Expatica's Dutch news in English: Court refuses to ban Dutch paedophile party

Posted on July 18th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News.

Expatica’s Dutch news in English: Court refuses to ban Dutch paedophile party
Court refuses to ban Dutch paedophile party

AMSTERDAM — A court in The Hague had turned down a request to outlaw pro-paedophile party PNVD.

The ban was sought by the Soelaas foundation which investigates instances of paedophilia in the Netherlands.

But Judge HFM Hofhuis ruled that the PNVD has the same right to exist as any other political party. The court also took into account that Soelaas did not have a compelling and urgent interest to justify a ban.

“They (Soelaas) only want to give expression to their moral concerns. That is far from being sufficient to outlaw a party,” Hofhuis said. Soelaas argued a preventative ban was needed to protect children from the PNVD.

There was an outcry in the Netherlands
and abroad earlier this year when the party was formed by three self-confessed paedophiles to campaign for the legalisation of child porn and sex between adults and children.

The PNVD also seeks to allow teenagers older than 16 to act in porn movies, as long as the participation is voluntary. The age of consent should be cut from 16 to 12, the party says.

The arguments the Dutch judge uses are compelling, but of course because it is an ‘paedophile’ party it doesn’t feel right to me. Can you base a legal system on that kind of feelings?

2 comments.

Expatica’s Dutch news in English: Court refuses to ban Dutch paedophile party

Posted on July 18th, 2006 by .
Categories: Misc. News.

Expatica’s Dutch news in English: Court refuses to ban Dutch paedophile party
Court refuses to ban Dutch paedophile party

AMSTERDAM — A court in The Hague had turned down a request to outlaw pro-paedophile party PNVD.

The ban was sought by the Soelaas foundation which investigates instances of paedophilia in the Netherlands.

But Judge HFM Hofhuis ruled that the PNVD has the same right to exist as any other political party. The court also took into account that Soelaas did not have a compelling and urgent interest to justify a ban.

“They (Soelaas) only want to give expression to their moral concerns. That is far from being sufficient to outlaw a party,” Hofhuis said. Soelaas argued a preventative ban was needed to protect children from the PNVD.

There was an outcry in the Netherlands
and abroad earlier this year when the party was formed by three self-confessed paedophiles to campaign for the legalisation of child porn and sex between adults and children.

The PNVD also seeks to allow teenagers older than 16 to act in porn movies, as long as the participation is voluntary. The age of consent should be cut from 16 to 12, the party says.

The arguments the Dutch judge uses are compelling, but of course because it is an ‘paedophile’ party it doesn’t feel right to me. Can you base a legal system on that kind of feelings?

2 comments.

Madrid11.net | Debates: Is Religion the Problem?

Posted on July 18th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Religion Other, Religious and Political Radicalization.

Madrid11.net | Debates
Debate
Madrid11.net invited two prominent voices to start the debate on ‘Is Religion the Problem?’

Most of the terrorist atrocities committed in recent years claim to be inspired by religion. Terrorists frequently refer to religious texts, and use holy scriptures as a justification for the killing of innocent civilians. Indeed, some believe that religion itself has become the problem, while others argue that it merely serves as an excuse. What’s your view?
Mark Juergensmeyer, professor of sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, believes religion can be a problematic medium that may serve to justify violence.
Faisal Bodi is a leading commentator on Muslim affairs and columnist for the London Guardian newspaper, he points to the misuse of ‘religion’ and the aspect of secularity in most wars.

0 comments.

Madrid11.net | Debates: Is Religion the Problem?

Posted on July 18th, 2006 by .
Categories: Religion Other, Religious and Political Radicalization.

Madrid11.net | Debates
Debate
Madrid11.net invited two prominent voices to start the debate on ‘Is Religion the Problem?’

Most of the terrorist atrocities committed in recent years claim to be inspired by religion. Terrorists frequently refer to religious texts, and use holy scriptures as a justification for the killing of innocent civilians. Indeed, some believe that religion itself has become the problem, while others argue that it merely serves as an excuse. What’s your view?
Mark Juergensmeyer, professor of sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, believes religion can be a problematic medium that may serve to justify violence.
Faisal Bodi is a leading commentator on Muslim affairs and columnist for the London Guardian newspaper, he points to the misuse of ‘religion’ and the aspect of secularity in most wars.

0 comments.

The Middle East's Symbolic Slugfest – Los Angeles Times

Posted on July 18th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News.

The Middle East’s Symbolic Slugfest – Los Angeles Times
The Middle East’s Symbolic Slugfest
Arabs strike, and Israelis hit back harder. Where’s the creativity and courage in that?

An op-ed by David N. Myers, (teaches Jewish history at UCLA).

RECENT EVENTS in Gaza and on the Israel-Lebanon border reveal the extraordinary value of symbols in the region. News of kidnapped Israeli soldiers prompts rejoicing in the streets of Gaza City and Beirut, as Arabs revel in the blow delivered to the powerful Israeli Goliath. Meanwhile, for Israelis, and many Jews around the world, the image of captured soldiers induces a kind of tribal rage that demands the use of overwhelming force. This force is intended, first, to return the soldiers, but no less important, to send a message that Israel’s military might remains as potent as ever.

And so the power of symbols brings Israel and its Arab foes together again in a deadly dance. Driven by the need to protect these symbols, the competing sides have entered into yet another cycle of violence that threatens to plunge the region into a new abyss. Indeed, the current pair of conflicts could easily expand from two to four fronts, if Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s patrons, Syria and Iran, are lured into the battle.

ADVERTISEMENT
On the eve, then, of a potentially dramatic escalation, the question arises: Is it worth it? Must the script be followed once again — according to which the two sides enact an almost ritualized series of violent actions and reactions in order to protect their symbols, knowing full well that these deeds will only deepen hatred and mistrust?

Israel, in particular, must weigh these questions before acting further. It was goaded into action by the two sets of kidnappings and accompanying rocket attacks. Instead of adopting a “more restrained and level-headed policy,” as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz counseled, Israel swallowed the bait of the terrorist groups that wanted nothing more than for it to react with massive force and propel the region into chaos.

The evidence now at hand suggests that the reaction has been strategically counterproductive. Israel’s military response in Gaza has been disproportionately harsh, injuring or killing scores of innocent civilians, and its chief Palestinian foe, Hamas, appears to have been considerably strengthened as a result.

On the Lebanese front, Israel’s attacks on the Beirut airport and elsewhere have not only incurred the wrath of Arabs throughout the region but have brought down a rain of rockets on Safed, Nahariya and even Haifa.

Israel has the right to protect its citizens from attack. No self-respecting state would stand idly by while rockets fall on its cities. But a measured, targeted and finite response — and not necessarily an immediate one borne of wrath — would seem a far more prudent course.

Especially mystifying in the current escalation is why Israel seems to be driven more by the symbolic impact of the soldiers’ abduction than anything else. Israel did not respond with the kind of massive force it is now marshaling after the bomb blast in Tel Aviv in January in which nine civilians were tragically killed. Why then react so disproportionately now?

The short answer is an absence of leadership. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert understands all too well the symbolic logic of the Middle East, where an attack always demands a greater counterattack. He forgets that Israel has used backroom diplomatic channels in the past to gain the release of its abducted citizens and that such an approach might work again now (especially because Israel still has some high-profile Arab prisoners in its possession).

Of course, Israel is not solely to blame for the escalating violence. But as a sovereign state with a major army, it has to be the most responsible party. What, after all, can we expect from Hamas or Hezbollah? Before plunging even further into the darkness of war, Israel must weigh carefully the consequences of its actions, lest the force of symbols overtake sound reason.

0 comments.

The Middle East’s Symbolic Slugfest – Los Angeles Times

Posted on July 18th, 2006 by .
Categories: Misc. News.

The Middle East’s Symbolic Slugfest – Los Angeles Times
The Middle East’s Symbolic Slugfest
Arabs strike, and Israelis hit back harder. Where’s the creativity and courage in that?

An op-ed by David N. Myers, (teaches Jewish history at UCLA).

RECENT EVENTS in Gaza and on the Israel-Lebanon border reveal the extraordinary value of symbols in the region. News of kidnapped Israeli soldiers prompts rejoicing in the streets of Gaza City and Beirut, as Arabs revel in the blow delivered to the powerful Israeli Goliath. Meanwhile, for Israelis, and many Jews around the world, the image of captured soldiers induces a kind of tribal rage that demands the use of overwhelming force. This force is intended, first, to return the soldiers, but no less important, to send a message that Israel’s military might remains as potent as ever.

And so the power of symbols brings Israel and its Arab foes together again in a deadly dance. Driven by the need to protect these symbols, the competing sides have entered into yet another cycle of violence that threatens to plunge the region into a new abyss. Indeed, the current pair of conflicts could easily expand from two to four fronts, if Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s patrons, Syria and Iran, are lured into the battle.

ADVERTISEMENT
On the eve, then, of a potentially dramatic escalation, the question arises: Is it worth it? Must the script be followed once again — according to which the two sides enact an almost ritualized series of violent actions and reactions in order to protect their symbols, knowing full well that these deeds will only deepen hatred and mistrust?

Israel, in particular, must weigh these questions before acting further. It was goaded into action by the two sets of kidnappings and accompanying rocket attacks. Instead of adopting a “more restrained and level-headed policy,” as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz counseled, Israel swallowed the bait of the terrorist groups that wanted nothing more than for it to react with massive force and propel the region into chaos.

The evidence now at hand suggests that the reaction has been strategically counterproductive. Israel’s military response in Gaza has been disproportionately harsh, injuring or killing scores of innocent civilians, and its chief Palestinian foe, Hamas, appears to have been considerably strengthened as a result.

On the Lebanese front, Israel’s attacks on the Beirut airport and elsewhere have not only incurred the wrath of Arabs throughout the region but have brought down a rain of rockets on Safed, Nahariya and even Haifa.

Israel has the right to protect its citizens from attack. No self-respecting state would stand idly by while rockets fall on its cities. But a measured, targeted and finite response — and not necessarily an immediate one borne of wrath — would seem a far more prudent course.

Especially mystifying in the current escalation is why Israel seems to be driven more by the symbolic impact of the soldiers’ abduction than anything else. Israel did not respond with the kind of massive force it is now marshaling after the bomb blast in Tel Aviv in January in which nine civilians were tragically killed. Why then react so disproportionately now?

The short answer is an absence of leadership. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert understands all too well the symbolic logic of the Middle East, where an attack always demands a greater counterattack. He forgets that Israel has used backroom diplomatic channels in the past to gain the release of its abducted citizens and that such an approach might work again now (especially because Israel still has some high-profile Arab prisoners in its possession).

Of course, Israel is not solely to blame for the escalating violence. But as a sovereign state with a major army, it has to be the most responsible party. What, after all, can we expect from Hamas or Hezbollah? Before plunging even further into the darkness of war, Israel must weigh carefully the consequences of its actions, lest the force of symbols overtake sound reason.

0 comments.