside the Dangerous World of Canadian Street Gangs, 80 per cent of gangs in Canada are comprised of minority cultures. "Canada's immigration levels went from about 100,000 to 250,000 under Brian Mulroney, but we didn't have new social services to help the immigrants," says Chettleburgh, who wrote the 2002 Canadian Police Survey on Youth Gangs for the federal government. He says when immigrants are unable to integrate into Canadian society, their sons disproportionately choose to become involved in gangs. But when individuals publicly address concerns about cultural patterns among criminals, they are subjected to a torrent of abuse from the enforcers of political correctness. Gwyn Morgan, former president and CEO of EnCana, was rejected as head of a new review board for public appointments in June 2006 by the House of Commons government operations and estimates standing committee. NDP MP Peggy Nash moved to veto Morgan and justified it using a December 2005 speech Morgan had made that "raised highly controversial comments as he singled out the Jamaican and Chinese communities for [the] major increase in crime and gun violence in Toronto and Calgary."
In the speech, Morgan said "runaway violence [was] driven mainly by Jamaican immigrants in Toronto, or the all-too-frequent violence between Asian and other ethnic gangs right here in Calgary." But despite the data from the CISC affirming Morgan's statements, his concerns were brushed aside and labelled racist.
Morgan is blunt about the matter now. "Political correctness is a disease, and until we tackle that, we won't be able to tackle our other problems," he says. He adds that our sound-bite culture avoids any in-depth analysis of issues and leads to the pursuit of quick-fix solutions, instead of finding the roots of the problem: the choices of individuals.
Personal accountability, however, is unlikely to garner many headlines for politicians promoting a new law. And despite evidence identifying individual choices and actions as the true culprits in violent crime, it remains popular to fault circumstances, inanimate objects or inadequate laws. But one thing
^is clear: Kelly Johnson wasn't deterred by current laws when she chose to shoot David Lucio. More laws are unlikely to deter others like her.
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2652&start=0
Crimes and misconceptions
From the amount of violence on our streets, to who or what's to blame for it, Canadians have got the wrong idea
Jordan Michael Smith - July 30, 2007
In the dead of night this past June 6, David Lucio's van careened down Picton Street in downtown London, Ont., with the retired police superintendent dead at the wheel--shot in the head by a .40-calibre Glock pistol. The killer, police inspector Kelly Johnson, Lucio's mistress until their split the day before, sat in the passenger seat and followed up her grisly crime by turning the gun on herself as the van smashed into her condo building.
The violent drama quickly filled headlines, but what might seem like a clear case of cold-blooded murder was portrayed by police brass and the media as simply two deaths of equally tragic proportions. "They were both good people," said Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino, carefully adding that "[Johnson] had the respect of a lot of people." Another retired superintendent, Rick Gillespie, said he was sad "for what happened to the two of them."
But Lucio's father, Doug, is furious at the depiction of his son's killer as a victim, and he contacted London newspapers to make his voice heard, despite his desire for privacy. "She killed him," he raged. "She murdered him--premeditated. Nobody's discussing that." Normally, a killer doesn't receive the type of sympathy Johnson has gotten, says Heidi Illingworth, executive director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. "Maybe people think women can't do that sort of thing. We certainly see where [Lucio's] family is coming from," she says.
In the wake of Johnson's murder-suicide, the search for answers began with her job. A London Free Press news article held that police officers were ready culprits to commit suicide or violence, calling law enforcement a "high-pressure job that demands complete control." Dan Newman, a retired officer and mental health counsellor was quoted as saying, "If you write down the . . . characteristics that go with policing . . . it's not that illogical that there'd be suicide-homicides."
But data shows that police officers are actually less likely to commit suicide than civilians. Robert Loo, a retired clinical psychologist with the University of Lethbridge, found the number of suicides in the RCMP over 23 years to be less than half the average for civilian males. Similarly, "The Toronto Police Service has not had a suicide in more than 15 years," says Roger Dodson, manager of the Toronto Police Association's Employee and Family Assistance Program, despite facing the highest levels of gang activity in the country.
Richard Dolman, a researcher who has consulted with police forces in British Columbia, points out that suicides among officers are lower since "they have support systems for post-traumatic stresses," a factor Dodson agrees has made the difference in driving down suicides among Toronto police officers. Johnson had access to several different counselling services, and as a high-ranking officer, she undoubtedly knew about them, says Amanda Pfeffer, spokesperson for the London force. "We have a 24/7 critical stress management system--access to counselling services outside the force, totally paid for," she says. Still, the London Free Press instinctively called for counselling services to be improved alongside tougher psychological testing.
Inevitably, Johnson's weapon also faced public scrutiny. She wasn't supposed to be in possession of her gun when she shot Lucio, a fact that was highlighted repeatedly. "Johnson's police pistol, which she wasn't authorized to have, was found in the van," one story read. Another mentioned that the London police rely on the honour system with officers and their guns, implying that Johnson's crime could have been avoided had the force enacted stricter gun controls. In response to Lucio's family's demand for an inquest, London police Chief Murray Faulkner resorted to scapegoating the weapon, and is letting an outside agency examine department procedure regarding off-duty access to guns.
However, statistics suggest that any gun control measures are unlikely to make any serious dents in crime. Guns, for starters, are not the weapons of choice for a majority of murderers. "While a third of the homicides in 2005 were by use of a firearm, 30 per cent of homicide victims were stabbed to death, 22 per cent were beaten, and 7 per cent were strangled or suffocated," reports Statistics Canada's Homicide in Canada, 2005 survey. With Johnson determined to execute her ex-lover, and with plenty of options to choose from aside from her service sidearm, the availability of a firearm likely was not the determining factor in her decision to carry out her plan.
Gun crimes, however, capture the attention of the public in ways other attacks do not. In Vancouver in late May, for instance, 13-year-old Chris Poeun was stabbed to death in a brawl with other youngsters outside a science museum. The case attracted little attention, but the May 23 shooting of 15-year-old Jordan Manners at his high school, C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute in Toronto, filled headlines across the country, attracted thousands of mourners, and led to politicking by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Toronto Mayor David Miller as they capitalized on the public's fear and called for stricter gun control laws. "Let's call on governments to pass the laws to stop the guns from coming across the borders," Layton said, ignoring the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, which already outlaw gun smuggling.
Experts say that while it may be understandable for people to want to take action when a tragedy occurs, basing laws on isolated incidents is ultimately futile. At Montreal's Dawson College last year, for instance, Kimveer Gill wounded 19 individuals and killed 18-year- old Anastasia DeSousa during his September rampage. This past June 15, alongside DeSousa's parents, Quebec Premier Jean Charest introduced legislation dubbed "Anastasia's Law," banning firearms on public transport and in educational institutions--despite current laws mandating that firearms be kept in the dwelling of the owner.
"I think all of us who experienced the events of this tragedy close to a year ago, in the aftermath thought that there must be something positive that comes of this," Mr. Charest said. Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant was also on hand and simplistically quipped, "No gun, no gun crime; no gun, no tragedy."
But since very few killings actually take place at schools, restrictions on guns at educational institutions are more symbolic than substantive. Just two per cent of homicides in 2005 occurred in public institutions of any type, including high schools, hospitals and even prisons. In the words of Statistics Canada's 2005 homicide survey: "Similar to previous years, almost two-thirds (61 per cent) of homicide incidents in 2005 occurred in a private residence."
The primary culprits responsible for the public's heightened fear of shootings are the local media, says Barry Glassner, author of Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things. "They have this motto: 'If it bleeds, it leads.' So people have this perception that crime is going on all around them," says Glassner, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California. He also points to politicians who exploit fear of crime as an election issue, and to marketing agencies and companies that sell home and car alarms to the fearful.
If citizens feel unsafe, says criminology professor Gary Mauser of Simon Fraser University, it is wise to look at patterns among criminals themselves rather than only the weapons and methods they are using. "It's young men who are committing these crimes, groups of them," he says. By all accounts, the greatest trend in criminality has been the rise of gangs. In 1995, just 3.6 per cent of homicides were gang-related. In 2005, that number had multiplied to 16.3 per cent. Moreover, these were not accidents or crimes of passion but the "settling of accounts."
Additionally, random acts of violence in which normally law-abiding individuals, such as Johnson, just snap, are exceptionally rare. In 2005, for instance, almost two-thirds of adults accused of homicide had a previous Canadian criminal record. Among those adults with a criminal history, 62 per cent had a prior conviction for a violent offence, leading critics to suggest we need to return to a more traditional model of blame rooted in individual accountability.
Cultural patterns have also proven valuable in predicting violent crime. The 2006 Criminal Intelligence Service Canada annual report says that in Alberta, for example, "Most street gangs obtain illicit drugs from Asian criminal groups and outlaw motorcycle gangs." About Quebec it says, "There are approximately 50 established and emerging street gangs identified, most of which are ethnically homogenous, such as those of Caribbean or Hispanic composition."
