Tag Archives: freedom of speech

August 31, 2018 · 12:48

Lollies to the right

Yes, today is Friday and as every Catholic is seeking out the best place to find their serving of Friday fish, others seek their food from optionally different vendors. Yet for many Muslims, its Dutch Sweets day, and let’s be honest the Dutch have a great sweets department, from the liquorice (the best in the world), Haagse Hopjes, gingerbread, ginger snaps, chocolate letters, butter cake, Apple Pie and custard pies, the Dutch know how to present some of the very best Vitamin C (Candy) items on the planet. Yet for many today, the menu wants a slice of Geert Wilders. It seems that finally the setting is that Geert Wilders has opted to cancel the Mohammed Cartoon competition. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/30/geert-wilders-far-right-dutch-mp-cancels-muhammed-cartoon-competition) is telling us that his response was “To avoid the risk of victims of Islamic violence, I have decided not to let the cartoon contest go ahead“, which is actually a bit weird. You see, he pretty much had to flee Texas, USA in 2015 over a similar event. Did he think that something unacceptable to Muslims in the USA would suddenly be tolerated in the Netherlands whilst hiding behind ‘freedom of expression’? For me it is actually a little sad, as I had a nice setting to take away Dutch business for myself (for mere professional, and greed driven reasons), in addition it inspired me to write a film script for Netflix called ‘How to assassinate a politician‘, aka ‘The Essay‘, and that is off the table now too (or perhaps not).

And in light of what was presented, we are also seeing two settings of falsehood. The first by him with ““It’s not just about me,” Wilders said in the statement. Opponents of the event “see not only me, but the entire Netherlands as a target”“, that is not a truth, it is correct (but for other reasons), it is a non-Truth because Geert Wilders instigated the outrage in a way that he would create the outrage. He got to play the ‘Muslims hate us card’ whilst he is very aware that his actions and his actions alone instigated it. The second player was not lying, but still acted (as far as I can tell) in falsehood. You see, when we see “Rutte added that people in the Netherlands have far-reaching freedom of speech rights and the government did not intend to seek the contest’s cancellation” we see a falsehood and a dangerous setting. Dutch law does not allow for certain settings.

When we look (at https://www.wodc.nl/binaries/ob248-volledige-tekst_tcm28-68659.pdf) at the Dutch Paper ‘Profanity, discriminating expressions because of religion and hate speech‘ we are confronted with the setting of Dutch Criminal Law Article 137. Here we see: “He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately exhausts a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, is punished with imprisonment of a maximum of one year or a fine of the third category“, it applies, because Islam is outspoken on the fact that there will be no image of the prophet Muhammad, that is one setting that the Dutch Prime minister cannot avoid and in that, the setting we see that not only was the competition planned to be held in the Dutch parliament building, the fact that we are confronted with the quote “Rutte added that people in the Netherlands have far-reaching freedom of speech rights and the government did not intend to seek the contest’s cancellation“, a clear setting where we see more than a mere collision of ‘freedom of speech’ and the law. So even as we see on page 26: “the discrimination provisions of relatively recent make-up, and were only introduced in the Netherlands in 1971“, considering that it was introduced after he was too old to be breastfed by his mommy and long enough to accept that the law was in place long before he got elected into politics, it is from that point of view that we can establish his intent in the act of insulting Islam.

In addition to this, the entire matter was handled incorrectly by Dutch Parliament, even the setting that the cancellation was not sought. There might have been some defence possible if the venue was not in a Dutch Government building, but that was not the case, tying the hands of Dutch politicians through their inactions.

