Friday, May 02, 2008

Cosmetic Finery at the European Commission

Philip Claeys, a Member of the European Parliament for Belgium, issued the following press release on April 30th.


Vlaams Belang: EU must suspend negotiations with Turkey
Cosmetic finery of article 301 is a provocation

The Vlaams Belang delegation in the European Parliament finds that the long-awaited reform of the notorious article 301 of the Turkish penal code, curbing the freedom of speech, is nothing more than a mere eyewash.

Insulting the Turkish nation rather than ‘Turkishness’ will now be punishable under the new law. It is only a question of semantics, which in practice will not change anything. Those who publicly criticize the occupation of northern Cyprus, the treatment of the Kurdish minority or the non-recognition of the Armenian genocide remain punishable like before.

From now on the introduction of a criminal procedure has to get an approval from the minister of justice, a very peculiar construction that puts aside the separation of powers, a fundamental principle of the rule of law.

Lastly, maximum punishment is reduced from three to two years of imprisonment. Thus in the year 2008 the expression of forbidden opinions can still lead to imprisonment in Turkey.
- - - - - - - - -
Turkey still has serious shortcomings in the field of democracy and human rights. Instead of being reformed, article 301 should be scrapped altogether, along with all the other articles and regulations which violate freedom of speech.

The European Union has to suspend the accession negotiations with Turkey immediately, as promised to the voters in case Turkey would refuse to improve its human rights record.

If the European Commission approves this kind of cosmetic finery operations, it will lose credibility and the whole further negotiation procedure with Turkey will become a farce. Vlaams Belang will interrogate enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn in the European Parliament about the slack position of the Commission in this question.

Philip Claeys
Member of the Foreign Affairs committee of the European Parliament

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

After months of commenting on all of the bad news coming out of the U.K., I hope you will find time to comment on the stunning defeats that both New Labour, and Gordon Brown have just suffered in their own impregnable heartlands of this Country.

The worst results in over 40 years, for New Labour.

Who says the internet isn't a purveyor of truth and knowledge in exposing our government for the traitors they are?

And who said the British public had rolled over and died, handing both Islam and Socialism an easy and overwhelming victory in Europe?

And around 8.30 B.S.T. - Red Ken will too, be shown the door, as the odious Mayor of London.

Things can only get better!!!

Homophobic Horse said...

The wickedness of Vlaams Belangs knows no end. Verily, Vlaams Belang are a bunch of free-speech fundamentalists.

Anonymous said...

Gotta love the VB... why don't we have any political parties like them here in the US?? It's quite a shame that we don't...

Zenster said...

Insulting the Turkish nation rather than ‘Turkishness’ will now be punishable under the new law. It is only a question of semantics, which in practice will not change anything.

In other words: A bunch of hand waving that signifies precisely nothing. The West had damn well better get a solid grip on semantics real soon. Both the Left and Islam play semantic games like an international grandmaster plays chess. To date, Islam has made a mockery of Western traditions like transparency and fair play. That any reference to Islam as “The Religion of Peace” still isn’t met with jeering and catcalls stands as testimony to this issue. For heads of state to mouth these misnomers that perpetuate Islam’s march under false colors is nothing short of criminal.

In its effort to control the war of words, Islam wages a war on words. Routine attacks upon Freedom of Speech and the curtailment of opposing or dissenting views through abuse of Hate Speech laws has become the norm. Worst of all, under the guise of religious protections, Islam avoids any identification of the Koran as Hate Speech. This is egregious in that the Koran contains numerous examples of what would be called “stirring up religious hatred”. This ill-defined and nebulous term is now used in a growing number of countries as the basis for serious criminal prosecution.

It’s long past tea for Islam to meet the same standards it holds the opposition to. A quick review of Michael Savage’s lawsuit against CAIR (The Council on American Islamic Relations), yields a half-dozen examples (scroll down to item # 47), of assaults upon Freedom of Speech through frivolous law suits, a practice now known as “lawfare”. Greater exposure must be made of Islam’s propensity to abuse the legal system. Such lawfare is merely another component of not-so-slow jihad. Judges, lawyers and juries all must learn to turn a jaundiced eye upon Islamic lawsuits.