According to Michael Chettleburgh, author of Young Thugs: Inside the Dangerous World of Canadian Street Gangs, 80 per cent of gangs in Canada are comprised of minority cultures. "Canada's immigration levels went from about 100,000 to 250,000 under Brian Mulroney, but we didn't have new social services to help the immigrants," says Chettleburgh, who wrote the 2002 Canadian Police Survey on Youth Gangs for the federal government. He says when immigrants are unable to integrate into Canadian society, their sons disproportionately choose to become involved in gangs. But when individuals publicly address concerns about cultural patterns among criminals, they are subjected to a torrent of abuse from the enforcers of political correctness. Gwyn Morgan, former president and CEO of EnCana, was rejected as head of a new review board for public appointments in June 2006 by the House of Commons government operations and estimates standing committee. NDP MP Peggy Nash moved to veto Morgan and justified it using a December 2005 speech Morgan had made that "raised highly controversial comments as he singled out the Jamaican and Chinese communities for [the] major increase in crime and gun violence in Toronto and Calgary."
In the speech, Morgan said "runaway violence [was] driven mainly by Jamaican immigrants in Toronto, or the all-too-frequent violence between Asian and other ethnic gangs right here in Calgary." But despite the data from the CISC affirming Morgan's statements, his concerns were brushed aside and labelled racist.
Morgan is blunt about the matter now. "Political correctness is a disease, and until we tackle that, we won't be able to tackle our other problems," he says. He adds that our sound-bite culture avoids any in-depth analysis of issues and leads to the pursuit of quick-fix solutions, instead of finding the roots of the problem: the choices of individuals.
Personal accountability, however, is unlikely to garner many headlines for politicians promoting a new law. And despite evidence identifying individual choices and actions as the true culprits in violent crime, it remains popular to fault circumstances, inanimate objects or inadequate laws. But one thing
^is clear: Kelly Johnson wasn't deterred by current laws when she chose to shoot David Lucio. More laws are unlikely to deter others like her.
Moslems and Criminals
Two posts to ping off from BJ.
Weakness only inspires your enemy or criminals.
Playing 'nice' does not prevent anything. See below.
Also the uproar over the number of people in US prisons is short sighted. Only a distinct group of any society are criminals. When they are no longer circulating in a given society, crime will fall. It takes criminals to commit crime.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2490
Sweden Learns That Appeasement Doesn’t Pay
From the desk of Fjordman on Wed, 2007-09-19 23:22
While the largest political party in Sweden, the Social Democrats, are launching a formal cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood for the mutual benefit of both (Muslims predominantly vote for Leftist parties) Muslims are openly threatening the life of cartoonist Lars Vilks ("Let his destiny be a lesson to others," as one Muslim preacher warned during a free speech seminar in Stockholm organized by humanists and ex-Muslims).
Islamists are pushish for a boycott of Swedish firms. Websites run by militant Islamists have listed the names of over 100 Swedish companies as possible targets in the ongoing row surrounding the publication in Swedish newspapers of Vilks’ caricatures of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Detailing the addresses, maps and logos of Swedish businesses, the websites called for their readers to boycott these firms and "take revenge" on Sweden for the publication of the controversial cartoon.
It should be mentioned here that when Britain, Israel, the United States or any other country gets attacked by Muslims, this is always blamed by the media on past colonial history, occupation, aggressive foreign policy etc. Well, Sweden doesn't have a colonial history, its political establishment is among the most anti-Israeli in Europe and Swedish media have always been critical of US policies. Muslim immigration to the country has created the worst rape wave in Scandinavian history (which was indirectly blamed on global warming by the nation's largest newspaper some weeks ago), and the authorities have more or less abandoned their third largest city, Malmö, to Muslim gangs.
In short: It is hardly humanly possible to appease and grovel for Muslims more than Sweden has done, yet for some strange reason, Muslims don't get less aggressive because of this. On the contrary. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere?
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2487
Crime Rates Up in Britain, Down in Romania
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Wed, 2007-09-19 19:48
A quote from The Daily Mail, 19 September 2007
The influx of Romanian migrants has led to an explosion in crime in this country, it emerged last night. As recent members of the EU, Romanians have had free access to Britain only since January 1. Yet in the first six months of this year, police say, they were responsible for 1,080 offences. Police believe some migrants from Romania are running organised criminal gangs. During the same period in 2006, only 135 such crimes were recorded. In an ironic twist Romanian authorities say crime there is dropping, fuelling suspicions that some offenders may have moved here. […]
Stan Bitlan, head of the police force in Ialomita County, Romania, said: “Yes there is a connection between what is happening here and the UK. What they are doing in the UK appears here in Romania in the form of luxury cars and houses.” […] Vasile Save, the mayor of Tandarei – a town that has seen 800 inhabitants leave in the first six months of this year – admits there is less crime in the area. […]
The leaked Home Office memo said an estimated 45,000 potential criminals from Romania and Bulgaria – which also joined in January this year – would travel to Britain following EU expansion. […] Previously, they could be identified and barred from entering Britain through the checks required to obtain a visa. As EU citizens, however, the only requirement is to produce a valid passport on entry – making them harder to spot.
Another quote from The Daily Mail, 19 September 2007
A Chief constable has ignited a new race debate in Britain by warning that more police officers are needed to deal with traffic offences and crimes such as prostitution caused by an influx of East European migrants. Cambridgeshire chief constable Julie Spence says the increase in migrants has left her force struggling to cope […] “We now deal with people from many different countries, speaking more than 90 different languages. While the economic benefits of growth are clear we need to maintain the basic public services infrastructure which means increasing the number of officers we have.”
“When they arrive they think they can do the same thing as in the country they have come from,” she told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “There were a lot of people who... because they used to carry knives for protection, they think they can carry knives here.” […] Migrants got into difficulties because they were unfamiliar with traffic laws, but police had also noticed a growth in prostitution, driven by the influx of large numbers of single men.
Weakness only inspires your enemy or criminals.
Playing 'nice' does not prevent anything. See below.
Also the uproar over the number of people in US prisons is short sighted. Only a distinct group of any society are criminals. When they are no longer circulating in a given society, crime will fall. It takes criminals to commit crime.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2490
Sweden Learns That Appeasement Doesn’t Pay
From the desk of Fjordman on Wed, 2007-09-19 23:22
While the largest political party in Sweden, the Social Democrats, are launching a formal cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood for the mutual benefit of both (Muslims predominantly vote for Leftist parties) Muslims are openly threatening the life of cartoonist Lars Vilks ("Let his destiny be a lesson to others," as one Muslim preacher warned during a free speech seminar in Stockholm organized by humanists and ex-Muslims).
Islamists are pushish for a boycott of Swedish firms. Websites run by militant Islamists have listed the names of over 100 Swedish companies as possible targets in the ongoing row surrounding the publication in Swedish newspapers of Vilks’ caricatures of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Detailing the addresses, maps and logos of Swedish businesses, the websites called for their readers to boycott these firms and "take revenge" on Sweden for the publication of the controversial cartoon.
It should be mentioned here that when Britain, Israel, the United States or any other country gets attacked by Muslims, this is always blamed by the media on past colonial history, occupation, aggressive foreign policy etc. Well, Sweden doesn't have a colonial history, its political establishment is among the most anti-Israeli in Europe and Swedish media have always been critical of US policies. Muslim immigration to the country has created the worst rape wave in Scandinavian history (which was indirectly blamed on global warming by the nation's largest newspaper some weeks ago), and the authorities have more or less abandoned their third largest city, Malmö, to Muslim gangs.
In short: It is hardly humanly possible to appease and grovel for Muslims more than Sweden has done, yet for some strange reason, Muslims don't get less aggressive because of this. On the contrary. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere?
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2487
Crime Rates Up in Britain, Down in Romania
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Wed, 2007-09-19 19:48
A quote from The Daily Mail, 19 September 2007
The influx of Romanian migrants has led to an explosion in crime in this country, it emerged last night. As recent members of the EU, Romanians have had free access to Britain only since January 1. Yet in the first six months of this year, police say, they were responsible for 1,080 offences. Police believe some migrants from Romania are running organised criminal gangs. During the same period in 2006, only 135 such crimes were recorded. In an ironic twist Romanian authorities say crime there is dropping, fuelling suspicions that some offenders may have moved here. […]
Stan Bitlan, head of the police force in Ialomita County, Romania, said: “Yes there is a connection between what is happening here and the UK. What they are doing in the UK appears here in Romania in the form of luxury cars and houses.” […] Vasile Save, the mayor of Tandarei – a town that has seen 800 inhabitants leave in the first six months of this year – admits there is less crime in the area. […]
The leaked Home Office memo said an estimated 45,000 potential criminals from Romania and Bulgaria – which also joined in January this year – would travel to Britain following EU expansion. […] Previously, they could be identified and barred from entering Britain through the checks required to obtain a visa. As EU citizens, however, the only requirement is to produce a valid passport on entry – making them harder to spot.
Another quote from The Daily Mail, 19 September 2007
A Chief constable has ignited a new race debate in Britain by warning that more police officers are needed to deal with traffic offences and crimes such as prostitution caused by an influx of East European migrants. Cambridgeshire chief constable Julie Spence says the increase in migrants has left her force struggling to cope […] “We now deal with people from many different countries, speaking more than 90 different languages. While the economic benefits of growth are clear we need to maintain the basic public services infrastructure which means increasing the number of officers we have.”
