And the truth shall set you free”…..not in the EU
“In a statement on Thursday the ECHR said: ‘The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.’
‘…have their religious feelings protected…’ says it all really
Feelings? I’ve got feelings too but I daren’t speak about them if I wish to remain free. Whatever free means today.
Insiders on the court can reveal how this all came about. Here is what their leak might look like.
Here is an excerpt from Breyer promoting his book:
The point of my comment is that the Progs around the world will do what they can to reinforce other Progs, especially those even less open in their agenda than Breyer, whom they hope will yet succeed in subverting the US to global rule.
Slightly off topic, I’ve just learned that Sinhead O’Connor has converted to Islam. Took her time getting there didn’t she.
“This is ridiculous on multiple levels. But the worst part is that truths about Muhammad that might be offensive to Muslims are being legally banned simply because it upsets Muslims. If that’s going to be the measure going forward in Europe, then any truth that causes people to riot and kill people will also be banned and the mob will win.
And it won’t take long for them to figure this out and use it to manipulate the courts.”
RightScoop
Non-tyrannies protect its subjects from actual, objective harm.
Gradual repression of actions causing perceived, subjective harm embarks on the road to tyranny.
The West is way past beginning down that road. Free people are awakening. The question raised by Codevilla last week was “Is it too late?” More Codevilla:
It’s not as if she was making any of it up. All she was doing was drawing a logical conclusion from what the Islamic sources tell us!
Let’s face it Yokel. The courts are claiming they’re doing this to keep the offended from rioting. Authoritarians never permit anyone to riot lest it detract from their appearance of power and control — unless the rioters are working, knowingly or not, for the tyrants or would-be tyrants. Think of the Brownshirts before Hitler’s rise to power, and then the Gestapo, the SS, and Hitler Youth once he was in. Another example: Antifa in Portland.
@Pascal And Neville Chamberlain claimed in a speech after his agreement with Herr Hitler that it guaranteed “Peace in our time”. In practice it just kicked the can down the road a mile or two. But by then war was inevitable. Similarly this present determination by the ECHR will only kick those riots of which you speak a mile or two down the road. Riots remain inevitable.
Please, God……
Darin, interestingly, that link I provided in the open house to Codevilla predicted this and more of the same.
Covered by Tucker tonight.
What I see is two issues. #1: Liberty is not exactly the same as freedom. The captain gives you liberty when he chooses to give you a day off. The difference between your right, and liberty is the captain chooses to do so. The statue of liberty is surrounded by water. Freedom means your right to do so without any interference. Liberty means only if they choose to allow you to do it.
Freedom of speech no longer exists, Liberty of speech where they can put a limit does. So this brings up the 2nd issue. The Petrodollar. In 1971 the gold guarantee was ended, no longer was a US dollar guaranteed as good as gold. Henry Kissinger made an agreement with the Arab nations where the US would protect the Arabs and buy more of their oil by (protecting Alaska’s environment), if the Arabs would lend to the US. Now the Arabs can decide what rules everybody must go by. This is why liberty of speech is limited to the extent that is in the Arabs interest.
International treaties are concerned with commerce, so it all makes sense with Pascal’s research about treaties. The Arabs make the rules, the Western world accepts so that we can continue to borrow from the Arabs.
That’s a solid connection you made there Warren.
How long has it been since I posted about how treaty law supersedes what else is in the American Constitution? I’m glad you remembered.
Ah yes Pascal, you’re certainly now hot on the money their. In numerous law dictionaries, a state is a terrtitory with people on it, a government, and the ability to enter into international treaties. This is true with my English, NZ and Canadian law dictionaries.
In the case of the United States, the international treaties is exempt from each state, but is applicable to Washington D.C. with representatives from each state.
Also in the book ‘the matrix as it is’ by David E. Robinson, he also states that the treaties is how they will take away our rights. I have about 10 of his books, and he always gets to the issue, explaining how the legal system works.
https://www.amazon.com/Matrix-As-Different-Point-View/dp/145630996X
My review is under meatloaf. He’s also written, ‘oil beneath our feet’ which explains what I said about the petrodollar.
Its been a long time since you talked about treaties vs Constitutional law.
3 cheers for Pascal.
I disagree strongly with your definition of liberty, Warren. The masthead for CR was chosen after careful thought and with good reason.
I see ‘freedom’ as the freedom to do all kinds of things, not all of them good by any measure.
Liberty is the assumption that we are free men and carries with it responsibilities and obligations. There is no liberty without them. The Republic of the United States is based on that understanding of the word.
KG, First of all I do not want you to change the Masthead. Liberty is positive, freedom is positive, both are positive. What my arguement was is that Freedom means unlimited without restraint, whereas liberty means some amount of restraint.
2ndly, government is sneaky with words. For instance in my 2,000 page dictionary the definition of wealth is prosperity and abundance, it gives many definitions, but most definitions agree with that. When the government says wealth tax, their own documents define it as anything that produces an income. So gold and silver is wealth in the normal definition-prosperity and abundance, but not in the government’s definition as producing income.
My point being the government uses legalese to rob you blind. When your in court the words they use mean one thing in law and one thing to you. For instance in my Amazon author’s account, I am a person, which means taxpayer. Whereas in normal english person means human being. They started to do this in the 1930s. One of the things they did is they put admiralty/maritime words in law. For instance, in New Zealand, Australia, England and Canada, their is a bill of exchange act. The BOE occurs when the captain delivers the toyotas, and when you pay for something it falls under the bill of exchange act.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1908/0015/1.0/096be8ed8009b9e8.pdf
So what I’m saying is legalese is the way they get control over you without you being the wiser.
Finally, I just want to say Jordan Maxwell comes from a family of judges and religious people, so he understands legalese and he’s one of the people that shows their is a distinction between freedom meaning unlimited and liberty as not unlimited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1nm8LwmZjQ
I hope this helps clear things up, and again I’m not against the masthead, and liberty and freedom are both good.