So the predictions that I made 8 days ago in the article ‘Liberalism overboard‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/08/23/liberalism-overboard/) and the fact that we now also see that Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has been requested to cut ties with the Dutch, so in this we are still seeing escalations. In this Dutch Ambassador to Pakistan Ardi Stoios-braken is about to get an interesting anniversary day, as she assumed the office on September 7^th last year, in this there is now the smallest chance that she will not even be able to complete the one year milestone. The additional part where we see that Pakistan is importing close to $400 million from the Netherlands each year is optionally be getting hit as well. 54% if that pie is consumer goods and even if overall the amount is not that big a deal, there is still the chance that it will also impact Dutch exports to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Indonesia and Qatar, to what extent is impossible to say, but the wound reopened by Pakistan is much larger than most people realise, especially ass the Dutch Prime minister had the option to diffuse the situation in May 2018 and decided not to do that, that in itself is the larger evil to deal with. The other element in all this is Tehreek-e-Labbaik, a hard-line party that is close to one year old. The issue is that they have the options to sit in conversations with the imams, who would be reaching out to the nations mentioned earlier and even more so the nations I did not mention (Jordan, Iran and Yemen for example). In all this the crises is still continuing and anyone thinking that this will blow over, think again. For Pakistan the issue is actually twofold and Al Jazeera gives these two parts with “Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), Pakistan’s newest hard-line religious party, which calls for blasphemers to be put to death and celebrates those who have murdered the alleged perpetrators“, which should be regarded as a risk and danger towards violence. the second part is seen with: “A year ago, this kind of a political rally, in the heart of the political base of Pakistan’s ruling party, would have been unthinkable” this second part gives us not merely that there is a hard-line growth within Pakistan, it also implies and gives consideration that those voices will be listened to in Saudi Arabia and therefor also in Indonesia, which in turn might escalate issues in Egypt as well, although I have zero information that there is an interaction of thoughts between these groups at present, the likelihood of it happening should be set to much higher than not.

All issues that could have been prevented by not allowing such an anti-Islam provocation on Dutch government grounds and the additional timespan that the Dutch government would have had to soothe the emotions of Muslims in all this is now pretty much null and void.

In conclusion, it is the Media that also has a negated responsibility. When I am confronted with ““I have decided to cancel the competition to avoid the risk of making people victims of Islamist violence,” Wilders said in a statement. “I don’t want Muslims to use the cartoon competition as an excuse for Islamist violence.”” (Deutsche Welle), as well as “Wilders said adding that the competition is not to “provoke or insult”” (Straits times) are all settings of falsehood. this is not merely my opinion, the evidence can be seen with “Two men who opened fire Sunday outside of an event in Garland, Texas attended by Geert Wilders, a Dutch lawmaker and outspoken critic of radical Islam, have been killed by police“, which was an event in Garland Texas on May 4th 2015. Geert Wilders at that time responded on Twitter with: “Shots fired at Garland Mohammed cartoon free speech event. I just left the building after speeching. #garlandshooting — Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) May 4, 2015“. So not only was there an event three years ago, there was also every clear indication that it would happen again and with the Dutch Criminal Law in place, as well as the additional Dutch inactions, we can clearly see that there is a larger issue in play and the inactions of its current government must optionally be taken as a setting that is more about anti-Islam than with Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression from my point of view, but that last part is my personal take on the issue.

So when we do see escalations, hopefully all non-violent ones. We need to consider on the increasing collisions that we see in Freedom of Speech versus Freedom of Religion. It is my view that we are nearing a critical point where Accountability can no longer be avoided and if we agree that some will act on a freedom, we must also hold these people accountable for these actions (and perhaps they will be perfectly valid ones). I wonder what happens when that happens, if people start to think before they speak, we might see levels of de-escalation or better stated an increasing level of common sense whilst awake, which is never a bad thing.

So have a good Friday and do not forget that Monday morning is (at this very moment) a mere 59 hours away.

Limitations of the law?

It is an interesting, yet disgusting twist on the laws that involve freedom of speech. In Europe, the commonwealth as well as America, most of the nations in these groups have always championed freedom of speech. Yet, should there be a limit to that? Some argue that this should not be the case. The Netherlands has seen a first limit as it should exist in my mind. Those who have studied the law might be familiar with the Grudge Informer. It was one of my first law essay topics. Should unjust laws be accepted? This was at the heart of the matter, but what does this have to do with the freedom of speech?