“When they arrive they think they can do the same thing as in the country they have come from,” she told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “There were a lot of people who... because they used to carry knives for protection, they think they can carry knives here.” […] Migrants got into difficulties because they were unfamiliar with traffic laws, but police had also noticed a growth in prostitution, driven by the influx of large numbers of single men.
ADT.... Security adverts......
So everyone has seen the adverts on TV about some thug breaking onto a house, then ADT phones in to say the police have been notified while the noisy alarm scares the perp away.
Real world, maybe. The Norskcafe's are well armed, so someone breaks in and or attempts assault will be severely injured by sudden lead/copper poisoning.
more on this later.
Real world, maybe. The Norskcafe's are well armed, so someone breaks in and or attempts assault will be severely injured by sudden lead/copper poisoning.
Original Anti-War
"No-one likes WAR!, War's are expensive and your countrymen get killed"
By some former Soviet official in Georgia or somewhere in the Caucuses, not sure who. I didn't come up with it though.
Well derr, no one likes war mostly, but the choice not to war can have even worse consequences. Cowboy up, life is not fair.
By some former Soviet official in Georgia or somewhere in the Caucuses, not sure who. I didn't come up with it though.
Well derr, no one likes war mostly, but the choice not to war can have even worse consequences. Cowboy up, life is not fair.
Contrasting Western Women
Who looks more free to decide??
Everyone but is a female except a single boy in the second photo.
Which culture treats woman better??
US Army or Climbing mag photo credits.
Everyone but is a female except a single boy in the second photo.
Which culture treats woman better??
US Army or Climbing mag photo credits.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Dixie chicks
I actually like their first CD. I think Rush is to be credited for this. They aparently hated the "Sadam's Angles" part.
Tolerance and Diversity
Sure they are lofty goals(tolerance and diversity).
It works well within the same culture, but does not work well across cultures or religions either.
The barbaric culture stuck in the past that still practices "honor" killings" sees "T and D" as a weakness.
Pinging off a comment of Ralph Peters (I think it was he).....
Europe has only been peaceful for the past 60 years( largely by the presence of the finest fighting force in history, of the finest country in history) they can certainly revert back to their pre 1945 ways.
Europe will start by a spark, like the assassination of Frans Ferdinand. We'll see how it goes from there.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2475
Norway: The Country of Peace Meets the Religion of Peace
From the desk of Fjordman on Tue, 2007-09-18 11:55
Norwegian police have discovered that a large number of Pakistani taxi drivers, many of whom have already been charged with tax evasion in one of the worst cases of welfare fraud in the nation's history, have close contact with Pakistani gangs and operate as couriers of arms and drugs. In the city of Oslo it is documented that criminal Pakistani gangs also have close ties to Jihadist groups at home and abroad. This despite the fact that Norway, a nation of peace and home to the Nobel Peace Prize, should presumably get along just fine with Islam, which is, as we all know, a religion of peace.
Minister Bjarne Håkon Hanssen from the Labour Party has called for increased immigration from Pakistan because this would be good for the economy. The majority of Muslims voted for the Labour Party in the 2005 elections, which the left-wing coalition won by a very slim margin. Eighty-three percent of Muslims voted for Leftist parties, just as all over Western Europe. Kristin Halvorsen, the leader of the Socialist Left Party, began her election campaign in 2005 in the Pakistani countryside, praising all the "blood, sweat and tears Pakistanis in Norway have spent on building the country." She is now Norway's Minister of Finance.
In 2007, Minister of Justice Knut Storberget said that the Norwegian Constitution Day, May 17th, is for "everybody," and that it's appropriate to demonstrate this by displaying a multitude of flags and cultures. It is now permitted to celebrate it by waving the flag of the United Nations. The editor of a Multicultural newspaper has suggested that the Norwegian national anthem should be translated to Urdu because this would be good for integration. Norwegians are supposed to celebrate their independence by singing their national anthem in Urdu, by wearing the national costume of Ghana and by waving the flag of the UN, an organization that is actively trying to curtail their freedoms and subvert their independence. This would be the equivalent of Americans celebrating the Fourth of July by waving the UN flag and by singing the Star-Spangled Banner in Arabic.
Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre from the Labour Party participated in a conference with participants from dozens of countries and media outlets on how to "report diversity" in a non-offensive manner, with Arab News from Saudi Arabia as a moderator. The Cartoon Jihad the year before had prompted Indonesia and Norway to join forces and promote a Global Inter-Media Dialogue. In June 2007 this was held in Oslo.
The UN Special Envoy for monitoring of racism and xenophobia, Doudou Diène, started the conference by asking the press to actively help to create a Multicultural society. He expressed concern that democratic processes can lead to immigration-limiting political parties coming to power. He claimed that it marked a dangerous trend that still more intellectuals and academicians in the western world thinks that some cultures or religions are better than others, and stated that "The media must transform diversity, which is a fact of life, into pluralism, which is a set of values." Getting diversity accepted is the role of the education system, and acceptance is the role of the law, Doudou Diène said. "Promoting and defending diversity is the task of the media." Societies must recognize, accept and then defend and promote diversity, which always seems to mean sharia. Mr. Diène represents Senegal, a predominantly Muslim country which is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations.
According to journalist Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, this conference is yet another sign that Europe is moving in the direction of totalitarianism. Anfindsen thinks "there are already clear signs that large portions of mainstream media in Norway have been working according to UN instructions" long before his conference. In Britain, leading figures of the BBC have proudly announced that they actively promote Multiculturalism. They don't even need the UN to tell them that. Bruce Bawer, author of the book While Europe Slept, devotes much space to the bias of European media, and justifiably so. Norwegian PM from the Labor Party Jens Stoltenberg has stated that journalistic diversity is too important to be left up to the marketplace.
One Muslim in Norway stated that: "I worked in a Pakistani shop, but all of the work there is 'unofficial.' Neither the boss nor I pay taxes to Norwegian authorities. In addition to this, I receive 100% disability benefits and welfare. I have to be cunning to make as much money as possible, since this is my only objective with being in Norway." Undoubtedly, many Muslims view welfare money from the infidels as Jizya, the poll-tax non-Muslims according to the Koran are supposed to pay to Muslims as tribute and a sign of their inferior status and submission to Islamic rule. According to Statistics Norway, immigrants generally have a three times higher unemployment rate than native Norwegians. It should be noted that non-Muslim Asians are much more successful, which means that the unemployment rate among Muslims is even higher than 300 % that of the natives. The number of Muslims in Norway has quadrupled over the past 15 years. The number of immigrants in Oslo increased by 40 percent in just five years, from 2002 to 2007. With current trends remaining unchanged, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own country within a few decades.
The number of rapes in the Norwegian capital is six times as high per capita as in New York City, and it is well documented that certain immigrant groups are grossly overrepresented on the statistics. Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, has said that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it." The number of rapes has continued to rise year by year, as it has in neighboring Sweden, but according to Trond Giske, Minister of Culture and Church Affairs from the Labour Party, 2008 will be an official Diversity Year (which it also will be throughout the EU), dedicated to celebrating Multiculturalism and "cultural diversity" in all sectors of society, so hopefully this will change.
Thomas Hylland Eriksen, professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, heads a multi-million project sponsored by the Norwegian state trying to envision how the new Multicultural society will work. He lives, according to himself, in a boring, monocultural part of the city, insulated from the effects of cultural diversity. Zorica Mitic, a Serbian doctor from the former Yugoslavia where a Multicultural society recently collapsed in a horrific civil war, warned against the effects of unchecked mass immigration. Mr. Eriksen, a career Multiculturalist and intellectual celebrity in his country, responded by chastising her for her "lack of visions."
A shoot-out between two Pakistani gangs one crowded Sunday evening at Oslo's popular waterfront complex Aker Brygge left two men wounded. Newspaper VG reported that a policeman had to run for his life from an angry crowd of Pakistanis. The plainclothes policeman was hit in the face and told to leave the Furuset shopping center. He was told that it was none of his business being in this area, and that a gang of young men had basically defined Furuset as their turf and didn't accept "intruders." Norwegian authorities have thus already lost control over significant chunks of their own capital city. Peaceful rallies denouncing Islamic terrorism or supporting Israel have repeatedly been physically attacked by groups of Muslim immigrants. Bruce Bawer, author of the book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, describes how there are now more direct flights from Norway to Pakistan than from Norway to the USA.
Thorbjørn Jagland is a former Prime Minister of Norway from the Labour Party, currently President of the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament. In April 2006, Jagland wrote an essay warning against the dangers of Islamophobia. According to him, paraphrasing the Communist Manifesto, a specter is haunting Europe – the spectre of Islamophobia. He fears that this could give rise to a new form of Fascism. Curiously, at almost the same time as Mr. Jagland warned against rising "Islamophobia," an article in Aftenposten newspaper warned that "youths" are in the process of destroying Norway's capital city, Oslo. Young girls are raped, schoolchildren are threatened with death, robbed and assaulted. The police warned against "an alarming rise in street violence" in urban areas across the country.
