Justice in france

From Richard Landes at Augean Stables:

L’Express, a major French weekly had the decision up at it’s website within two hours, able to cite verbatim from a document that in principle cannot be released until signed by the court.... I remind readers that I do not have the judgment yet, so I cannot judge either the article or the Judges on the basis of any more than what’s written here. It may be that the language of this article has been cherry-picked to put Karsenty in a bad light. But harsh it is.

Unfortunately Landes’ link to L’Express doesn’t work; the closest I can get is this arrow at their site: http://www.lexpress.fr/recherche/default.asp , but it doesn’t go anywhere. Sorry, but here’s what they said as quoted by Landes:

The image of a Palestinian child felled by bullets, diffused by the French station France2 in 2000, and become the symbol of the Palestinian Intifada, cannot be considered a montage or a staged scene, the correctional tribunal of Paris judged.

Against the advice of the floor [i.e., the Procureur] who recommended dropping the charges, the judges condemned Philippe Karsenty, the animator of the websit Media Ratings (www.M-R.fr) for "public defamation" of Charles Enderlin and France2.

Philippe Karsenty is also condemned to pay one symbolic Euro of damages to each of the plaintiffs, as well as 3000 Euros of court costs. He announced to the journalists that he intended to appeal the process and promised that he will present the "proofs" of his claims would be up at his website in the coming days.

An extraordinary judgement since the procureur recommended dropping the charges because Enderlin did nothing whatever to make his case. He produced no witnesses and refused to produce the rushes on which Karsenty’s criticisms (and Landes’s) are based. The procureur was angry about that and thus her (ignored) recommendation. Since all Enderlin produced was a letter from Jacques Chirac, we can conclude that justice in France depends on who, not what, you know. The law in France has ever been in thrall to aristocratic brutality punctuated only by brief murderous episodes of mob revenge. Sue me.

Check out Landes's website, www.seconddraft.org

Life's a... bitch?

According to Mark Holland, Liberal Poodle of Canada, Peter MacKay answered a colleague of his in the clean air debate who'd said, don't you care about clean air for humans and animals? What about your dog? And MacKay pointed to Belinda Stronach's chair and said "You already have her." A clever crack, I thought, and I'm not talking about Belinda.

But is Belinda Stronach a bitch? Bitches are made that way by nature; Stronach is more cunning. When she crossed the floor was she a whore? Whores rent their pudenda, they don't sell their souls. She is, therefore, neither a bitch nor a whore.

Accusations of sexism abound, naturally but what’s really sexist is that women like Belinda hide behind their sex and dismiss all opposition to their wills with that catch-it-all accusation. And the fact that Jens can say this kind of stuff but Johns can’t. Here's Jen Z, for example, from www.thepinkseats.com, a great post:

The Canadian Press confirmed today that recently retired Maple Leafs enforcer Tie Domi and Liberal MP Belinda Stronach are linked. As we mentioned last week, it was reported that they were seen together at the Toronto International Film Festival. And now Stronach has been named as the "other woman" in a divorce application filed by his wife Leanne.

One of the incidents cited in the document is that a friend of Leanne's saw Domi and Stronach walking holding hands down Madison Avenue in New York. None of this has been proven in court yet, but if it is true, shame on them. Domi's a dummy - not only for cheating on his wife and three kids, but for being disrespectful enough to be seen in public doing it too. And Stronach's a homewrecker - becoming involved with a married man...we love politicians with outstanding ethics, don't you?!

We were pondering what these two could possibly have in common and it occurred to us that maybe it's chewing men up and spitting them out - Domi with his fists on the ice and Stronach with her man-eating ways -she's been married twice and broke up with MP Peter Mackay when she crossed the floor in the House of Commons and became a Liberal). Like we said before, Domi better watch out. She'll leave him for the opposition ... a retired Montreal Canadiens player.

Love that last paragraph so much I emphasized it.
Here’s another bit I like, right from the horse’s mouth:

"I have chosen a public vocation and I recognize the scrutiny and attention that comes with that. At the same time, I am an individual citizen and I respect the right of everyone to privacy in their personal life."

Exactly! She wants it both ways. Actually it's even more simple than that: She wants it her way.

Kim-il-ding-dong

I nominate this picture as the weapon of choice against the choicest dingbat on the planet. Copy, laminate, drop on Pyonyang in the millions.

Stomach-churning

From Augean Stables this awful story:

I have heard from Paris that Philippe Karsenty was found liable for insulting Charles Enderlin and France2 to the sum of 3000 Euros to Enderlin and 5 symbolic Euros to France2. I do not have the judgment and only a vague account of the reasoning, which criticizes Philippe for not having done more research.

