Thursday, August 09, 2007

“We Cannot Protect You”

SIOEWe have written previously about the initiative known as “Stop Islamisation of Europe” (SIOE), which planned a demonstration in front of the EU Parliament in Brussels on September 11th. For the last several months SIOE has been going through the laborious process of obtaining the necessary permits for the demonstration, beginning with the Brussels police, and, for the final decision, going to the office of the mayor.

Today comes word that Freddy Thielemans, the mayor of Brussels, has refused to grant a permit for the demonstration:

The reason for the prohibition is that he says he cannot guarantee public safety and that he won’t disturb the Islamic section of the population in Brussels.

By invoking the lack of public safety, he is precisely highlighting SIOE’s demonstration title:

Stop the Islamisation of Europe.

SIOE’s message through the 4 slogans is exactly to warn against conditions such as these, where people no longer can use their freedom of expression and feel secure, but the shocking facts are that these conditions already reign at the heart of the EU.

The mayor of Brussels may simply be doing his job: protecting the citizens of his city. If, during a peaceful and lawful street demonstration, he truly cannot prevent serious violence from breaking out at the hands of offended Muslims, then his office obligates him to forbid the demonstration. He has no choice.

The mayor and all the municipal officials in Brussels may well be doing their jobs, but somebody isn’t.
- - - - - - - - - -
The EU is the long-awaited Utopia, the heaven on Earth, the Land of Peace and Plenty in which all war has been ended and harmony reigns. Conflicts within Europe are to be resolved by negotiation and compromise, not by violence.

And now we see how “peace” is maintained: the fear of violence at the hands of thugs and religious zealots causes the authorities to accede to their demands.

Thus there is no rule of law in Belgium and the whole EU. The government is unable to fulfill the most basic and important clause in the social contract, namely the protection of its own citizens.

It is adept at regulating the fat content of cheese, and mandating the width of windows, and prescribing the minimum thickness of automobile tires. But it cannot keep its own citizens safe.

As long its citizens constitute an electorate, the duration of such a failed government would not be long. That’s why the EU works night and day to eliminate electoral politics within Europe, so that it may govern solely by decree.

The decision by the mayor of Brussels demonstrates that the European authorities have already ceded control of their major cities to the anarchists and the Islamists. Law-abiding citizens can no longer count on the state to protect them. They are on their own.

SIOE’s blog says that, regardless of the lack of permits, the demonstration will take place as scheduled. Since anarchists in that part of the continent are known to arm themselves thoroughly, and always relish a real fight with the “forces of reaction”, we can only hope that the demonstrators will be well-prepared.

They obviously won’t be able to rely on any help from the lawful authorities.


Anonymous said...


ziontruth said...

The SIOE demonstrators can try to defend themselves from the Muslims or the moonbats, but if that defense leads to any casualties on the latter side, you can rest assured the EU will remember its police and "the need for law and order" pretty quick.

Were the moonbattified authorities just comatose, meaning indifferent to events from both sides of the fence, there would be a way out: the proverbial "villagers with pitchforks and torches" could win the day against the Islamic colonialists and their Marxist enablers. The trouble is, moonbat governments are openly on the side of the evildoers, hence the good side will, unfortunately, find out that sheer numbers are insufficient. It's not "We Cannot Protect You", it's "We can protect you, but we choose to protect the other side instead".

Apropos, look at this from A Western Heart: A burglar's rights. This is simply appalling.

If you ask what might be the solution, I'd say something on the model that's being undertaken in Israel right now: an underground buildup of an alternative governance infrastructure. In less bombastic terminology, that means the official government channels exist but the people use alternative, parallel structures. In Israel, the official, moonbattified court system is being de facto replaced by religious (rabbinical) courts and secular arbitrage settlings. It's a boycott of the government in all but name.

Zarxos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ziontruth said...