The response of the authorities has been to increase crackdowns on "racism" by the natives. In 2005 the Norwegian parliament – with the support of 85% of MPs – passed a new Discrimination Act, prepared by then Minister of Integration from the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg, who had earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in Norway. A spokesman for the right-wing Progress Party, Per Sandberg, feared that the law would jeopardize the rights of law-abiding citizens. Reverse burden of proof is combined with liability to pay compensation, which means that innocent persons risk having to pay huge sums for things they didn't do. If a Muslim immigrant claims that a native has somehow discriminated against him or made a discriminatory remark, the native non-Muslim has to mount proof of his own innocence. I have later discovered that similar laws have been passed across much of Western Europe, encouraged by the EU.
There was absolutely no public debate about this law, which was passed in relative silence before the national elections that year. I was the first one to criticize it at my blog. The only journalist to criticize it was an American ex-pat, Bruce Bawer, and Hans Rustad at Document.no, the country's largest independent weblog. Not a single Norwegian journalist criticized the proposed law, and most barely mentioned it at all before it was passed.
The Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud Beate Gangås, a white, lesbian feminist, before the municipal elections in 2007 warned all political parties against making "discriminatory" remarks about immigration policies, but also called for actively reducing the number of white, heterosexual men in politics. There was little real debate about immigration in the heavily left-leaning media that year, but an all the more passionate with hunt looking for racists, and by that I mean whites only. The left-wing coalition government, after a meeting with immigrant organizations, announced that racists, apparently meaning white natives only, should be "smoked out" of all public sector jobs.
Following the release of a UN population report which indicated a global population increase of several billion people over the coming decades, Marie Simonsen, the political editor of Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote that it should be considered a universal human right for people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. This would mean virtually certain annihilation for a tiny, wealthy and naive Scandinavian nation. Ms. Simonsen thus endorsed the gradual enslavement and eventual eradication of her own people, no doubt congratulating herself for her own tolerance. Not a single word of protest was voiced by any other journalist to this statement. Human rights was a concept originally intended to ensure liberty. Now it's used to eradicate an entire people, or a large number of peoples across Europe, in the name of tolerance and diversity, and the natives are specifically banned from protesting against this.
It works well within the same culture, but does not work well across cultures or religions either.
The barbaric culture stuck in the past that still practices "honor" killings" sees "T and D" as a weakness.
Pinging off a comment of Ralph Peters (I think it was he).....
Europe has only been peaceful for the past 60 years( largely by the presence of the finest fighting force in history, of the finest country in history) they can certainly revert back to their pre 1945 ways.
Europe will start by a spark, like the assassination of Frans Ferdinand. We'll see how it goes from there.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2475
Norway: The Country of Peace Meets the Religion of Peace
From the desk of Fjordman on Tue, 2007-09-18 11:55
Norwegian police have discovered that a large number of Pakistani taxi drivers, many of whom have already been charged with tax evasion in one of the worst cases of welfare fraud in the nation's history, have close contact with Pakistani gangs and operate as couriers of arms and drugs. In the city of Oslo it is documented that criminal Pakistani gangs also have close ties to Jihadist groups at home and abroad. This despite the fact that Norway, a nation of peace and home to the Nobel Peace Prize, should presumably get along just fine with Islam, which is, as we all know, a religion of peace.
Minister Bjarne Håkon Hanssen from the Labour Party has called for increased immigration from Pakistan because this would be good for the economy. The majority of Muslims voted for the Labour Party in the 2005 elections, which the left-wing coalition won by a very slim margin. Eighty-three percent of Muslims voted for Leftist parties, just as all over Western Europe. Kristin Halvorsen, the leader of the Socialist Left Party, began her election campaign in 2005 in the Pakistani countryside, praising all the "blood, sweat and tears Pakistanis in Norway have spent on building the country." She is now Norway's Minister of Finance.
In 2007, Minister of Justice Knut Storberget said that the Norwegian Constitution Day, May 17th, is for "everybody," and that it's appropriate to demonstrate this by displaying a multitude of flags and cultures. It is now permitted to celebrate it by waving the flag of the United Nations. The editor of a Multicultural newspaper has suggested that the Norwegian national anthem should be translated to Urdu because this would be good for integration. Norwegians are supposed to celebrate their independence by singing their national anthem in Urdu, by wearing the national costume of Ghana and by waving the flag of the UN, an organization that is actively trying to curtail their freedoms and subvert their independence. This would be the equivalent of Americans celebrating the Fourth of July by waving the UN flag and by singing the Star-Spangled Banner in Arabic.
Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre from the Labour Party participated in a conference with participants from dozens of countries and media outlets on how to "report diversity" in a non-offensive manner, with Arab News from Saudi Arabia as a moderator. The Cartoon Jihad the year before had prompted Indonesia and Norway to join forces and promote a Global Inter-Media Dialogue. In June 2007 this was held in Oslo.
The UN Special Envoy for monitoring of racism and xenophobia, Doudou Diène, started the conference by asking the press to actively help to create a Multicultural society. He expressed concern that democratic processes can lead to immigration-limiting political parties coming to power. He claimed that it marked a dangerous trend that still more intellectuals and academicians in the western world thinks that some cultures or religions are better than others, and stated that "The media must transform diversity, which is a fact of life, into pluralism, which is a set of values." Getting diversity accepted is the role of the education system, and acceptance is the role of the law, Doudou Diène said. "Promoting and defending diversity is the task of the media." Societies must recognize, accept and then defend and promote diversity, which always seems to mean sharia. Mr. Diène represents Senegal, a predominantly Muslim country which is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations.
According to journalist Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, this conference is yet another sign that Europe is moving in the direction of totalitarianism. Anfindsen thinks "there are already clear signs that large portions of mainstream media in Norway have been working according to UN instructions" long before his conference. In Britain, leading figures of the BBC have proudly announced that they actively promote Multiculturalism. They don't even need the UN to tell them that. Bruce Bawer, author of the book While Europe Slept, devotes much space to the bias of European media, and justifiably so. Norwegian PM from the Labor Party Jens Stoltenberg has stated that journalistic diversity is too important to be left up to the marketplace.
One Muslim in Norway stated that: "I worked in a Pakistani shop, but all of the work there is 'unofficial.' Neither the boss nor I pay taxes to Norwegian authorities. In addition to this, I receive 100% disability benefits and welfare. I have to be cunning to make as much money as possible, since this is my only objective with being in Norway." Undoubtedly, many Muslims view welfare money from the infidels as Jizya, the poll-tax non-Muslims according to the Koran are supposed to pay to Muslims as tribute and a sign of their inferior status and submission to Islamic rule. According to Statistics Norway, immigrants generally have a three times higher unemployment rate than native Norwegians. It should be noted that non-Muslim Asians are much more successful, which means that the unemployment rate among Muslims is even higher than 300 % that of the natives. The number of Muslims in Norway has quadrupled over the past 15 years. The number of immigrants in Oslo increased by 40 percent in just five years, from 2002 to 2007. With current trends remaining unchanged, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own country within a few decades.
The number of rapes in the Norwegian capital is six times as high per capita as in New York City, and it is well documented that certain immigrant groups are grossly overrepresented on the statistics. Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, has said that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it." The number of rapes has continued to rise year by year, as it has in neighboring Sweden, but according to Trond Giske, Minister of Culture and Church Affairs from the Labour Party, 2008 will be an official Diversity Year (which it also will be throughout the EU), dedicated to celebrating Multiculturalism and "cultural diversity" in all sectors of society, so hopefully this will change.
Thomas Hylland Eriksen, professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, heads a multi-million project sponsored by the Norwegian state trying to envision how the new Multicultural society will work. He lives, according to himself, in a boring, monocultural part of the city, insulated from the effects of cultural diversity. Zorica Mitic, a Serbian doctor from the former Yugoslavia where a Multicultural society recently collapsed in a horrific civil war, warned against the effects of unchecked mass immigration. Mr. Eriksen, a career Multiculturalist and intellectual celebrity in his country, responded by chastising her for her "lack of visions."
A shoot-out between two Pakistani gangs one crowded Sunday evening at Oslo's popular waterfront complex Aker Brygge left two men wounded. Newspaper VG reported that a policeman had to run for his life from an angry crowd of Pakistanis. The plainclothes policeman was hit in the face and told to leave the Furuset shopping center. He was told that it was none of his business being in this area, and that a gang of young men had basically defined Furuset as their turf and didn't accept "intruders." Norwegian authorities have thus already lost control over significant chunks of their own capital city. Peaceful rallies denouncing Islamic terrorism or supporting Israel have repeatedly been physically attacked by groups of Muslim immigrants. Bruce Bawer, author of the book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, describes how there are now more direct flights from Norway to Pakistan than from Norway to the USA.
Thorbjørn Jagland is a former Prime Minister of Norway from the Labour Party, currently President of the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament. In April 2006, Jagland wrote an essay warning against the dangers of Islamophobia. According to him, paraphrasing the Communist Manifesto, a specter is haunting Europe – the spectre of Islamophobia. He fears that this could give rise to a new form of Fascism. Curiously, at almost the same time as Mr. Jagland warned against rising "Islamophobia," an article in Aftenposten newspaper warned that "youths" are in the process of destroying Norway's capital city, Oslo. Young girls are raped, schoolchildren are threatened with death, robbed and assaulted. The police warned against "an alarming rise in street violence" in urban areas across the country.
The response of the authorities has been to increase crackdowns on "racism" by the natives. In 2005 the Norwegian parliament – with the support of 85% of MPs – passed a new Discrimination Act, prepared by then Minister of Integration from the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg, who had earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in Norway. A spokesman for the right-wing Progress Party, Per Sandberg, feared that the law would jeopardize the rights of law-abiding citizens. Reverse burden of proof is combined with liability to pay compensation, which means that innocent persons risk having to pay huge sums for things they didn't do. If a Muslim immigrant claims that a native has somehow discriminated against him or made a discriminatory remark, the native non-Muslim has to mount proof of his own innocence. I have later discovered that similar laws have been passed across much of Western Europe, encouraged by the EU.
There was absolutely no public debate about this law, which was passed in relative silence before the national elections that year. I was the first one to criticize it at my blog. The only journalist to criticize it was an American ex-pat, Bruce Bawer, and Hans Rustad at Document.no, the country's largest independent weblog. Not a single Norwegian journalist criticized the proposed law, and most barely mentioned it at all before it was passed.
The Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud Beate Gangås, a white, lesbian feminist, before the municipal elections in 2007 warned all political parties against making "discriminatory" remarks about immigration policies, but also called for actively reducing the number of white, heterosexual men in politics. There was little real debate about immigration in the heavily left-leaning media that year, but an all the more passionate with hunt looking for racists, and by that I mean whites only. The left-wing coalition government, after a meeting with immigrant organizations, announced that racists, apparently meaning white natives only, should be "smoked out" of all public sector jobs.
Following the release of a UN population report which indicated a global population increase of several billion people over the coming decades, Marie Simonsen, the political editor of Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote that it should be considered a universal human right for people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. This would mean virtually certain annihilation for a tiny, wealthy and naive Scandinavian nation. Ms. Simonsen thus endorsed the gradual enslavement and eventual eradication of her own people, no doubt congratulating herself for her own tolerance. Not a single word of protest was voiced by any other journalist to this statement. Human rights was a concept originally intended to ensure liberty. Now it's used to eradicate an entire people, or a large number of peoples across Europe, in the name of tolerance and diversity, and the natives are specifically banned from protesting against this.
Insular muslims
Note: re-occurring theme here at Norskcafe.
Culture matters, which is why Europe is split into many different counties based upon historical cultural/linguistic traits.
Humans want to be part of a "tribe" of the same type of folks that have things in common, not be part of a group that each sub faction is at each others throats.
So our Mohammedan friends don't want to be a part of our society, but want all the benefits.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/brussels-is-time-bomb.html#readfurther
Monday, September 17, 2007
“Brussels is a Time Bomb”
by Baron Bodissey
After the events last week in Schuman Square, it’s instructive to take a look at another aspect of Brussels: its Muslim community.
Arthur Van Amerongen is an Arabic-speaking Dutch journalist who spent a year incognito in the Muslim community in Brussels. He will soon publish a book about his experiences called Brussels Eurabia.
Most of the Muslims in Brussels are Moroccans, and Mr. Van Amerongen describes the expatriate Moroccans in Belgium as extremely hateful of Belgium and its culture. They live apart, as an entirely separate community, and do not consider themselves Belgians.Mr. Van Amerongen was interviewed on Belgian television, and the blog Covenant Zone has posted an English translation. Some excerpts are included below.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Q:
Arthur, you write in your book: “Brussels is a time bomb, there will certainly be an attack.” Isn’t this a little exaggerated?
A:
No, listen, it’s an enumeration; look at what happened in England: doctors orginally from India or Pakistan who commit an attempt… if you look at what has happened in 7 years: the Trabelsi affair, the attack on the Philips building… all foiled by your intelligence services. If we only look at the reports, I am certain that [an attack] will happen.
Q:
For you these are the clues that this will happen?
A:
No, no no. I infiltrated the Muslim community of Molenbeek and Marolles for one year. These folks want nothing to do with Belgium, they hate the Belgians.
Q:
What do you base that on?
A:
I was among them, I speak Arabic. They hate the Belgians, they have nothing to do with Belgians, nothing, nothing.
Q:
But can you… are you talking about the Moroccan community, the entire Brussels Muslim community?
A:
No, the Moroccans with their beards, their half pants and their bare feet in their shoes… no, it is a very dangerous community. It’s a time bomb.- - - - - - - - - - - -
[…]
Q:
Yes, but… okay, you say “the Muslim 25%” in Brussels… Are they all dangerous? Come on.
A:
No, but if 1% of them are dangerous, you are up the creek…
[…]
Q:
Yes, but you just said… that the Moroccans that live here in Brussels do not want to have anything do do with Belgium, with Brussels…
A:
No.
Q:
… that they hate us.
A:
They want a Caliphate; quite simply they want a government that directs the Umma from Baghdad to England. It’s what they want.
Q:
These people are therefore free… free to do what they want here?
A:
That, you should report to the police. I mean… Go take a walk through the bookstores at Lemonnier… Look at the hate pouring out of there, against the jews, against the christians, against the shias… It’s there freely for sale, in french and in arabic. Euh, sorry! All this is possible in Belgium… One can also easily purchase arms…
[…]
Q:
…But how did you get the idea to infiltrate, to dive into the Muslim world?
A:
Because Muriel Delgauque, who comes from Charleroi, went and blew herself up…
Q:
In Baghdad…
A:
… in 2004 if I am not mistaken.
Q:
Yes, in Iraq.
A:
She had a Moroccan friend, who came from Molenbeek, and was the first “white” martyr from Belgium. Belgium had the honor of having the first “white” martyr for Al Qaeda.
Q:
You speak of this woman who blew herself up, who committed a suicide-attack in Iraq. This is what triggered in your head, what decided you to want to do something, try to understand?
A:
Yes, I then said to myself: “How is it that a girl from Charleroi had gotten to such a point where she decided to go to Bagdad with her crummy car and blow herself up? It’s absurd. This girl drank, with her friends, she did drugs, she smoked joints…
Q:
Did you find the answer to your question?
A:
No.
[…]
Q:
In an interview you gave with Knack [magazine], you said that you had some disagreeable experiences with some Moroccans…
A:
I was robbed, yes. In a horrifying manner.
Q:
You were the victim of robbery, you and your wife were insulted in the street… Is this all related?
A:
Of course. I walk down Haute street, the “Hoogstraat” as you say. Okay, I’m walking there, with my girl friend, who was dressed in a manner a little sexy — which means, for Moroccans, that she was wearing a t-shirt. And they were saying in arabic: “dirty whore! Dirty whore!” Kahda — a very ugly word. Ok, I go on my way, I turn around and say :”your sister!” Not even “Your mother!”, which would be even more serious. I received a blow to the back, and I got worked over. I went to the police… but bla bla bla. These people, if they want to live within an orthodox system, let them go do it elsewhere, but not in Brussels.
Q:
Last question. You have also said to our colleagues at Knack: “The more I gathered information on this community, the less I began to understand the Moroccans”, to the point where you used the term “helplessness” [note: or maybe “impotence”… not sure from the context]. I ask myself, therefore: if this is your sentiment, despite all your travels — you were a war correspondant — , your studies, this sentiment must be shared by the average Brussels citizen. Does this explain in part why living together is so hard for the two communities, or why they do not recognize each other?
A:
There is no life in common. The Moroccans must adapt or leave. They adapt to our culture, our liberties, and that’s it. If they do not want to adapt, if they want their own… if at Molenbeek they do not want any billboards from H&M with women in bikinis, all they have to do is get the hell out, they have only to leave Brussels and return to Morocco.
Q:
In other words, to wrap up, a multicultural society…
A:
Doesn’t exist.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Read the rest at Covenant Zone.
Culture matters, which is why Europe is split into many different counties based upon historical cultural/linguistic traits.
Humans want to be part of a "tribe" of the same type of folks that have things in common, not be part of a group that each sub faction is at each others throats.
So our Mohammedan friends don't want to be a part of our society, but want all the benefits.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/brussels-is-time-bomb.html#readfurther
Monday, September 17, 2007
“Brussels is a Time Bomb”
by Baron Bodissey
After the events last week in Schuman Square, it’s instructive to take a look at another aspect of Brussels: its Muslim community.
Arthur Van Amerongen is an Arabic-speaking Dutch journalist who spent a year incognito in the Muslim community in Brussels. He will soon publish a book about his experiences called Brussels Eurabia.
Most of the Muslims in Brussels are Moroccans, and Mr. Van Amerongen describes the expatriate Moroccans in Belgium as extremely hateful of Belgium and its culture. They live apart, as an entirely separate community, and do not consider themselves Belgians.Mr. Van Amerongen was interviewed on Belgian television, and the blog Covenant Zone has posted an English translation. Some excerpts are included below.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Q:
Arthur, you write in your book: “Brussels is a time bomb, there will certainly be an attack.” Isn’t this a little exaggerated?
A:
No, listen, it’s an enumeration; look at what happened in England: doctors orginally from India or Pakistan who commit an attempt… if you look at what has happened in 7 years: the Trabelsi affair, the attack on the Philips building… all foiled by your intelligence services. If we only look at the reports, I am certain that [an attack] will happen.
Q:
For you these are the clues that this will happen?
A:
No, no no. I infiltrated the Muslim community of Molenbeek and Marolles for one year. These folks want nothing to do with Belgium, they hate the Belgians.
Q:
What do you base that on?
A:
I was among them, I speak Arabic. They hate the Belgians, they have nothing to do with Belgians, nothing, nothing.
Q:
But can you… are you talking about the Moroccan community, the entire Brussels Muslim community?
A:
No, the Moroccans with their beards, their half pants and their bare feet in their shoes… no, it is a very dangerous community. It’s a time bomb.- - - - - - - - - - - -
[…]
Q:
Yes, but… okay, you say “the Muslim 25%” in Brussels… Are they all dangerous? Come on.
A:
No, but if 1% of them are dangerous, you are up the creek…
[…]
Q:
Yes, but you just said… that the Moroccans that live here in Brussels do not want to have anything do do with Belgium, with Brussels…
A:
No.
Q:
… that they hate us.
A:
They want a Caliphate; quite simply they want a government that directs the Umma from Baghdad to England. It’s what they want.
Q:
These people are therefore free… free to do what they want here?
A:
That, you should report to the police. I mean… Go take a walk through the bookstores at Lemonnier… Look at the hate pouring out of there, against the jews, against the christians, against the shias… It’s there freely for sale, in french and in arabic. Euh, sorry! All this is possible in Belgium… One can also easily purchase arms…
[…]
Q:
…But how did you get the idea to infiltrate, to dive into the Muslim world?
A:
Because Muriel Delgauque, who comes from Charleroi, went and blew herself up…
Q:
In Baghdad…
A:
… in 2004 if I am not mistaken.
Q:
Yes, in Iraq.
A:
She had a Moroccan friend, who came from Molenbeek, and was the first “white” martyr from Belgium. Belgium had the honor of having the first “white” martyr for Al Qaeda.
Q:
You speak of this woman who blew herself up, who committed a suicide-attack in Iraq. This is what triggered in your head, what decided you to want to do something, try to understand?
A:
Yes, I then said to myself: “How is it that a girl from Charleroi had gotten to such a point where she decided to go to Bagdad with her crummy car and blow herself up? It’s absurd. This girl drank, with her friends, she did drugs, she smoked joints…
Q:
Did you find the answer to your question?
A:
No.
[…]
Q:
In an interview you gave with Knack [magazine], you said that you had some disagreeable experiences with some Moroccans…
A:
I was robbed, yes. In a horrifying manner.
Q:
You were the victim of robbery, you and your wife were insulted in the street… Is this all related?
A:
Of course. I walk down Haute street, the “Hoogstraat” as you say. Okay, I’m walking there, with my girl friend, who was dressed in a manner a little sexy — which means, for Moroccans, that she was wearing a t-shirt. And they were saying in arabic: “dirty whore! Dirty whore!” Kahda — a very ugly word. Ok, I go on my way, I turn around and say :”your sister!” Not even “Your mother!”, which would be even more serious. I received a blow to the back, and I got worked over. I went to the police… but bla bla bla. These people, if they want to live within an orthodox system, let them go do it elsewhere, but not in Brussels.
Q:
Last question. You have also said to our colleagues at Knack: “The more I gathered information on this community, the less I began to understand the Moroccans”, to the point where you used the term “helplessness” [note: or maybe “impotence”… not sure from the context]. I ask myself, therefore: if this is your sentiment, despite all your travels — you were a war correspondant — , your studies, this sentiment must be shared by the average Brussels citizen. Does this explain in part why living together is so hard for the two communities, or why they do not recognize each other?
A:
There is no life in common. The Moroccans must adapt or leave. They adapt to our culture, our liberties, and that’s it. If they do not want to adapt, if they want their own… if at Molenbeek they do not want any billboards from H&M with women in bikinis, all they have to do is get the hell out, they have only to leave Brussels and return to Morocco.
Q:
In other words, to wrap up, a multicultural society…
A:
Doesn’t exist.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Read the rest at Covenant Zone.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Free advise
1. Saw some moron with a t-shirt stating when the last tree is cut down, the last ground paved over, last river dammed, etc...... we won't be able to eat money.
My response is "no sh*t lady"
money is a medium of exchange, not the end all. Money just represents things, like corn, gasoline, food, She was not walking into the grocery store in front of me with some chickens to trade for some prescriptions, 10 pounds of flour and a 12 pack of beer. She paid money for that.
2. Those moronic support public school magnetic ribbons on vehicles.
Well "no sh#t" I do that through my tax money.
3. Pleasures in life.
Dear Childless Europeans,
One of the joys of life is raising your kids to be good young men and women. Now granted some kids are real sh%t heads and it is a tough day when you realise your kids are better than you and you are the sh*t head.
What will you do when you are old, dear euro cousins of mine??
My response is "no sh*t lady"
money is a medium of exchange, not the end all. Money just represents things, like corn, gasoline, food, She was not walking into the grocery store in front of me with some chickens to trade for some prescriptions, 10 pounds of flour and a 12 pack of beer. She paid money for that.
2. Those moronic support public school magnetic ribbons on vehicles.
Well "no sh#t" I do that through my tax money.
3. Pleasures in life.
Dear Childless Europeans,
One of the joys of life is raising your kids to be good young men and women. Now granted some kids are real sh%t heads and it is a tough day when you realise your kids are better than you and you are the sh*t head.
What will you do when you are old, dear euro cousins of mine??
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Bin Laden the General?
Anyone who has spent any time around 3rd worlders will appreciate the bumbling
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjM2ODk0ZmE5MjgyYzlmMWI5NzZkMDM2ZGY0N2FjNTk=
September 12, 2007, 0:00 a.m.Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in the DesertWe didn’t “create Bin Laden”By Jonah Goldberg
On April 17, 1987, Osama bin Laden led 120 of his most fierce Arab mujahedeen into battle. The attack was planned for months and billed as a major offensive for the warriors of God against the atheistic Soviet Red Army and its apostate Afghan puppets. The target: an Afghan government position on the outskirts of Khost.
Things went so poorly one wonders what “FUBAR” is in Arabic. None of the mujahedeen positions had been supplied with ammunition, which was stuck in a car far from the battle scene. Men were so exhausted from carrying their own rockets and mortars — they didn’t have enough mules — that some went back to their cave and passed out from exhaustion before the battle even started. And nobody remembered to pack those pesky wires used for connecting rockets to detonators. A lone government soldier heard the racket Bin Laden’s men made and kept the entire force pinned down with a machine gun until Bin Laden ordered a retreat.
This sort of thing was typical among the so-called Arab Afghans, a few thousand ragtag religious misfits imported from the Arab world, interested not so much in Afghan liberation as global jihad. The real Afghans considered the Arab forces clownish and lousy fighters. They were more like the Keystone Kops than battle-hardened mujahedin.
But the following month, Bin Laden helped lead the Arab Afghans in their most successful military effort: defending their mountain lair, the so-called Lion’s Den. The battle was militarily successful in the sense that the already retreating Red Army was held at bay on its way out of Dodge.
“From the Soviet perspective the battle of the Lion’s Den was a small moment in the tactical retreat from Afghanistan,” wrote Lawrence Wright, my source for all of this, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “The Looming Tower.” But for Bin Laden and his followers, it was divine proof that the mujahedin crushed the mighty Soviets. There was, according to Wright, “a dizzying sense that they were living in a supernatural world, in which reality knelt before faith. For them, the encounter at the Lion’s Den became the foundation of the myth that they defeated the superpower.”
Armed with this useful myth, the Arab Afghans became the core of a new global jihadist insurgency called al Qaeda.
Bin Laden and his lieutenant, Ayman Zawahiri, were convinced that they were the protagonists in a world historical drama, when in fact they were more like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, jabbering outside of the limelight.
For years, some of the shriller voices on the left have argued that 9/11 was a classic example of “blowback” from our support of the mujahedeen’s struggle against Afghanistan. But the fact is we didn’t “create Bin Laden” — he largely created himself. And to the extent that any superpower can claim credit for him, it’s the Soviets. It was their withdrawal, not our support, that convinced the foreign fighters that their pinpricks felled the Soviet bear.
Today, a new “blowback” thesis is in the works. The Washington Post, Time, and the Associated Press are just a few of the news outlets that have asserted the U.S. is arming the Sunnis in Iraq. This is simply not true, Gen. David H. Petraeus insisted in congressional testimony Monday. But it’s no surprise that so many people are leaping to that conclusion because the familiar “blowback” story line is the only plausible one for millions of people who’ve made up their minds that the war is, was and forever shall be hubristic folly.
Similarly, opponents of the war denounced Petraeus’ testimony before he said a single word, not because they know the facts better than Petraeus — please — but because anything that doesn’t fit the narrative of an ever-worsening quagmire must be a lie of some kind. MoveOn.org even seems willing to suggest that Petraeus’ personal motives are perfidious.
Now, many war supporters have certainly forced reality to kneel before faith in recent years. But reality can’t stay on bended knees for very long, so those running the Iraq project have had to change course and give facts the respect they deserve.
Many Democrats too have been grudgingly breaking from their base’s otherworldly narrative of late, though they continue to insist that a “political solution” can be had in Iraq without a concomitant military one. Even the Sunni insurgents are coming to grips with the fact that al Qaeda doesn’t have Iraq’s best interests at heart.
But there is one group that is under no inclination to nod to reality: al Qaeda. The jihadis’ mission, as always, is to create a new reality.
If the Bin Laden of the late 1980s could convince himself that his motley crew delivered the death blow to the Evil Empire, leading to the formation of al Qaeda, one can only imagine what lesson he and the Bin Ladens of tomorrow would take from America’s defeat in Iraq. That’s a story line we should all hope won’t be written.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjM2ODk0ZmE5MjgyYzlmMWI5NzZkMDM2ZGY0N2FjNTk=
September 12, 2007, 0:00 a.m.Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in the DesertWe didn’t “create Bin Laden”By Jonah Goldberg
On April 17, 1987, Osama bin Laden led 120 of his most fierce Arab mujahedeen into battle. The attack was planned for months and billed as a major offensive for the warriors of God against the atheistic Soviet Red Army and its apostate Afghan puppets. The target: an Afghan government position on the outskirts of Khost.
Things went so poorly one wonders what “FUBAR” is in Arabic. None of the mujahedeen positions had been supplied with ammunition, which was stuck in a car far from the battle scene. Men were so exhausted from carrying their own rockets and mortars — they didn’t have enough mules — that some went back to their cave and passed out from exhaustion before the battle even started. And nobody remembered to pack those pesky wires used for connecting rockets to detonators. A lone government soldier heard the racket Bin Laden’s men made and kept the entire force pinned down with a machine gun until Bin Laden ordered a retreat.
This sort of thing was typical among the so-called Arab Afghans, a few thousand ragtag religious misfits imported from the Arab world, interested not so much in Afghan liberation as global jihad. The real Afghans considered the Arab forces clownish and lousy fighters. They were more like the Keystone Kops than battle-hardened mujahedin.
But the following month, Bin Laden helped lead the Arab Afghans in their most successful military effort: defending their mountain lair, the so-called Lion’s Den. The battle was militarily successful in the sense that the already retreating Red Army was held at bay on its way out of Dodge.
“From the Soviet perspective the battle of the Lion’s Den was a small moment in the tactical retreat from Afghanistan,” wrote Lawrence Wright, my source for all of this, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “The Looming Tower.” But for Bin Laden and his followers, it was divine proof that the mujahedin crushed the mighty Soviets. There was, according to Wright, “a dizzying sense that they were living in a supernatural world, in which reality knelt before faith. For them, the encounter at the Lion’s Den became the foundation of the myth that they defeated the superpower.”
Armed with this useful myth, the Arab Afghans became the core of a new global jihadist insurgency called al Qaeda.
Bin Laden and his lieutenant, Ayman Zawahiri, were convinced that they were the protagonists in a world historical drama, when in fact they were more like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, jabbering outside of the limelight.
For years, some of the shriller voices on the left have argued that 9/11 was a classic example of “blowback” from our support of the mujahedeen’s struggle against Afghanistan. But the fact is we didn’t “create Bin Laden” — he largely created himself. And to the extent that any superpower can claim credit for him, it’s the Soviets. It was their withdrawal, not our support, that convinced the foreign fighters that their pinpricks felled the Soviet bear.
Today, a new “blowback” thesis is in the works. The Washington Post, Time, and the Associated Press are just a few of the news outlets that have asserted the U.S. is arming the Sunnis in Iraq. This is simply not true, Gen. David H. Petraeus insisted in congressional testimony Monday. But it’s no surprise that so many people are leaping to that conclusion because the familiar “blowback” story line is the only plausible one for millions of people who’ve made up their minds that the war is, was and forever shall be hubristic folly.
Similarly, opponents of the war denounced Petraeus’ testimony before he said a single word, not because they know the facts better than Petraeus — please — but because anything that doesn’t fit the narrative of an ever-worsening quagmire must be a lie of some kind. MoveOn.org even seems willing to suggest that Petraeus’ personal motives are perfidious.
Now, many war supporters have certainly forced reality to kneel before faith in recent years. But reality can’t stay on bended knees for very long, so those running the Iraq project have had to change course and give facts the respect they deserve.
Many Democrats too have been grudgingly breaking from their base’s otherworldly narrative of late, though they continue to insist that a “political solution” can be had in Iraq without a concomitant military one. Even the Sunni insurgents are coming to grips with the fact that al Qaeda doesn’t have Iraq’s best interests at heart.
But there is one group that is under no inclination to nod to reality: al Qaeda. The jihadis’ mission, as always, is to create a new reality.
If the Bin Laden of the late 1980s could convince himself that his motley crew delivered the death blow to the Evil Empire, leading to the formation of al Qaeda, one can only imagine what lesson he and the Bin Ladens of tomorrow would take from America’s defeat in Iraq. That’s a story line we should all hope won’t be written.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
September 11 post
September 11 changed the world. Those who deny it are deluding themselves.
America does not loose wars. If you know you will loose it, don't fight it.
Leftists and Democrats are the tape worm of society, they don't advance anything and they give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Dear democrats go f#ck yourself.
Regards
America does not loose wars. If you know you will loose it, don't fight it.
Leftists and Democrats are the tape worm of society, they don't advance anything and they give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Dear democrats go f#ck yourself.
Regards
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Goodbye Sweden part billion
So let me get this straight, you live in Sweden, were born in Sweden but can't pose for class photo's with Swedish flag gear on?
But Hajjis all over can wear their "colours" in the form of native dress to what ever 3rd world shit-hole they came from and want to replicate in The West?
I'm guessing it is the "white' students who want to display the flag, the hajjis have no flag but the black or green flag of islam.
http://www.thelocal.se/8401/20070905/
'Racist' sports shirts banned from school pic
Published: 5th September 2007 17:18
A school principal in southern Sweden has banned pupils from posing for class photos wearing national team shirts containing Swedish flags.
Since national flags may be perceived by some as xenophobic, eighth grade pupils in Karlshamn have been ordered to wear less inflammatory garb for a photo to be published in the school yearbook.
"Anybody looking at the photo could view it as a political demonstration," principal Pär Blondell from Strandskolan told news agency TT.
The headmaster added that some of the pupils have labelled the ruling "ridiculous".
Following an article on the subject in newspaper Sydsvenkan, a number of parents and irate letter-writers contacted the principal to express their dismay at the shirt ban.
But Blondell stuck to his guns, arguing that the pupils risked inadvertently earning themselves a bad reputation. People could begin speculating about "the racists from Karlshamn" once the yearbook began being distributed in the Malmö area, he said.
Caroline Johannesson, one of the pupils affected by the ban, failed to understand the principal's reasoning.
"You should be able to wear what you want," she said.
Her father agrees and has pledged to attend the next parent teacher meeting wearing a national team shirt in protest.
But Hajjis all over can wear their "colours" in the form of native dress to what ever 3rd world shit-hole they came from and want to replicate in The West?
I'm guessing it is the "white' students who want to display the flag, the hajjis have no flag but the black or green flag of islam.
http://www.thelocal.se/8401/20070905/
'Racist' sports shirts banned from school pic
Published: 5th September 2007 17:18
A school principal in southern Sweden has banned pupils from posing for class photos wearing national team shirts containing Swedish flags.
Since national flags may be perceived by some as xenophobic, eighth grade pupils in Karlshamn have been ordered to wear less inflammatory garb for a photo to be published in the school yearbook.
"Anybody looking at the photo could view it as a political demonstration," principal Pär Blondell from Strandskolan told news agency TT.
The headmaster added that some of the pupils have labelled the ruling "ridiculous".
Following an article on the subject in newspaper Sydsvenkan, a number of parents and irate letter-writers contacted the principal to express their dismay at the shirt ban.
But Blondell stuck to his guns, arguing that the pupils risked inadvertently earning themselves a bad reputation. People could begin speculating about "the racists from Karlshamn" once the yearbook began being distributed in the Malmö area, he said.
Caroline Johannesson, one of the pupils affected by the ban, failed to understand the principal's reasoning.
"You should be able to wear what you want," she said.
Her father agrees and has pledged to attend the next parent teacher meeting wearing a national team shirt in protest.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Yo! Europe!
How does the average European walk around day in and day out watching these hajjis in plain sight not fitting in?
Either you force the hajjis to assimilate or kick them out, the current situation is a failure.
Because eventually the scab will be ripped off and there will be bloodshed will be massive.
Two cultures can not live together side by side history has shown it does not work.
