"you want the truth? you can't handle the truth." ... simple as that.

jack nicholson, to tom cruise, in  "a few good men."

the europeans have chosen "order" over truth: they will avoid truth until the fall into absolute chaos.

you want the truth?

then, read the truth.

the following article lists by european nation their enactments on the suppression of truth, or, as they would have it, their proscription's on "hate speech" which reflect poorly on islam and muslims.   country by european country, the enactments described in this wikipedia article have balanced the scales, and they have decided to avoid contemporary conflict, "peace in our time," over the telling of truth, or the search for truth.  they can't handle the truth, nor can they handle the search for it.  so, here it is, "hate speech” law, euro style, as found at wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech .

the following article describes the prosecution of dutch member of parliament geert wilders under the hate speech law of the netherlands.  in this article, the author quotes jieskje hollander on the legal, ethical, social and political quagmire the euro's have built around the search for truth, and that is just what it comes down to.  i quote from the text of "dutch mp wilders prosecuted  ..." :

The foundation for these laws is "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" [adopted post-Nuremberg in 1948] which became the foundation upon which all of Europe's anti-hate laws draw their sustenance.

As legal scholar Jieskje Hollander observed [when commenting on the specifics of article 10(2) of this legislation] though the UDHR generally recognized free speech, it was quantified and restrained free speech.  [please see my previous post.:jj]

Genuine, unrestricted freedom of expression was not similarly protected.

"This paragraph gives us a range of reasons for which the right to freedom of speech can and should be restrained. The right to express oneself freely comes with certain special duties and responsibilities...If speech is used recklessly or with malicious intent it will threaten the security of society in various ways, it will threaten the constitutional state and it will harm the individual." [see, Hate Speech, a Historical Inquiry into its Legal Status, Jieskje Hollander, p. 31]

This duality leaves Holland and Europe in the grasp of an irreducible nexus, defining free speech in such a manner as to suppress it.   militantislammonitor.org .

this is, of course, the problem.  "free speech" is not to be defined in such a way as "extended" to a populace, it is to be exercised by a populace who hold it as an inalienable right, and who are jealous of the prerogative and who surrender it only face down in the street life's blood ebbing from their veins.

you dig?  well, the euro's don't dig, and that is the name of that tune.

and, that is why they are lost.

they are not ready for, they cannot stand the search for, they cannot stand the truth.  they will have comfort, for as long as they can have it, instead of truth.

the truth is in the numbers, and it is here for europeans and americans alike to see.

europe is swamped.  and, that is the truth.

and, the united states seems to be buying into the entire arrangement.  “changing course” apes the european union “association agreement,” and forces within want to abridge our free speech with hate speech legislation as well.

are you ready for the truth?  can you stand the truth?  can you get your large fat ass out of the chair and stand for the truth?

time will tell.

john jay @ 01.10.2010

Comments

[Robert]

The UDHR got it wrong. Believing lies, myths, and other falsehoods, especially those spread with malicious intent, will threaten the security of a society in various ways, threaten the constitutional state, and harm individuals. Anyone who tries to tell me, "You can't handle the truth," I would answer, "I NEED the truth - I can't live without the truth."

[generic viagra]

What limits on freedom are essential to maintaining life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
A lot of people seem to think that limits on freedom is repressive. However, yelling that there is a fire in a theater when there is not a fire is a valid limit on the freedom of speech. What other limits do you think are essential?

[buy sildenafil citrate]

How many Democrats will stand up for freedom of speech when they try to enact the 'Fairness Doctrine"?
How many will stand of for our right to freedom of speech even though the views talk radio voices are not yours. Isn't freedom of speech more important than quieting the opposition?
Even Clinton was talking about it yesterday, saying it was a good idea.