In the Netherlands a case had proceeded through the courts involving what some call the freedom of speech, but what should be regarded as the dangers that is represented to children. The case went from court to the highest court, the Dutch equivalent of the UK Court of Appeal (US Supreme court). In there it was decided yesterday that the organisation ‘martijn’ is to be dissolved. (NOS News, April 18th 2014).

So what is the issue? Even though the case went on in regards to ‘freedom of speech’ and even though Mr Jon Schilder, Professor of Dutch constitutional law (Hoogleraar staatsrecht) is speaking academically that this is a dangerous development, the issue is that the organisation was about the protection of paedophiles. I did not go and utterly refuse to visit the site; I will not mention the location here either. The parents who took on this task after their child of three had been sexually abused have won the case after 4 years. They were appalled that the organisation had a website which, as it was stated that glorified paedophilia as well as handed insights into avoidance of prosecution as well as instruction on how to minimise a person’s forensic footprint.

I cannot fathom the issues that play in regards to the freedom of speech as it casually endangers children. This goes far beyond the issues of accountability that I have always championed. The fact that a national constitution has such a draconian level of freedom that anything goes is beyond my comprehension. (at http://nos.nl/artikel/637394-advocaat-van-martijn-teleurgesteld.html) The words from Lawyer Bart Swier are even more unsettling “Mijn bezwaar is dat er slechts sprake is van een denkbeeldig theoretisch risico, en niet van enig concreet gevaar. Dat zou eigenlijk de maatstaf moeten zijn voor een dergelijke vergaande inbreuk op de vrijheid van meningsuiting” translated: “My objection is that there is only an imaginative theorhetical risk and there is no concrete danger. This should be the measure for such an intense breach on the freedom of speech“.

I understand that Mr Swier is representing his customer, but can anyone even consider any level of ‘rights‘ when the foundation of such rights are a direct danger to the health and welfare of children?

When we look at the article at http://nos.nl/op3/artikel/637506-pedofielenvereniging-nu-echt-verboden-wie-vindt-wat.html, where we see the following: “Een groep van 49 wetenschappers, acteurs, schrijvers en andere bekende gezichten deed twee dagen geleden in de Volkskrant een oproep om Martijn niet te verbieden” translated: “A group of 49 scientists, actors, writers and other well known faces made a plea in the Volkskrant (a Dutch Newspaper) to not make the organisation illegal“.

Even if I could agree to the Freedom of Speech to the extent that the Dutch would like it to be, this organisation is for people with a sexual preference for children. In my mind it is the most horrific crime possible. It goes beyond anti-Semitism or Genocide. This is about the mental and physical destruction of a young life, which has no defence and will continue through life physically damaged, mentally broken and often far worse than both. It is utterly unacceptable in my mind. Although I have a good grip on the need for a freedom of speech, any act, consideration or even contemplation that can be regarded as a danger to children should not just be disallowed, those involved should be prosecuted beyond what we consider ‘correct’. Be mindful that I phrased ‘can be regarded as‘. Any danger to any child is not to be allowed EVER! If this world is to continue in any way, then this can only humanely happen if the safety of any child is set above all others.

Any law that endangers a child should be seen as unjust and therefore should not be abided to, which was at the centre of the Grudge informers. In a similar light, we should consider the US with their Jessica’s law, a law that had been championed by Bill O’Reilly to be passed into law. The official version is ‘The Jessica Lunsford Act’, (H.R. 1505 of the 109th Congress). It was never voted on and the law did not pass. There was some opposition and controversy, yet at the heart this act was to protect children under 12, by setting a massive verdict on any adult who sexually engaged with a child under 12. In my view Mr O’Reilly had the right sentiment and the 109th US Congress who had led this slide should reconsider their point of view as they failed to better protect children. I will admit that there are likely legal issues that are true issues to resolve, yet the foundation is that this was about protecting children. Like the Dutch verdict which showed a rarely seen danger in regards to the freedom of speech. It is more fitting that this concerns both Civil Law and Common Law. How can the law be so ‘tolerant’ towards the dangers to a child?

