RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16598/netherlands-free-speech-geert-wilders

“[T]his is not just about my freedom of speech, but about everyone’s…” — Geert Wilders.

“But for all of us it was absolutely obvious that we all wanted to live in a society where people can…. present their views… and not to be punished for this. It is called the town square test, where every person can go in the center of the town, say what he or she thinks, what she believes, to insist on their right to promote these views, and will not be arrested and will not be punished for this. And if that is possible, that is a free society. If it is not permitted it is a fear society. And there is nothing in between.” — Natan Sharansky, former Soviet dissident, November 30, 2004.

The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights, article 10 of which states the following: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…”

In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Article 10 protects not only “the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected.”

What seems offensive is often extremely subjective…. Speech with which everyone agrees does not need protection.

In the light of the case law of the European Human Rights Court, which specifically protects the political speech of political actors and political campaigns, it is difficult to see how the question Wilders posed could legitimately be limited in accordance with article 10 (2). Wilders did not incite to violence, nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety or any of the other concerns noted as relevant to limiting free speech.

A Dutch appeals court recently upheld the conviction of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for supposedly insulting Moroccans in comments he made at an election rally in 2014. At the same time, however, the appeals court overturned Wilders’ conviction for inciting hatred or discrimination against Moroccans.

At an election rally in The Hague in March 2014, as leader of the Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom), reportedly the country’s most popular opposition party today, Wilders asked those present, whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd chanted “fewer, fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.”

Wilders was prosecuted and convicted in December 2016 on two counts: First for “deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race.” Second, for “inciting hatred or discrimination against these people.” Wilders did not receive any punishment then, nor will he now: Judge Jan Maarten Reinking stated, “The accused has already for years paid a high price for expressing his opinion,” referring to the fact that Wilders has lived under constant police protection for more than a decade and still receives constant threats. Most recently, Al Qaeda issued a threat against Geert Wilders, among others. “Terrible news,” Wilders called the threat.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16611/afghanistan-women

That the U.S.-Taliban agreement signed in February promised a U.S. withdrawal of troops by May 2021, but did not address women’s rights, may signal a bad start.

Over the past 19 years and three administrations, U.S. support has made an undeniably significant contribution to improving the lives of Afghan women and girls. There is abundant evidence across the board — in women’s political participation, economic opportunities, education, and health.

Despite the “lessons learned” of the Promote boondoggle, the fact that women have gained a stronger voice and attained the remarkable progress they did, was due in large part to programs supported by the United States and our allies.

A great example is how Afghanistan has been able to rebuild an education system that had basically stopped functioning. In 2001, about 900,000 students were in primary school — almost all of them male. Today, more than 8 million students are in school, and though more must be done, nearly 40 percent of them are girls. The statistics tell the story. According to leading economist Larry Summers, educating girls “may well be the highest return investment available in the developing world.”

Some might regard these women as “exceptions to the rule” but in reality they are exceptional women who — thanks to US support — have worked long and hard to change the rules. And when they move forward, the rest of the world moves with them.

Continued U.S. investment in Afghan women and their families is the right and strategic thing to do — not just for Afghanistan but for our own national interests, those of our new allies in the region and for all of the Free World.

While the world watches the Afghan government peace talks with the Taliban in Qatar, the Trump Administration continues to roll out its signature initiative to advance the role of women in peace negotiations. Ironically, for the U.S. government and its noteworthy agenda on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS), Afghanistan is where, as they say, the rubber meets the road. The world will know how serious the U.S. is about implementing WPS when we see how Afghan women fare in the coming months. That the U.S.-Taliban agreement signed in February promised a U.S. withdrawal of troops by May 2021, but did not address women’s rights, may signal a bad start.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/07/the-chinese-gutting-of-america/

Just as China has gutted America’s manufacturing base, it has gutted most of our nation’s foundational institutions.

When President Trump imposed import duties on a wide range of Chinese goods, we discovered just how reliant our nation had become on the communist People’s Republic of China for a wide array of manufactured and finished goods.  