The implications of this reversal of Madame le Procureur’s clear recommendations, for what appears to be — we’ll have a translation and analysis of the judgment ASAP — a critique of Philippe that somehow absolves Enderlin of all of his journalistic failings, failings that came out abundantly in court, are deeply troubling.

It's pretty strange to claim that Karsenty didn't do enough research since that's the gist of his criticism of Enderlin. How much criticism of the press, of political figures, of ideas is allowed in nominally free and democratic France? Were I there, would I be liable for making such a statement and "insulting the institutions of France?" Better shut me mouth then!

Here in North America, you'd have to prove, not that Karsenty was wrong but that he knowingly lied and did it maliciously in order to hurt Enderlin. Enderlin would also have to prove damages. Was he fired from his job, for instance? If Karsenty criticized Enderlin's decisions and coverage because he felt the story was wrong, that would clearly place him outside the laws of libel.

It shows how strongly aristocratic France is, despite its democratic pretensions. It's not just this story: there are plenty of issues where the ruling elite simply ignore the will of the people. The EU constitution is dead, for instance, but the bureaucrats go on, interpreting a no vote as a "yes-if-we-were-only-just-educated-enough-to-understand-it" vote. Who was the Frenchman who said that no-one really understands the whole document? That's a blueprint for autocracy and we've seen its smudged fingerprint today.

Or perhaps the justice just couldn't get a particular image out of her head: that of the Jew soldier standing at the foot of the Cross, a nail and hammer in his hand.

Witch Trials Ahead

I've always felt there was something missing in the global warming debate and that's the debate part. When proponents dismiss thousands of dissenting opinions and proclaim that there is a "consensus of opinion" on warming, there's something wrong.

I've always felt that the thing was a classic UN redistribution scam. Russia burns a dozen, dozen and a half natural gas fires east of the Urals 24/7. Look at a nighttime map of Russia. Yet they don't have to pay, they have to be paid - one of the world's greatest polluters. Why? no bread.

The whole thing seems to me a classic case of the return of the repressed content Freud spoke about. Having denied the consequence of action in the moral (and especially religious) sphere, it comes back into "science." Stripped of all the artificially scientific clothing, the emperor looks like this: "We've been bad and because we'ver been bad we will burn." It's the most primitive of terrors in the guise of science.

And what of the science? Can someone explain to me why different methods were used to determine relative temperatures in the centuries leading up to our day? No one has to my satisfaction and I don't need to believe something because someone else believes the sky is falling.

MelaniePhillips.com has an excellent piece on the fascist green movement and their plans to hold "war crimes" trials over those who refuse to accept their inquisition. I'm quoting the whole thing, it's so good.

The green witch-hunters
A charming new idea from the delightfully imaginative green lobby. David Roberts in something called Grist magazine writes:

When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.

Such is the contemporary progressive thinker. In an excellent article on Spiked OnLine, Brendan O'Neill rightly expresses horror and disgust at te obscene use of the phrase "climate-change denial" by the green lobby to demonise and vilify climate sceptics and thus shut down debate in totalitarian fashion:

Some take the moral equivalence between climate change denial and Holocaust denial to its logical conclusion. They argue that climate change deniers are actually complicit in a future Holocaust - the global warming Holocaust - and thus will have to be brought to trial in the future.

Green author and columnist Mark Lynas writes: "I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial - except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don't will one day have to answer for their crimes." (11)

There is something deeply repugnant in marshalling the Holocaust in this way, both to berate climate change deniers and also as a convenient snapshot of what is to come if the planet continues to get warmer.
First, the evidence is irrefutable that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis; that is an historical event that has been thoroughly investigated, interrogated and proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Although as the American-Jewish academic and warrior against Holocaust denial, Deborah Lipstadt, has pointed out, even the Nazi Holocaust is not above debate and re-evalution; it is not a "theology".) There is no such proof or evidence (how could there be?) that global warming will cause a similar calamity. Second, it is, yet again, a cynical attempt to close down debate. The H-word is uttered as a kind of moral absolute that no one could possibly question. We are all against what happened during the first Holocaust, so we will be against the "next Holocaust", too, right? And if not - if you do not take seriously the coming "global warming Holocaust" - then you are clearly wicked, the equivalent of the David Irvings of this world, someone who should possibly even be locked up or certainly tried at a future date. At least laws against Holocaust denial (which, as a supporter of free speech, I am opposed to) chastise individuals for lying about a known and proven event; by contrast, the turning of climate change denial into a taboo raps people on the knuckles for questioning events, or alleged events, that have not even occurred yet. It is pre-emptive censorship. They are reprimanded not for lying, but for doubting, for questioning. O'Neill's article might be read in conjunction with a fascinating piece from 1999 by Wolfgang Behringer who points out a historical conjunction between witch-hunting and irrational anxiety about the weather -- particularly during the Little Ice Age in the 15th and 16th centuries. Behringer homes in on the year 1560, when a combination of exceptional coldness and wetness led to witch-hunts against women suspected of weather-making. The strange weather conditions were thought to be not the work of God but the work of mankind:

