Bill Bucko

European Union will send dissenters to their death

21 posts in this topic

Another article linked to by Little Green Footballs:

from http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3290 :

... the same EU leaders, including the British Foreign Minister, the French President and the German Chancellor, have officially announced the enlargement of the EU to include Muslim North Africa and the Middle East. A proposed European Arrest Warrant lists a number of crimes, including terrorism, armed robbery, rape, and racism and xenophobia, which are punishable throughout the EU. The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any other member state. The accused must then be transited for trial to the issuing state within ten days, without any interference, judicial or otherwise, by the executing state.

Racism includes "Islamophobia," according to numerous EU documents. Which means that "Islamophobia" will soon be treated as a crime as serious as rape and armed robbery across most of the European continent. At the same time, European leaders are busy enlarging the EU to include North Africa and the Middle East, thus flooding Europe with tens of millions of additional Muslims. Not far into the future, EU authorities can arrest a person in, say, Denmark or Italy, who has published a cartoon that could be considered offensive to Islam. He or she will then be quietly handed over to the authorities in Algeria, Egypt or Jordan. Remember that blasphemy against Islam potentially carries the death penalty according to sharia. Multiculturalism in Europe is thus reaching its openly totalitarian phase ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Articles like that don't help, it is all largely untrue.

The announcement wasn't anything of the sort, nothing official has been announced. Though it seems likely Turkey could join in the future and that perhaps north African countries may be eligible in the future. But the European Union has banned the death penalty among its members, it is not possible to use such punishments if you are an EU state.

European Arrest Warrants are a bit scary - being tried in a foreign court is somewhat intimidating.

Islamophobia *is* a crime in most EU countries - which is also repulsive.

Not that anyone will look at the facts. There exist two schools of thought here, see no evil and all evil is true. The former will dismiss the whole thing, the latter would take it as gospel if you said "EU is run by lizards".

Seriously, many Eurosceptics in the UK believe the lizard theory. Something about an Illuminati which is run by lizards from space in human bodies, and propagates its brainwashing through the mainstream media in order to create a New World Order :)

Au revoir, Europe. There is nobody competent to defend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I oppose Euro arrest warrants, the concerns maybe over the top. The UK will not extradite anyone who may face the death penalty, even to the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly hope that the concerns voiced in my original post are exaggerated.

However, if Moslems don't impose their barbarism on all of Europe, it won't be through lack of trying:

from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374721,00.html

Report: Jordan Charges Dutch Politican With Blasphemy

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Dutch politician Geert Wilders was charged by a Jordanian prosecutor Tuesday with blasphemy and contempt of Muslims for making an anti-Koran film, and ordered to stand trial in Jordan, Reuters reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first time I read the post that started this thread, the following didn't catch my attention:

The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any other member state.
[emphasis mine]

Is that accurate? Belgium can send its police into Portugal to arrest someone, and Portugal would have no say in the matter? Isn't that, in effect, legalizing armed invasion?

If Muslim countries are admitted to the EU, that would open the door for, say, Iran to declare Mary McAleese in violation of some evil "law", then march into Áras an Uachtaráin and drag her out. Why not just skip the pleasantries and go directly to anarchy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first time I read the post that started this thread, the following didn't catch my attention:
The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any other member state.
[emphasis mine]

Is that accurate? Belgium can send its police into Portugal to arrest someone, and Portugal would have no say in the matter? Isn't that, in effect, legalizing armed invasion?

If Muslim countries are admitted to the EU, that would open the door for, say, Iran to declare Mary McAleese in violation of some evil "law", then march into Áras an Uachtaráin and drag her out. Why not just skip the pleasantries and go directly to anarchy?

Don't you mean competing governments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is so horrible to see the home of Newton, Kepler, Goethe, Locke, Voltaire, Raphael, Michelangelo, the Louvre, the Parthenon, etc. being overrun by incompetent, effete idiots and camel-F***ing barbarians.

What a horrible, horrible tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is so horrible to see the home of Newton, Kepler, Goethe, Locke, Voltaire, Raphael, Michelangelo, the Louvre, the Parthenon, etc. being overrun by incompetent, effete idiots and camel-F***ing barbarians.