As the Savage lawsuit itself notes:

As set forth herein, CAIR is not a civil rights organization but is instead a political organization designed to advance a political agenda that is directly opposed to the existence of a free society that includes respect and dignity for all people and all religions.
[emphasis added]

Most important of all is to begin the glacial process of stripping away Islam’s false flag of protected religious status. CAIR and a host of other Islamic organizations are nothing but political wings of Islamic jihad and constantly seek to undermine all legal opposition. I invite those unfamiliar with this topic to please review the Anti-CAIR lawsuit in which CAIR sued Andrew Whitehead for making the following statements and others:

· “Let there be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America.”

· CAIR is an “organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection.”

· “ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries.”

· “Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the ‘moderate' face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries.”

· “CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America.”


When this lawfare finally reached open court, Whitehead began the common and expected legal procedure known as “discovery”, in which he requested that the plaintiffs show all documents intended for use in refuting his allegations about CAIR’s terrorist connections and financial activities. Confronted with what amounted to a legally enforceable opening of their books, CAIR modified and then subsequently dropped their lawsuit altogether.

Dropping an expensive lawsuit just as it finally comes before the court will NOT be an option in the Michael Savage case. CAIR is now the defendant and not the plaintiff. There will be no chance to bow out just before being forced to tip their hand. It is highly doubtful that Savage will allow any settlement out of court and this case promises to put CAIR through the legal wringer, forever exposing their anti-American and seditious political agency for Islamic terrorist organizations.

All of this is a common pattern of causing steep legal expenses with those targeted for silencing by Islamic organizations. A prime example of this was the attempt to impose legal liability upon six anonymous fliers who reported the overtly terrorist behavior of six Muslim passengers on US Airways flight 300. In a lawsuit led by CAIR, the “Flying Imams” case even sought to expose the identity of those passengers who reported the suspicious behavior of these individuals.

This goes beyond lawfare and into the realm of intimidation. With their identities exposed, witnesses would be subject to potential physical attacks upon themselves and their families. Special United States legislation was passed specifically to protect individual witnesses of this nature.

Do not think that all these semantic issues are mere window dressing. They are an important and direct means by which Islam can control public perception, thus avoiding further exposure of its ulterior motives. Recent changes by the White House barring the use of terms like 'jihadist' or 'mujahedeen' to describe terrorists are but one more example of Islam intentionally adjusting the prism of public perception to filter out negative information and distort any clear understanding of the war it is waging upon Western Civilization.

Zenster said...

Reversepsycology: And around 8.30 B.S.T. - Red Ken will too, be shown the door, as the odious Mayor of London.

Great good news, mate! Red Ken is a traitor of the first water. His treason needs to find him begging on a dockside street corner with tin cup in hand.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Gotta love the VB... why don't we have any political parties like them here in the US?? It's quite a shame that we don't.

I think your political system is flawed. Really. Like in the UK, it doesn't lend itself easily to smaller parties joining the fray and growing organically in size.

Marianne said...

Turkey has no business in the EU. It's not a European country. Pretending otherwise does no one any good.

Anonymous said...

What about Israel? Would you reject Israel's application to be in the EU just to keep Turkey out?

Anonymous said...

Henrik, I definitely agree with you. I absolutely hate the whole two-party system we have here. I don't know who to vote for in our upcoming election because I don't really like McCain that much, but I would never vote for Hillary and I'd actually rather die than vote for Obama.

It seems to me that throughout most of the history of the United States, we have had a two-party system - somehow, we've never been to shake that, and that's really too bad, I think.

randian said...

"Like in the UK, it doesn't lend itself easily to smaller parties joining the fray and growing organically in size."

The US has winner-take-all elections, which will inevitably devolve into a two-party system.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Would you reject Israel's application to be in the EU just to keep Turkey out?

No.

I'd do what we done for Cyprus, quoting that for historical and cultural reasons it can be considered a European country, and invite them in.

And *still* keep Turkey out.

Henrik R Clausen said...

I don't know who to vote for in our upcoming election because I don't really like McCain that much, but I would never vote for Hillary and I'd actually rather die than vote for Obama.

While I'd have taken Fred Thompson over McCain any day, I think getting any Republican will work. They also tend to do fewer foreign policy disasters, which we in Europe should appreciate much more than we do.

As for Obama/Clinton, I used to be lean towards Obama, as I find him merely incompetent, not cynical. But this Wright thing made me change my mind.

"Why on earth..?"

Because Wright expresses such rampant anti-Americanism that Obama should have left his house ages ago, for the love of his country. He did so only when it became a 'campaign problem'.

Also Clinton made some very nice Republican-style statements against Iran recently. That made an impression.

VinceP1974 said...