The resumption of witch-hunting in the 1560ies was accompanied by a debate about weather-making, because this was the most important charge against suspected witches. Though witches were certainly made responsible for all kinds of bad luck, in an agrarian society weather is especially important. Crop failure caused increases in prices, malnutrition, rising infant mortality, and finally epidemics. Through sources we can observe that while individual "unnatural" accidents resulted in individual accusations of witchcraft, in case of "unnatural" weather and collective damage whole peasant communities demanded persecution. In comparison to individual accusations, which tended to lead to trials against individual suspects, collective demands for persecution - when accepted by the authorities - regularly resulted in large-scale witch-hunts (Behringer 1995). Without going into details, the fundamental interdependance of meteorologicaldisaster, crop failure, and a popular demand for witch-hunts can be demonstrated by two further examples: the largest witch-hunt of the sixteenth century, and the largest witch-hunt of the seventeenth century, which occurred between 1626-1630 and was the climax of European witchcraft persecutions. The mechanisms detected in the background of these persecutions can be applied to all large witchcraft persecutions in traditional EuropeÂ… It can be shown from many individual witch-trials that meteorological events contributed decisively to many individual suspicions and accusations, and as we know now from climatic history, these events often had super-local, super-regional, or "super-national" character. Areas of low pressure could cover large regions; the advance of arctic air could harm at least the northern part of the continent or even the northern hemisphere. What we can learn from this is that contemporary lamentation about decreasing fruitfulness of the fields, of the cattle, and even of men where far from being just rethoric devices, but rested on empirical observation (Lehmann 1986). The rising tide of demonological literature did in no way ridicule such lamentations, but was written by members of the contemporary élites like the famous French jurist Jean Bodin, the suffragan bishop of Treves Peter Binsfeld, the chief public prosecutor of Lorraine Nicolas Rémy, or the King of Scotland James VI. who was about to become James I. of England. They all shared the idea that witches could be responsible for the weather theologically based on the theory that on the basis of the evil compact, the devil could exercise his wishes (Clark 1996). According to the status of scientific theory, however, these demonologists did not draw their theories from dogma, but from experience.

Sound familiar?

Insane!

North Korea has announced that it will test a nuclear device but has not given a time frame. That the "Dear Leader" thinks this kind of threat would get nations to drop sanctions says everything about his irrationality. Let me bomb or I’ll bomb! It’s blackmail and nothing less.

What is even more appalling is the reaction at the BBC News comments pages. (No wonder Melanie Phillips [read everything she’s written here] is in such despair, just as was Prophetess Oriana Fallaci) Here’s what the communist- and terrorist-sympathyzing news agency had to say about the events leading up to the present crisis:

• Sept 2005: Hailed as an historic breakthrough, North Korea agrees to give up nuclear activities
• Next day, N Korea says it will not scrap its activities unless it gets a civilian nuclear reactor
• US imposes financial sanctions on N Korea businesses
• July 2006: N Korea test-fires seven missiles
• UN Security Council votes to impose sanctions over the tests
• Oct 2006: N Korea threatens nuclear test

There's hardly a single word here that isn't an outright lie. But OK, believe the BBC, whose very lifeblood has been the lie: it all started in 2005. Well, as usual, in the penultimate paragraph, they mention that the Psychotic Leader kicked out IAEA inspectors in 2002. They didn’t bother explaining how they already had the "civilian nuclear program." No need to go back before devil Bush, right? Well, it was Jimmy Carter who let them have their reactor on a promise. The Dear Saint remembers the quandary in which he found himself: I paraphrase from memory:

I had to believe him. Not believing him would be like calling the man a liahh.