Remember Europe has only been quite since 1945, things can change.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/05/video-undercover-in-little-morocco/
This is a video of the future that Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, Brussels Journal, Oriana Fallaci and others have been warning us about: European cities going Muslim within our lifetimes. It features a young Belgian woman of Moroccan origins, who went undercover among Brussels’ young Muslims to find out what they think about the country that let them in.
In short, they don’t think very much of it.
As you watch the video, pay particular attention to the man’s actions at about 2:35 in. He thinks he owns the streets of Brussels, and he’s probably right.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
use of force in the 3rd world
Worth a post.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjRhYzBkN2Y5NWQyM2I4MjA1ZjNhMWEzOGE3MTQ0ODY=
Today’s counterinsurgency strategy does not shrink from the truth — and that is good news. I recently met an Egyptian doctor (and reformed member of an Islamist terrorist group) who told me: “You Americans have a very big problem. You prefer being politically correct to the telling the truth, and this enemy can only be defeated by telling the truth.”
As one Iraqi Army officer told me at the COIN academy, America did not understand the Iraqi mentality when it invaded. We did not’ know the customs and we ’did not know the history, and that made mistakes out of many of our most well-intentioned decisions.Most people remember the problems there were at first — soldiers disrespecting local customs without realizing it, touching the women, or the traditional headdress on a man. Those led fairly quickly to cultural sensitivity training. But that’s not what gets taught at the COIN academy. One of the courses — Cultural Intelligence — is structured like a graduate seminar, exploring all aspects of local culture and psychology. And it is not for the faint at heart: it does not make the mistake of preferring political correctness to the truth. One Iraqi Army officer, a seminar leader at the academy, confronted me with what he thought was the most glaring example of America’s ignorance of the local population. “Why did the Americans not fire on the mob when they started looting after the fall of Baghdad? Didn’t you realize that criminals would take over after this?”
Another participant went further. “What these people wanted after the fall of Saddam was absolute domination by the United States. They knew that the alternative was chaos.” He went on to say: “You need to understand, this is a very violent society. To get respect, you need to be ready, willing, and able to use force. Once you get people to understand that, then you engage them” as friends and allies — but not before.
We didn’t know much about Iraq when we got there. But we’ve learned a lot since — and very fast. That’s why, in the words of one Pentagon official, “When it comes to counterinsurgency, we’re the best in the world.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjRhYzBkN2Y5NWQyM2I4MjA1ZjNhMWEzOGE3MTQ0ODY=
Today’s counterinsurgency strategy does not shrink from the truth — and that is good news. I recently met an Egyptian doctor (and reformed member of an Islamist terrorist group) who told me: “You Americans have a very big problem. You prefer being politically correct to the telling the truth, and this enemy can only be defeated by telling the truth.”
As one Iraqi Army officer told me at the COIN academy, America did not understand the Iraqi mentality when it invaded. We did not’ know the customs and we ’did not know the history, and that made mistakes out of many of our most well-intentioned decisions.Most people remember the problems there were at first — soldiers disrespecting local customs without realizing it, touching the women, or the traditional headdress on a man. Those led fairly quickly to cultural sensitivity training. But that’s not what gets taught at the COIN academy. One of the courses — Cultural Intelligence — is structured like a graduate seminar, exploring all aspects of local culture and psychology. And it is not for the faint at heart: it does not make the mistake of preferring political correctness to the truth. One Iraqi Army officer, a seminar leader at the academy, confronted me with what he thought was the most glaring example of America’s ignorance of the local population. “Why did the Americans not fire on the mob when they started looting after the fall of Baghdad? Didn’t you realize that criminals would take over after this?”
Another participant went further. “What these people wanted after the fall of Saddam was absolute domination by the United States. They knew that the alternative was chaos.” He went on to say: “You need to understand, this is a very violent society. To get respect, you need to be ready, willing, and able to use force. Once you get people to understand that, then you engage them” as friends and allies — but not before.
We didn’t know much about Iraq when we got there. But we’ve learned a lot since — and very fast. That’s why, in the words of one Pentagon official, “When it comes to counterinsurgency, we’re the best in the world.”
Monday, September 3, 2007
well derr!
Well, derr... guys always go for the hottest chicks they can get. Unless you are in hajji land and get an arranged marriage to your cousin.
Chicks know what they can get in the gene pool of life and strive to get that.
So to summarize chicks go for quality.
Guys go for the most quantity of the best quality they can rate,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070903/ap_on_sc/dating_and_mating
Study: Men men go for good looks
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Mon Sep 3, 5:30 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Science is confirming what most women know: When given the choice for a mate, men go for good looks.
And guys won't be surprised to learn that women are much choosier about partners than they are.
"Just because people say they're looking for a particular set of characteristics in a mate, someone like themselves, doesn't mean that is what they'll end up choosing," Peter M. Todd, of the cognitive science program at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in a telephone interview.
Researchers led by Todd report in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that their study found humans were similar to most other mammals, "following Darwin's principle of choosy females and competitive males, even if humans say something different."
Their study involved 26 men and 20 women in Munich, Germany.
Participants ranged in age from 26 to their early 40s and took part in "speed dating," short meetings of three to seven minutes in which people chat, then move on to meet another dater. Afterward, participants check off the people they'd like to meet again, and dates can be arranged between pairs who select one another.
Speed dating let researchers look at a lot of mate choices in a short time, Todd said.
In the study, participants were asked before the session to fill out a questionnaire about what they were looking for in a mate, listing such categories as wealth and status, family commitment, physical appearance, healthiness and attractiveness.
After the session, the researchers compared what the participants said they were looking for with the people they actually chose to ask for another date.
Men's choices did not reflect their stated preferences, the researchers concluded. Instead, men appeared to base their decisions mostly on the women's physical attractiveness.
The men also appeared to be much less choosy. Men tended to select nearly every woman above a certain minimum attractiveness threshold, Todd said.
Women's actual choices, like men's, did not reflect their stated preferences, but they made more discriminating choices, the researchers found.
The scientists said women were aware of the importance of their own attractiveness to men, and adjusted their expectations to select the more desirable guys.
"Women made offers to men who had overall qualities that were on a par with the women's self-rated attractiveness. They didn't greatly overshoot their attractiveness," Todd said, "because part of the goal for women is to choose men who would stay with them"
But, he added, "they didn't go lower. They knew what they could get and aimed for that level."
So, it turns out, the women's attractiveness influenced the choices of the men and the women.
Chicks know what they can get in the gene pool of life and strive to get that.
So to summarize chicks go for quality.
Guys go for the most quantity of the best quality they can rate,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070903/ap_on_sc/dating_and_mating
Study: Men men go for good looks
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Mon Sep 3, 5:30 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Science is confirming what most women know: When given the choice for a mate, men go for good looks.
And guys won't be surprised to learn that women are much choosier about partners than they are.
"Just because people say they're looking for a particular set of characteristics in a mate, someone like themselves, doesn't mean that is what they'll end up choosing," Peter M. Todd, of the cognitive science program at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in a telephone interview.
Researchers led by Todd report in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that their study found humans were similar to most other mammals, "following Darwin's principle of choosy females and competitive males, even if humans say something different."
Their study involved 26 men and 20 women in Munich, Germany.
Participants ranged in age from 26 to their early 40s and took part in "speed dating," short meetings of three to seven minutes in which people chat, then move on to meet another dater. Afterward, participants check off the people they'd like to meet again, and dates can be arranged between pairs who select one another.
Speed dating let researchers look at a lot of mate choices in a short time, Todd said.
In the study, participants were asked before the session to fill out a questionnaire about what they were looking for in a mate, listing such categories as wealth and status, family commitment, physical appearance, healthiness and attractiveness.
After the session, the researchers compared what the participants said they were looking for with the people they actually chose to ask for another date.
Men's choices did not reflect their stated preferences, the researchers concluded. Instead, men appeared to base their decisions mostly on the women's physical attractiveness.
The men also appeared to be much less choosy. Men tended to select nearly every woman above a certain minimum attractiveness threshold, Todd said.
Women's actual choices, like men's, did not reflect their stated preferences, but they made more discriminating choices, the researchers found.
The scientists said women were aware of the importance of their own attractiveness to men, and adjusted their expectations to select the more desirable guys.
"Women made offers to men who had overall qualities that were on a par with the women's self-rated attractiveness. They didn't greatly overshoot their attractiveness," Todd said, "because part of the goal for women is to choose men who would stay with them"
But, he added, "they didn't go lower. They knew what they could get and aimed for that level."
So, it turns out, the women's attractiveness influenced the choices of the men and the women.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
foot baths and assimilation
not much to add here
http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVjN2UwODExN2M4MzIyOWVhZWU3OGY1NGZkZDUyNzg=
Not Assimilating
Can we agree that if Muslim students at the University of Michigan, no doubt middle class or better, are washing their feet in the sinks of the public restrooms on campus, THEY ARE NOT ASSIMILATING?
http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVjN2UwODExN2M4MzIyOWVhZWU3OGY1NGZkZDUyNzg=
Not Assimilating
Can we agree that if Muslim students at the University of Michigan, no doubt middle class or better, are washing their feet in the sinks of the public restrooms on campus, THEY ARE NOT ASSIMILATING?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)