What a horrible, horrible tragedy.

It certainly is, but look at what happened to Germany under the rise of the Nazis in what was an advanced cultural center of the world. They did it to themselves without the help of "camel-F***ing barbarians". :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first time I read the post that started this thread, the following didn't catch my attention:
The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any other member state.
[emphasis mine]

Is that accurate? Belgium can send its police into Portugal to arrest someone, and Portugal would have no say in the matter? Isn't that, in effect, legalizing armed invasion?

If Muslim countries are admitted to the EU, that would open the door for, say, Iran to declare Mary McAleese in violation of some evil "law", then march into Áras an Uachtaráin and drag her out. Why not just skip the pleasantries and go directly to anarchy?

Yes, that is accurate, it gets worse too. You can be tried in a foreign court, in a language you don't speak, before you are arrested - but you don't actually attend the trial. You just get a letter saying you're guilty and a knock on the door!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Is that accurate? Belgium can send its police into Portugal to arrest someone, and Portugal would have no say in the matter? Isn't that, in effect, legalizing armed invasion?

If Muslim countries are admitted to the EU, that would open the door for, say, Iran to declare Mary McAleese in violation of some evil "law", then march into Áras an Uachtaráin and drag her out. Why not just skip the pleasantries and go directly to anarchy?

I thought this was the original intention of the EU architects: To essentially eliminate individual sovereignty of member states and "evolve" to a single European "entity." They started with the elimination of border guards, then a single currency and the elimination of all other currencies, then a Euro court, so this isn't technically "invasion," according to the Eurocrats: It's just police apprehension of a criminal (notice I didn't say "suspect.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought this was the original intention of the EU architects: To essentially eliminate individual sovereignty of member states and "evolve" to a single European "entity." They started with the elimination of border guards, then a single currency and the elimination of all other currencies, then a Euro court, so this isn't technically "invasion," according to the Eurocrats: It's just police apprehension of a criminal (notice I didn't say "suspect.")

True, but this is more like New Jersey sending its state troopers into Utah without Utah having to be notified that they're coming. There appears to be no coordination, no EU-wide equivalent to the FBI, just Country...sorry, "Member State"...A decides they want somebody from Member State B and sends forces to nab the guy, and Member State A can't do anything about it.

What happens when Member State A decides they don't want the guy nabbed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, but this is more like New Jersey sending its state troopers into Utah without Utah having to be notified that they're coming. There appears to be no coordination, no EU-wide equivalent to the FBI, just Country...sorry, "Member State"...A decides they want somebody from Member State B and sends forces to nab the guy, and Member State A can't do anything about it.[...]

This is not what "The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any other member state." means.

The European Arrest Warrant does not authorize another collective, I mean, nation, to send its peace officers into another jurisdiction. The procedures of extradition for provisional, charged and convicted individuals have been in place since the 1980s, a process the European Arrest Warrant specifically pertains to. A prima facie case still does not need to be proven to request extradition within many European countries, so I'm not suggesting the potential inclusion of Islamic nations in the EU is negligible news, I'm simply saying that in continental Europe the fluidity of European Arrest Warrant is not something new. A government official who has never attended the scene of an alleged offense can put forth an unsworn statement of facts, and so can any other officer. It is besides the point whether the death sentence in the prosecuting country is involved or not; if you read any case that refers to sentencing based on "an agreed statement of facts" it means the barristers have agreed to put forth a version of events which even takes precedence over the unsworn statement of facts written by an arresting officer. The extension of fiction about fiction as basis for extradition is bad law.

As a side remark, parliamentary or government bodies, or the predominant religion of a nation, needn’t necessarily be Islamic. Any government only needs to be sufficiently apologetic for any perception that it is somehow anti-Islam to issue an extradition request since even a prima facie case is irrelevant for provisional detention or to charge a person. This is of course not to say that a sworn statement of facts extraditing an accused on a prima facie basis is necessarily any more legally valid since, for example, one can be convicted in absentia and an extradition request made using a sworn statement of facts regarding the fact of one's conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article is erroneous in many points, most of which is the central point of inclusion of African nations in the EU. Sarkozy is already a very strong opponent of the entry of Turkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This article is erroneous in many points, most of which is the central point of inclusion of African nations in the EU. Sarkozy is already a very strong opponent of the entry of Turkey.