A parade of American businesses petitioned the U.S. government to exempt some 13,000 different items from tariffs.

We are by now familiar with the empty factories across the country that once turned out auto parts, appliances, and consumer electronics, all shuttered by cheap imports from China. 

But who knew that the officially atheist nation whose regime persecutes people of faith prints most of the Bibles we read at home and in church? Our worship services depend on China.

Or that China produces the specialized drill bits used to extract oil and gas from the ground? Our energy industries depend on China.

And of course, the Chinese virus revealed just how dependent our health care had become on China.

But more than just these hard industries have been hollowed out. We see the same pattern repeated in academia, finance, media and government.

We have long regarded our institutions of higher education as the crown jewels of America, shrines of academic freedom and free inquiry as well as technical expertise. When they returned home, the story was that students from across the globe would carry the bedrock Western values inculcated by our universities and liberalize the world.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/turkish-president-erdogan-declares-jerusalem-has-hugh-fitzgerald/

Erdogan addressed the opening of the Turkish Parliament on October 1 with a ringing declaration that “Jerusalem Has Been Our City For Thousands of Years.” The “our” in “our city” seemed to refer now to the Turks, and now to the “Palestinian people.” The story is here.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Thursday implied that Jerusalem belongs to Turkey, referring to the Ottoman Empire’s control over the city for much of the modern era.

In this city that we had to leave in tears during the First World War, it is still possible to come across traces of the Ottoman resistance. So Jerusalem is our city, a city from us,” he told Turkish lawmakers during a major policy speech in Ankara. “Our first qibla [direction of prayer in Islam] al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem are the symbolic mosques of our faith. In addition, this city is home to the holy places of Christianity and Judaism.”

The Turks were the colonial masters of Jerusalem for 400 years, from 1516 to 1917, ruling over Muslim Arabs, Jews, and Christians too. If those 400 years of rule means that “Jerusalem is our [Turkish] city,” then what should we say about Istanbul, which as Constantinople was for more than a thousand years the richest and most important city in Christendom? Jerusalem has been lived in continuously by Jews for the last 3500 years; the archaeological evidence of that Jewish presence in the city has been found at thousands of sites – ancient synagogues, homes, tombstones, wine-presses, oil lamps, pottery – much of it with Hebrew inscriptions, with more such evidence being uncovered by archaeologists every year. Does President Erdogan expect the Western world to overlook all that? When Jerusalem was the first qibla, for just a few years before 624 A.D., when Muhammad replaced it with Mecca, Jews had already been living in Jerusalem for more than 2000 years.

The Ottoman Empire ruled over Jerusalem from 1516 to 1917. Modern Turkey, its successor state, has long stressed its enduring connection to the holy city, regularly condemning Israel’s alleged efforts to “judaize” it and the US administration’s December 2017 recognition of it as Israel’s capital. Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since the country’s founding, and the Jewish people have thousands of years of history in the city, backed up by extensive archaeological finds.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/big-promises-macron-bruce-bawer/

Beset by Communist riots, the China plague, and a campaign-season spike in Trump Derangement Syndrome, Americans have rarely been so disinclined to look abroad. But despite our stateside navel-gazing, life in Europe goes on, for better or worse. Take France.

Last Friday, French president Emmanuel Macron delivered what, on the face of it, seemed to be a remarkable speech on Islam. Macron, it will be recalled, has played both sides of the fence on this one. In 2015, while serving as Minister of the Economy, he described mass immigration as “an economic opportunity” – this at a time when French suburbs were packed with Muslims who were quite obviously a huge economic liability. Macron pointedly dismissed French voters’ concern about the nation’s failure to integrate newcomers: “This is not a subject on which we must govern by the polls,” he said. “History has shown that when we sometimes follow the will of the people, especially in difficult times, we are wrong.” Of course, immigration policy in Western Europe has never have anything whatsoever to do with the will of the people.   

Two years later, Macron remained sanguine, chiding those who “confuse terrorists with asylum seekers and refugees” – as if terrorism were the only problem created by the influx of Muslims into Europe.