It means, when Israeli Jews in our day have a dispute, their choice is increasingly to avoid the official court system and follow one of two alternatives:

1. The rabbinical courts.
2. Settling outside the court, whether informally or through agreed, third-party arbitrage.

In the former case, this works because the rabbinical courts have real power, even though they have never been mandatory (that is, Israel is not a theocracy). What is significant in our day is that many secular Jews have opted for those courts, hitherto used only by the religious. The reason for this is that, in contrast to the moonbattified official court system, rabbinical law does not, cannot, cave in to the PC fashions of the time. Hence, in cases of fear that the official court system will issue an unjust verdict, on the basis of "circumstantial evidence" or "history of victimhood" or any other such PC precept, the preference is to go to those courts where such precepts are barred. This is especially the case when criminal law and tort law are concerned.

In the latter case, the court system is bypassed by the acceptable venue of independent settling. The (official) lawyers are actually happy about this, because it takes off their huge amount of paperwork. The proliferation of lawyers in Israel has become such a problem in the last few decades that people just want to chuck it all out.

The courts are the clearest case of underground parallel structure formation in Israel. Charities (mostly religious, but also secular) are another case, bypassing the bureaucracy of the welfare state (the socialist welfare state of Israel, though somewhat eroded since the reforms of Netanyahu when he was finance minister, is still very much alive; but its bureaucracy is so labyrinthine that people just don't want to bother). The police is also, shall we say, supplemented by community policing.

All in all, Israel today is engaging in a profound Hayekian makeover. Friedrich Hayek warned of the creeping ineptitude of bureaucracy and proposed local, community-bound solutions as the way to ensure the individual's welfare. The local units, said Hayek, would be part of a national whole, but in a federalist, bottom-up way, not the top-down, socialist model that the EU now exemplifies so starkly. I believe few Israeli Jews have read Hayek; but, unconsciously, as a reaction to the moonbattery that's infesting the country, that's exactly the way they're going. It makes me very proud to be here, part of this all, this bottom-up, community-driven self-healing.

As for the military: the recent mutiny against the order of expelling fellow Jews from their homes is, HaShem willing, the first sign of reform here.

Our governments have betrayed us; let us, then, show them that we can do quite well without them.

Unknown said...

I thougt it was only in my country that courts and police existed to protect criminals from the reaction of their victim.
About the belgian police those who understand french call laugth at what a popular belgian singer says about them La Police est debordée

ziontruth said...

There are a few points I need to add, against possible misunderstanding and for further information:

Some might get the impression I was saying the rabbinical courts are free of corruption. Not so, and not the opposite either--they're as human, therefore determined by the humans peopling them, as the official secular courts and the secular arbitrage committees. The importance of the rabbinical courts lies in their theoretical basis. This is where things get interesting.

The adherents of historical materialism say, "Leave off all those theoretical underpinnings, it's the facts on the surface that count". But here I find (in great reassurance to me as an historical idealist) how false this view is, and how important theoretical underpinnings are. The West used not to be under the sway of legal moonbattery; after all, I don't believe Roman Law or Salic Law or Napoleonic Law or any other system of law gave criminals protection from their victims as is the case today. But when this corrupt system, the system of Moonbat Law, began to spread from the 1960's onward, what was there to stop it? Absolutely nothing.

Had it been declared, for example, that Roman Law was to be the permanent basis for law in the West, or even just one of the options (as is the case for rabbinical law in Israel), then things wouldn't be the way they are now. But over the course of the ages, not just specific laws but legal bases have changed throughout the West. So when moonbattery ascended on the throne, it was just another change. The only way to counter this is to decide upon an older, pre-PC basis for law and declare it compulsory. But the officials of the EU are not going to yield soon, naturally. Independent communal efforts will have to do the trick here, too.

The judges presiding over the rabbinical courts may or may not be corrupt; but whichever the case, rabbinical law, with its long centuries of tradition, stands against moonbattery like an iron wall. Should one attempt to insert the precepts of moonbattery into rabbinical law, it would cease to be rabbinical law, for moonbattery is opposed not just to the letter but to the spirit of Jewish law. Thus, the rabbinical courts are a safe haven against Moonbat Law in present-day Israel, and this is the reason why today even secular Jews opt to peruse them.

Now for another point:

The problem we have in Israel isn't the bureaucrats themselves, it's the system. Suppose a man turns destitute, G-d forbid. He can go to the welfare officials for help. But that's a tedious, painstaking way--we often say, "Hairs will grow out of your palm before you see the money". Now, it's not that the bureaucrats sitting there are totally unfriendly; in fact, many of them are OK guys, and quite willing to help. It's the system--friendly though the bureaucrats may be, they're shackled to rules that reduce efficiency (apologies for the understatement).

So instead, the man in financial trouble will get his help locally. If he regularly prays at one fixed synagogue, then he won't even have to tell anyone--his companions at the synagogue will know of it very quickly, and promptly help him. It's simply amazing to see this, but one-time charities are organized at lightning speed. That's superbly efficient, because it doesn't run against the rules of the system, because it's outside the system.

All this rambling passage was for the purpose of making clear, that above the surface it looks as if nothing is going on, but below the ground there is a steady build-up of a parallel government, which one day will take over in Israel de jure as well. Because it's under one's nose, it doesn't make the news--Yossi Public's choice to peruse a rabbinical court or arbitrage isn't newsworthy. But it's happening. The current government of Israel, arguably the worst Israel has ever had, is being left to turn into a lifeless mask, with the nation underneath doing well with alternatives.

Emerson Twain said...

Europe is being assimilated into the Ummah.

Profitsbeard said...

If it were a spontaneous Muslim demonstration about how the distribution of free pork soup in neighboring France was an insult to Islam, the police in Belgium would be on the job in minutes, protecting those parading "citizens".

Selective protection is no protection.

Time for the Belgians to throw out their weasels and quislings.

Unknown said...

This isnot the first time I heard something like This

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

So when non-leftists want to protest, and there are threats against them by criminal elements, permission is denied. When Leftists want to protest, there are cops out in force suppressing those who counter-protest.

Time for revolution!!

ProFlandria said...

The Mayor's claim that he can't gaurantee safety is a political one. He definitely commands all the means at his disposal to keep the peace. Admittedly, the local police don't scare anyone - but the Gendarmerie ("State Troopers") are a different matter. Even though they haven't formally been part of the Armed Forces for the last 10 years or so, they have literally decades of institutional experience with crowd control. I remember witnessing epic streetbattles with union types when I was a teenager (mid-70's). Finally, in case of a declared emergency the Armed Forces can be called out - no Posse Comitatus issues here! The Mayor's problem, however, is not practical but political... If he allows the protest to proceed as planned, he knows that he risks Paris-style "youth entertainment" in the streets. That makes the city look bad on a national level, but Brussels is very much an international city so the whole country would lose credibility from the fallout. And finally, street riots televised worldwide would be a godsend to the conservative/"right wing" Vlaams Belang (VB). The Walloon Socialist Party controls national politics; national policy is to transfer 10-12 billion Euros a year from Flanders to Wallonia (in addition to EU "development subsidies") to subsidize the local Welfare State (which has been bankrupt for more that a decade). The integrity of Belgium ensures that the gravy train keeps running; the King is the symbol of that unity so he works hand-in-glove with the Walloon Socialists. VB's bread-and-butter advocacy is for sane and strict immigration law and its enforcement, and an end to Belgium's institutionalized corruption that makes the sleaziest banana republic look like a paragon of virtue. Given that the solution they propose is the independence of Flanders (and de facto dissolution of the Belgian State as it exists today), The royal Court and the Federal Government will certainly bring pressure to bear on the Mayor of Brussels to ensure that the impending problem "goes away".