But the difference between Sarco and the EU commission is that Sarcos replacement won't be bound by his predecessors rules. The EU is bound by the decisions of former administrators.

Euromed is an active project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but what happens when Sarkozy is out? Look how, just by himself he's in a boycott against the Chinese Olympics, and prevents Turkey from entering into the EU. He's materialized out of nowhere to suddenly be the biggest hope Europe's future (a Frech president, of all people...). Dutch politicians are all corrupt -- look how they're repressing Geert, how indifferent they were to Ayaan Hirsi's life, how they suppressed the Mohammed cartoons. Germany hosts the 2nd largest population of Muslims and their hospitals (from what I hear) are beginning to look favorably upon the science of acupuncture... Absent of communism, absent of any great moral conflict, Europe is still folding in on itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excerpt from: Islamists have the West just where they want us, By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/

• In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination. A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call "Islamophobia." Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own "ten-year program of action" which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan's Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, "Fitna" — Wilders' short documentary film that ties certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism — is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code. Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the "Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign" which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has "confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed." In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned "Islamophobes" like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excerpt from: Islamists have the West just where they want us, By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/

• In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination. A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call "Islamophobia." Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own "ten-year program of action" which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan's Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, "Fitna" — Wilders' short documentary film that ties certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism — is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code. Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the "Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign" which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has "confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed." In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned "Islamophobes" like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

This maybe grand-standing, do you know if the Jordanian warrant is actually enforceable in Europe? I'm not aware of any such bilateral extradition arrangements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this differ morally from our America sending illegal (or denied) immigrants to their death or destitution or sickness or torture? Both seem to be denials of man's fundamental rights.

Out of selfish reasons, I'm more concerned about our standards than the European ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this differ morally from our America sending illegal (or denied) immigrants to their death or destitution or sickness or torture? Both seem to be denials of man's fundamental rights.

Out of selfish reasons, I'm more concerned about our standards than the European ones.

No one is "sending" anyone anywhere by requiring that they follow the laws for entry into this country, which include provisions for political asylum. To equate that with sending innocent people to their death is obscene and has nothing to do with advocating more rational immigration laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this differ morally from our America sending illegal (or denied) immigrants to their death or destitution or sickness or torture? Both seem to be denials of man's fundamental rights.

Out of selfish reasons, I'm more concerned about our standards than the European ones.

No one is "sending" anyone anywhere by requiring that they follow the laws for entry into this country, which include provisions for political asylum. To equate that with sending innocent people to their death is obscene and has nothing to do with advocating more rational immigration laws.

I believe I was pointing out that our immigration laws are as immoral as the European arrest warrant laws. It is a fact that our immigration laws deny many (prospective) immigrants their natural rights and thuis send them to their death, sickness, destitution or torture by their government or by local criminals, either in their own country or here in America.

Furthermore, I believe that we should address that issue first, as it is much more in our own immediate interest than what happens to Europeans. Ie because of these immoral immigration laws we also deny our own citizens to hire and house whomever they desire, and we deny them to have provide shelter and support to their own families who still live abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one is "sending" anyone anywhere by requiring that they follow the laws for entry into this country, which include provisions for political asylum. To equate that with sending innocent people to their death is obscene and has nothing to do with advocating more rational immigration laws.

I have to disagree with you here. The U.S. government has no actual right to block entry and residence of any non-criminals. By doing so, they *are* violating rights with all that implies. How much good did political asylum do Elian Gonzalez? Not only did the U.S. government not defend his right to stay in America, which had been supported by the death of his mother while escaping Cuba, it actively violated them by sending him back there, which led to his spiritual murder even if not his physical one. Even as far back as WW2, the country was statist enough to turn back Jews escaping from Europe, to their certain death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites