Category Archives: Europe
The European Split
The European Union, though perhaps unworthy of continued existence, is a substantial enough entity that their forthcoming elections ought to be looked at farm more closely than is standard practice in the United States. From June 4 through June 7, hundreds of millions of Europeans from 27 EU member nations will head to the polls and vote for the domestic political parties they want representing them in the 736-seat European Parliament. Having reviewed available polling data from many of these nations, it seems apparent to me that several nations are headed in the right direction, but a few appear poised to elect some of the vilest hatemongers in all of Europe.
According to TNS Nipo (a marketing and statistical research firm), Geert Wilders and his Partij voor de Vrijheid enjoy 40% popular support in the Netherlands, and will take the plurality of the nation’s 25 seats come June. Indeed, even the most out-of-date and statistically questionable polls show his level of support at approximately 18%. In other words, Wilders will be one of this election’s biggest winners, which is excellent news. The PVV is one of the only parties that is steadfast in its commitment to defending Western civilization from the Islamist threat without relying on Christianity as a crutch. Though Wilders has given an expected nod to the Judeo-Christian heritage of Europe more than once, he has just as readily noted the humanist character of the continent that is rooted in pre-Christian Rome and Greece. Equally important, in his view defending Europe means standing up for minority rights, enhancing economic liberty, and reducing the size of the EU. One particular platform point often overlooked, yet really quite positive, is the PVV’s aim of having Bulgaria and Romania, both politically represive economic wastelands, booted from the EU.
Likewise, Czech voters appear prepared to vote in their finest, with opinion polls showing the Občanská Demokratická Strana likely to receive 1/3 of the nation’s 22 seats. The party of Václav Klaus and Mirek Topolánek is one of the only parties in Europe boldly fighting the anti-civilizational eco-hysteria that is currently en vogue, while simultaneously advocating loudly for economic liberalization, EU devolution, and Russoscepticism. The party is keenly aware of the threats that communism, Russian agression, and loss of sovereignty to outdated institutions and new liberal fads pose to the Czech Republic as a nation, and Europe as a continent. And so their continued electoral support at home, which by all accounts should be sustained through the European Parliamentary Elections, is a very encouraging sign.
Unfortunately, not all of the EU members seem interested in building a better Europe or even standing up for their own true interests. Most visably, the UK is preparing for a return to the dark ages by welcoming the anti-semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay British National Party into the European Parliament for the first time ever. The anti-capitalist, pro-conscription lunatics have thus far always fallen short of entry, but are projected to earn at least 3 seats, and by some accounts even more. The BNP bears the rare distinction of being branded by the European Parliament as an “openly Nazi party.” What is especially disturbing is that they, alongside some of the offensively liberal British parties, are gaining at the expense of the UK Independence Party, which has been an exemplary defender of British sovereignty, individual liberty, and reduced taxation.
With the elections still six weeks away, there is ample time for popular opinion to shift. But, at least with the information we currently have, it seems reassuring that several nations seem intent on enhancing the quality of the alarmingly powerful EU. We can only hope that in those nations instead inclined to shift support towards parties that embarrass the human species, a last minute change of heart will prevent them from making such egregious errors.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
“Extreme”ly Unjust
In the United States, when the words “pornography” and jail are used in the same sentence, most people assume that the imprisoned individual was trafficking in child pornography. This assumption of course is flawed, as our draconian anti-Obscenity laws have landed many people in legal hot water of late, most notably Paul Little (aka Max Hardcore) and Loren Jay Adams. They represent the tiny class of pornography producers and distributors who have received prison sentences for producing material featuring consenting adults engaging in atypical but not illegal sexual activity. That there are any such individuals languishing in our prisons should inspire immense outrage from any liberty-loving individual. But it seems that even our hard line against legitimate erotic material is surpassed by the United Kingdom. Though historically they have created a number of broad and oppressive censorship laws like the Obscene Publications Act and the Video Recording Act, the multi-faceted 2008 Criminal Justice Act that went into effect on January 26 represents a more significant blow against free speech and pornography than any previous effort.
Sections 62 through 67 of the 2008 Criminal Justice Act makes it a punishable offense, for which one may receive three years in prison, to possess pornography that meets the outlined definition of extreme. Legally, pornography is regard as extreme if any action depicted therein “[can] threaten a person’s life, results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals, involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or sex with an animal (dead or alive).” As such niche fetish material constitutes only a small percentage of all available pornography, many people are unconcerned, suggesting that most individuals will be unimpacted by this change in law. It turns out however that as many as 9.5 million UK residents could be guilty of violating this law, or so claims Backlash (the chief opponent of this law). Consider for a moment what that means. 9.5 million adults could be jailed for three years for owning a single image or video clip of material that is legal to perform but is regarded as excessively kinky by the sexually repressed members of government and law enforcement who wrote and will subsequently enforce this policy. Even if you have zero regard for the critical value in protecting freedom of speech and freedom of choice, and even if you see nothing wrong with conducting a witch hunt against people with different sexual preferences, one need look no further than the cost that this might have on British society to see why this law is so flawed. As of 2004, the cost of incarceration was £38,000 (54,344 USD) per prisoner per year. So, even if no new facilities were built to house them (impossible as that would be given the huge influx of new inmates), ignoring the lost tax revenue and the consequences of depleting the working population, this law has the potential to cost £1,083,000,000,000 (1,548,711,367,474 USD) if all those eligible are convicted and sentenced. Suffice to say the prospect of spending more than a trillion GBP to imprison otherwise law abiding citizens for their choice in pornography (created by and with consenting adults) is absurd.
Given the lunacy of this law, many people wonder why it is that it was passed in the first place. Simply put, certain sex hating Members of Parliament want to stop the flow of pornography, and as here in the US, realize that this is best done by attacking the fringe before going after mainstream material. With strict censorship laws on the books, such material was already illegal to produce in the UK. But in the age of the internet, there exists an ample online supply of such material courtesy of Brazil, Japan, the United States, and a great multitude of European nations. Nationally mandated ISP filtering would of course be ineffective, both because any filter list is always incomplete, and because of technological loopholes such as dark nets or FTPS transfer. Nor would it punish those who already had the material on their computer or other physical media. So instead they opted to pass a broad and oppressive law that potentially endangers the liberty of millions, hoping that because the average person is not directly impacted by this policy, they will remain silent. Doing so though would constitute a great mistake, for as Niemöller famously remarked “…they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.” That is to say, if we do not stand up for others when their rights are being trampled upon without due cause, we cede ground to those who will later seek to deprive us of the liberties which we personally care about. So, regardless of what one may think of the sexual preferences of those under attack by this law, we must all be vocal in our objection to it, and more importantly, to the multitude of less extreme but still alarming anti-pornography and anti-sex positions taken by our own national, state, and local governments.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Whaling to Prosperity
Tough times call for tough measures, or so the saying goes. And few would dispute that in pure economic terms, we are just beginning what promises to be the toughest of times since the governmentally-caused Great Depression. Hard hit as the United States may be, our financial position is down right desirable to certain European nations who are suffering far more severely. Chief among these is the Nordic nation of Iceland, which has seen a 35% decline in currency value against the Euro since September, and whose economy is forecasted to shrink 9.6% in 2009. Fixing its economy is no simple task, and will take years of prudent fiscal policy under the best of circumstances. As part of their plan to stimulate the economy, Iceland’s outgoing government has decided to raise the the whaling quota cap.
In 2006 Iceland became the third nation, after Norway and Japan, to legalize commercial whaling. But the cap was set quite low, allowing only 30 minke and 9 fin whales per year to be hunted and sold. With the economy hurting as it is, the quotes were altered to allow 100 minke and 150 fin whales to be hunted and sold every year for the next five years. Unsurprisingly, those who object to whaling are up in arms about this recent news, decrying what they consider to be an indecent move given that fin whales are endangered and minke whales are classified as “lower risk.” So this begs two questions. First, is whaling a defensible and potentially legitimate practice? Second, if so, do the conditions of Iceland’s economy justify this pro-whaling change in law?
Excluding the lunatic fringe such as PETA leadership or members of the ALF terrorist organization that they have have financial links to, most humans recognize a supremacy of species. That is, it is understood that humans are of greater consequence than other animals. It is for this reason that medical testing which might cause large scale animal death is performed. Similarly, it is why we remove dangerous animals from society by putting them to sleep. And of course, like so many other animals, we eat those lower down on the food chain. Or, as the conditions may warrant, we use them in fur and leather products. Why then should whales be in a protected class of animals who cannot be treated as their position on the food chain would dictate? Rarity is hardly a sufficient cause, for indeed if there is a market demand for whale products, there is every reason to believe that those companies profiting from it will ensure population stability through innovative means. One example of that being the whale farming proposal that has created quite a buzz in Japan in recent years. The only other argument then is their supposed majesty. But the prospect of legislating to protect only those animals we regard as special in some intangible way is absurd, and not something that any rational person would dare propose. Accordingly then, one must conclude that whaling is a reasonable and defensible practice that can have a place in society if market forces so require it, which whale meat sales in Iceland and Japan suggest they do.
Realizing that whaling is valid economic activity, the question of how appropriate the decision of Iceland’s government to raise the caps becomes much simpler to address. The practice itself not an issue, the chief consideration here is the impact it will have. An additional 300 seasonal jobs will need to be created in light of the new quotas, which is of great value considering the tiny population (319,000) and the relatively low unemployment rate (4.8%). Moreover, because it is an industry restricted to just three nations, this change in policy allows for Iceland to become an even more important force in commercial whaling, which will have a tangible impact on the nation’s GDP. As one of the countries hardest hit by this global economic slump, the importance of taking actions with real and immediate financial benefit cannot be overlooked. And though this alone cannot save Iceland’s floundering economy, this small step signals a serious effort to fix the problem, and will ultimately aid in the nation’s recovery.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Blackmailed in Silence
Tuesday, the United States swore in a new president whose style is more remarkable than his substance. Obama won the office of the presidency not on a career of service or a refreshing gust of candor that is so atypical in politics, but through impressive showmanship and the ability to create false and undeserved hope. Unfortunately, this tendency for government to be composed of self-interested marketing gurus rather than bold and principled men is far from unusual. The world over, there are disturbingly few politicians deserving of praise. One such man, Geert Wilders, is now being targeted by his own government for the crime of intellectual honesty and for having a political platform inconsistent with that of the Euroleftists in charge.
Leader of Partij voor de Vrijheid, it would be entirely within reason to describe Mr. Wilders as the most important political figure in Holland, and one of the fastest rising stars of Western Europe. His party is more libertarian in character than anything else, with a platform that calls for tax cuts but also recognizes the importance of secular humanism. What makes the party particularly controversial though is the party’s view of Islam. It was summarized to a large degree in the famously controversial short film Fitna, for which Mr. Wilders has received a great many death threats. Essentially, they realize that Islam as a matter of basic theology and thus practice embraces violence. Individual Muslims may choose to reject this component of their faith, which he urges them to do. If they do, and further wish to assimilate in Dutch society, Mr. Wilders is content to let them be. But, as is glaringly apparent from Dutch news, the vast majority have opted not to become a part of the larger Dutch society or to adopt a moderate tone. There has been no large scale repudiation of violence in the Islamic world among the scripturally versed, only some vague rejections from their political front groups in the West. And so he continues to draw attention to this, and to the threat it poses to the long term survival of a free and democratic Europe.
It seems though that in Dutch politics, honesty is rarely the best policy. The day after we installed a spineless snake oil salesman in the highest office of the land, the courts of a country supposedly known for its liberal permissiveness has decided to try a man for the “insult of Islamic worshipers.” If this is to be par for the course, we may as well do away with democracy. When politicians who are loyal to the nation in whose government they serve run the risk of legal action not for slander, but for bruising the egos of the hypersensitive, no real debate can occur, and the entire political process becomes little more than a facade. That this should happen is alarming enough. That it is happening to one of the few competent politicians in the world for the crime of honesty should inspire the fury of all freedom-loving peoples.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Understanding European Extremism
Typically, when speaking of European politics, Americans describe our friends on the other side of the Atlantic as being quite liberal. There is good reason for this. Spain, as an example, has extended basic rights to certain higher primates. France has three-year paid parental leave with job protection. And the United Kingdom has the world’s largest publicly funded health care system. What a lot of American seem not to realize is that Europeans, of late, have grown frustrated with the status quo. In particular, the demographic threat posed by Muslim immigrants from Africa and Asia puts many at risk of being minorities in their own nation. Accordingly, many governments have taken steps to prepare for this population shift, and started to enact policies that pander to the Muslims they expect to be the largest part of their future constituency. Politically, this advantages those in power. But it comes at the expense of the average citizen, who is seeing his basic liberty slip away. Whether it be the recent decision to grant legal standing to Sharia courts in the UK, or the jailing of Finnish bloggers for demanding their leaders not behave like dhimmis, but instead show spine, there is good reason for them to be concerned.
With the major parties unwilling to defend the national interest and stand up against radical Islam, that role has fallen to fringe parties on the far right wing of the political spectrum. A number of parties have gained greatly from this. Some, such as Vlaams Belang (Belgium) and Partij voor de Vrijheid (Denmark), are guilty of nothing other than poor PR efforts. But many of the parties making gains, such as the British National Party (UK) and the National Front (France) are populist hate machines who, in between their occasionally legitimate complaints about the EU, spew some of the most racist bile in the Western world. This was illustrated quite recently when Austria held elections on September 28 for the National Council. Together, Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs and the Bündnis Zukunft Österreich earned almost a third of the vote. Both are of these parties are of the racist variety, BZO especially.
In recent days, this has again made headlines because BZO leader Jörg Haider died in a car accident this past Saturday. His party is, not surprisingly, in great distress since he was the most iconic bigot in European politics, and helped make extremism socially acceptable in Austria. Of course, for that very same reason, there aren’t many people elsewhere shedding a tear over it. What matters is not so much the exact policy goals of his now mainstream racist party, but what allowed it, and the FPO, to gain so much ground. And that is the unwillingness of the mainstream to take up the great issue of our lifetime: violent political Islam.
While out two party system will prevent against a hardline xenophobic party from gaining serious political clout, both of the main parties in our nation have generally been ignoring the underlying issue. There are of course, a few vigilant individuals, such as Senator McConnell and Senator Brownbeck, who deserve praise for their strong and factually supported position here. But sadly, they are too few and far between. To make sure that this grave international security issue is not highjacked by bigots, but is instead part of the standard political discourse of the mainstream, greater awareness must be raised.
To that extent, we must all educate ourselves on the subject. A great place to start is at the Daniel Pipes lecture on October 21, 2008. At 9PM, he will be speaking in Lab Sciences 300 (on campus) about “Vanquishing the Islamist Enemy and Helping the Moderate Muslim Ally.” After, there will be plenty of time to ask questions, so that all in attendance can better understand the problem that so many politicians here and abroad seem content to ignore or accept as inevitable and unworthy of a tough response.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