What Hillary has said regarding Iran is absolutely outrageous and incompetent.

You do realize by saying what she has, that she basically told the Iranians: "If you're going to nuke Israel, you better nuke the United States first"


Regarding who to vote for.. if you love the men and women in the military then you will do right by them and ensure that neither Hillary or Obama become the Command in Chief... If that means having to vote for the undeserving John McCain, then that is what must be dine.

Formerly Arch said...

What about Israel? Would you reject Israel's application to be in the EU just to keep Turkey out?

If Israel wanted to join the EU I'd question their sanity.

Henrik R Clausen said...

What Hillary has said regarding Iran is absolutely outrageous and incompetent.

Disagree. She said very clearly that if Iran initiates a nuclear war against Israel, the US will strike back on behalf of their ally, relentlessly.

That's the way to do it.

Yes, that theoretically sets the US at risk at the hands of the Crazy Mullah Regime (TM), but that's the game. One runs risks on behalf of allies, puts oneself in the line of fire when needed.

Now, my confidence in the technical capability of Iranians is limited (I lived there), and I think the statement from Hillary had its intended effect.

As for McCain, well... I've seen some pictures of him allegedly with KLA folks, and during the Republican primary I saw at least two other candidates I'd have preferred. But given the alternatives, he's the man.

If Israel wanted to join the EU I'd question their sanity.

Good point :)

As for Serbia, their signing of the SAA with EU is higly controversial. Even a commentary in EUobserver said the European bribing of Serbia for the EU-desired election result had gone too far.

VinceP1974 said...

Deterrence doesn't work with Iran. Preemption does.

And all Hillary has done is to ensure Iran gets the message that Iran should attack the US preemptively.

Try to think like an Iranian

Anonymous said...

I definitely think Obama is WAY worse than Hillary Clinton. I definitely don't want Hillary to win, but I would rather have her in office than that idiot Obama. I really can't stand him.

With regards to the whole EU thing, I don't think the EU should exist at all. I think it's just stupid.

Henrik R Clausen said...

VinceP, I have some knowledge about how Iranians think ('cause I lived there). These Persians are a fine people, but unfortunately heavily hit by the real disaster: Islam.

The upside is that a mass exodus to Christianity is rumoured to take place. That could bring down the sickening regime more than anything else.

Destroying their proxy army in Lebanon would help, too. It would be a really clear indication that their Return on investement is 0, and that the government really should have spent the oil revenue inside the country.


I don't care what they use to crush Hezbollah, as long as it gets the job done.

Henrik R Clausen said...

I used to think that Obama was the lesser evil relative to Hillary. He's just incompetent, not downright cynical.

But the latest thing with this rabid Wright preacher changed my mind. If Obama doesn't have the instinctive love for his country to walk out on this fellow - ages ago - he's not in any way fit to be .. President?

Punching hippies makes sense, too.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Natalie, I don't mind the existence of the EU.

AS LONG AS IT STICKS TO WHAT IT IS DESIGNED TO DO!

It can never be the equivalent of the United States of America. EU wasn't designed that way and cannot be transformed (at least easily) to fill the envy our Eurocrats feel to the US system.

The rest of us prefer to stick with our nation-states...

Formerly Arch said...

Henrick, you have to consider what it was actually designed to do. That is, create a single, united state of Europe. A single country where 24 used to be. They aren't trying to copy the united states, nor turn it into a duplicate of the US federal system, they're trying to create a single state with some of the trappings of a demoratic system but highly centralised control, designed to prevent a new war in europe by removing the historic borders. The theory goes, without thse borders, without the "nationalism", there can't be a war. The fact that they're jealous of the US and try to recreate some of its institutions is neither here nor there, a side-show to the real long-terms strategy of destroying anything that the inhabitants of individual european nations would be proud of.

You go right back to the start of it, with the Coal and Steel union between France and Germany and it includes the phrase "ever closer union", which has been in the pre-amble of every single european treaty since then. You see, the theory went, the reason for war was because individual nations could make their own weapons. If you forced them to be reliant on each other for the materials required to make those weapons you could prevent them from making them, and consequently prevent war. Ultimately, based on the writings of its creators, the Union is designed to control the means of production in order to prevent the nations of europe from being self-sufficient. I that light the EU's policies become clear, its "harmonisation" of everything from tax regimes to banking to agricultural production to building regulations, all of it is designed to prevent individual nations from acting in their own interests.

It's working as it was intended right now. In that light I do mind the existence of the EU.