A legal failing to a group so unable to defend itself is a failing to the Justice system as a whole; there is my link to the Grudge Informer. The question becomes whether the law has failed, or is failing the protection of children. It is a hard verdict, but from these two points, that failing is a yes, however, there are two sides to this. On one side, I feel uncertain to additionally act against a Paedophile with new laws, as this would complicate the entire prosecution under the Mental Health Act, as this is dealt with through the DSM-V (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). And my reasoning is that I would not like to introduce some weird loophole giving them additional legal escape routes. Yet, this should not stop the legal groups to add additional protection to the child as well. If we consider the Dutch case, then the existence of the organisation, gives a clear view that there is premeditation, which in itself should allow for additional protection of the child. Even though the organisation is now illegal (as per yesterday’s verdict), these people will find other ways and it is almost a certainty that they will ‘connect’ online. This should give the law makers a direction where the ‘hunt’ should start. Although hunt is an incorrect legal word (the sentiment is however very correct), the need for a shield that protect children on a global level is an essential one and should be regarded as a first priority for lawmakers everywhere. Consider in that part the article (at http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42108748/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/massive-online-pedophile-ring-busted-cops/), there was no date given in that article, but the fact that this involved 70,000 members is something that should scare lawmakers and parents alike.

We as adults all have a sacred duty to keep all children; no matter who’s they are safe from the dangers of such predators. In my personal humble opinion, in regards to the Dutch sentiment on the freedom of speech in this particular case, I hereby state: ‘freedom of speech be damned!‘

The protection of a child should always be first!

In Media, we distrust!

Is it not a lovely day when you wake up, you go downstairs and if it is warm enough, likely in nothing more than a simple bathrobe you sit down. At this point, whether it is inside, or outside, you get the first start of the day with coffee and the newspaper. For most people, that part had been for a long time a slice of heaven.

We would go through the news whilst sipping tea or coffee (in my case the latter). What if I told you that these times are now forever a thing of the past?

My reasoning? For this I will go over each case in three parts. First the point I make, then the reasoning for that point and lastly the motive I personally think is behind that. I would like to add sources, but at times there are little to none and it is all based on common sense.

First there is no need to rehash the entire Leveson history. That reports was made and filed and suddenly the press was all uppity uppity on ‘the freedom of speech’ and how their rights are now no more.

Let us take a look at this part.

1. How often does the press report on privacy violations by large companies like Microsoft?

Answer: almost never. I found one article by the guardian, and a few by what we would normally all less reliable sources. (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/30/microsoft-privacy-chief-nsa)

Motive: The publications rely on big business (advertisements). It relies less on governments as their form of income and in addition, government is always seeking visibility, big business brings in money. In this situation I personally think that the press seems to be willing to ‘ignore‘ or whisper very softly certain events.

How about Microsoft HealthVault?

They state: “Privacy, It’s your HealthVault account. You decide who can see, use, add, and share info, and which health apps have access to it. HealthVault won’t provide your health information to any other app or service without your permission.”

Venturebeat had the following interesting quotes “For instance, Microsoft reserves the right to store your medical data offshore, in countries that may not have the same privacy protections as the U.S.”

“HealthVault appears to open the door to a potentially unlimited line of people, entities or programs that can obtain permission to read and alter your health information, since it’s possible to delegate the ability to grant those permissions to others.” If did find a few mentions by CBS and ZDNET, yet the papers (the big ones) did not show up in any search. Even though this issue is not that recent, it is still interesting that the big ones aren’t anywhere near this place.

If we consider that this means that if an insurer gets access to this, then the smallest visit to the hospital could result in an increase to your premium. This is all linked to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996. There we find that the HIPAA Privacy Rule regulates the disclosure of Protected Health Information held by what we would call “covered entities” (employer sponsored health plans, health insurers, and medical service providers that engage in certain health transactions.) By regulation, the Department of Health and Human Services extended the HIPAA privacy rule to independent contractors of covered entities who fit within the definition of “business partners”.

So, if these contractors are outside of the national borders, your health data goes into several other directions too.

Consider that we volunteer this and other personal data to Microsoft (your Skype, your software, your Microsoft devices and your browser). How long until you represent a Z-Value? Not before too long, you are diminished to several Z-Values, and as your value depletes to below the norm, what options will remain for you?

Yet, the press seems to banter again and again on NSA and GCHQ. The question becomes, whether the press is nothing more than a simple tool to make us look the wrong way, whilst big business has a free go at us and our personal details.

I do not claim to know what the actual truth is here, but I do know that the press has not been focusing on the wider truth and reality too much lately. That is something that becomes slightly more visible when we read Claire Fox in her smug article (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/leveson-has-done-his-damnedest-to-encourage-press-regulation-despite-his-protestations-8874676.html)

When you hear the actual response by his Lordship in regards to WHY he felt it was inappropriate to answer, Claire just trivialises it in the air of “that he would not play ball“. Let us not forget that it is her right to see things in the way she did, I will not attack that, but this situation left me with question marks on how far ‘misrepresentation‘ goes at present.

So if big business is protected through non-visibility, then why don’t we just get rid of all journalists and rely on bloggers? The digital world is ready for it all, journalists no longer seem to be truly ‘story‘ driven, when the bulk hang on the usual GCHQ drab anyone can get from Reuters and the bulk of the big business transgressions remain on blogs, I wonder where the journalistic pride and ethics remained as they claim their part in their need for ‘freedom‘.

2. How will many protect their children and finances if visibility remains low on issues that have an impact? Many PC’s and tablets get linked to games that are ‘proclaimed’ to be free. Yet, when you want to move forward, you can pay for additional options.

The BBC covered this on September 25th (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24272010). The Guardian seemed to have covered the same story and that is pretty much it. So why is there not a lot more visibility?

I had a look at a program called ‘Dragon Story‘. It looks nice, it is a little non-adult, but it has a few original sides. You can breed two dragons together and they leave an egg. You can hatch that egg and get a new different dragon. You can buy many of them, or if you take the time breed your collection. This is all pretty original. The dragons in their habitats collect money and that money can be used to grow your area. Yet, the part not shown is that some dragons are rare, some habitats (larger ones) are expensive. Smaller habitats can be bought with coins, but the larger ones must be bought with gold. That costs actual money. A child can without realising it spend $20 per habitat, some dragons; the really rare ones cost $50. So in 30 seconds a child can spend more money than a full version of Grand Theft Auto costs. It is clear that actions can be taken to prevent some damage, but the visibility is not there. Why?

In reflection upon ‘Dragon Story’, an addictive game named ‘Blockheads’ (a 2-d version of Minecraft) can also be downloaded for free, and you can buy an upgrade so that all actions go twice as fast. The price, $5! Now an additional option can be bought for $3, so that the player can play in higher resolution, a total of $8 for something that need not be bought, the choice is up to the player. THAT is what I call an excellent approach!

So where is the press here?

It cannot be for the lack of ‘public’ interest, as the tablet market in the UK alone is soaring towards 190 million owners this year. That is more than the total global owner base of the PlayStation 2 used to be (which was 150 million). So, one could say that tablet issues should be at the top of every newspaper. The Google search seemed to contradict this (I had to start somewhere).

So when we look at these heated arguments on the freedom of the press, we should be asking ourselves what they are complaining about. Freedom is nice, but when they relate it to the limits of their cubicle we get to miss a lot of information, the press and especially their editors should realise that.

In my view, to the extent I had read the Leveson report, I saw it not as an attack on the freedom of the press, but on the ‘enforcement’ of ethics and accountability. Those two are elements in any form of Journalism. For I am never against the freedom of the press, I do think that some acts require accountability. The hollow phrase ‘the people have a right to know’ lost its value when some used it to tabloid away all levels of privacy. Crashing a funeral less than two weeks ago by the Daily Mail is an excellent example of that. I do wonder whether all this is just about the journalists, or was the Leveson escalation due to a failing by the editors to keep a proper pulse of the journo’s they are supposed to mentor. To that I have no honest answer; there are too many murky facts in the open.

The PRESS fallout has been a long one and we are not there yet!

Tag Archives: freedom of speech

Lollies to the right

Limitations of the law?

In Media, we distrust!

Recent Posts

Archives