But this has to be read to be believed! The reaction of Britons and others on BBC’s comments on this story is absolutely mind-boggling! I posted but doubt they will publish it. Here’s an example of the utter nonsense: I haven’t cherrypicked: I’ve chosen messages in order of publication to give you the picture:

Added: Wednesday, 4 October, 2006, 14:58 GMT 15:58 UK
Let´s remember which country actially USED a nuclear weapon - only a country that feels it should RULE THE WORLD and everyone else should bow down to them would have done so.Everyone NEEDS weapons because the biggest bully of all USA has them AND WILL USE THEM as they have in the past!!!
Carol Moss, TORREMOLINOS, MALAGA, Spain
Recommended by 0 people
Sign in to recommend comments Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 4 October, 2006, 14:58 GMT 15:58 UK
If a country such as Pakistan, Taliban and AL Qaeda's chief supporter, has the right to nuclear arms then why not North Korea? Hamed Etebar, Virginia, United States Hamed, not that long ago, about the time when Pakistan developed its nuclear weapons, America was also a major backer of the Taliban. Now that USSR does not exist Americans have found other priorities and other enemies to keep running their Ammunations industry. I think N Korea, like Pakistan has a right to nuclear weapons.
rizwan k, ohio, United States
Recommended by 0 people
Sign in to recommend comments Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 4 October, 2006, 14:57 GMT 15:57 UK
Yeah, sure! Many other countries have nukes and everyone has the right...Why should some countries have the right but not others? Why should the US police the whole world?
Ray Amaya, Little Rock, United States
Recommended by 0 people
Sign in to recommend comments Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 4 October, 2006, 14:56 GMT 15:56 UK
I think all countries, including the US and Russia should put a stop to their nuclear weapons programs and destroy those weapons. It isn't exactly fair to tell others they don't have a right to something that you have in abundance and hold over the entire world. The fact is that the US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation and on its own people for testing purposes.These weapons are just too dangerous to exist.
[AndreeaNYC], New York City, United States
Recommended by 0 people
Sign in to recommend comments Alert a Moderator
Added: Wednesday, 4 October, 2006, 14:51 GMT 15:51 UK
If a country such as Pakistan, Taliban and AL Qaeda's chief supporter, has the right to nuclear arms then why not North Korea? The international community feels threatened at the prospect of North Korea having nuclear capabilities yet remain completely inactive towards Pakistan's already manufactured nuclear arsenal. It is not if but when Pakistan's nuclear weapons fall in the hands of Taliban and/or AL Qaeda it will be end of humanity as we know it.
Hamed Etebar, Virginia, United States
Recommended by 1 person
Sign in to recommend comments Alert a Moderator

Well, at least the last part of Hamed's piece is rational. "the right to nuclear arms"?

Update: Kaaaboomb!

Overpass collapse kills 5

From CBC.ca

Five people were killed when a highway overpass collapsed in Laval, north of Montreal, sending tonnes of concrete onto two cars, police said on Sunday.

In 2000, an overpass under construction collapsed, killing one man. Inspectors are now checking all bridges in the area to make sure they are sound.

The Quebec government will hold a public inquiry into the incident and has announced it has closed a second overpass of similar design and age.

But the same story says the collapsed overpass was just inspected!

And now, a look back: from 2000:

A highway overpass in Quebec was so weak when it crumbled last June, killing one, that the wind could have blown it over, according to a report.

An engineering report on the incident, tabled by Quebec Transport Minister Guy Chevrette, concluded that anything from high winds to vibrations from passing traffic could have caused the overpass' eight concrete supports to cave in.

A structural system should have been installed to prevent the shifting of supports during construction, the study stated.

The accident killed one and injured two others. The report stopped short of placing blame, however.

Beaver Asphalt, the City of Laval and a supervising company were all involved in the overpass' construction. While determining who was ultimately responsible will be up to the coroner and judicial authorities, politicians are already assigning blame.

Thomas Mulcair, a member of the Liberal Opposition in Quebec, said the Bloc Quebecois government helped Beaver Asphalt get the contract when it contacted its main creditor, the National Bank.

Premier Lucien Bouchard has denied the charge.

I'd like to know what was in the concrete and whether core samples were taken in 2000? Will they do so now? Who was the unnamed supervisory company and is it the same company that pronounced the just-collapsed overpass fit just a month ago?

It rouses my suspicions. Is someone pocketing money and using substandard material? Did the same companies get the contracts for all the overpasses being looked at? Did the 2000 collapse change the way contracts were awarded?

What? No Outrage?

Imagine if Jews did this:

Two people were killed, including a 15-year-old boy, and at least 32 were wounded when militiamen from the ruling Hamas party used guns and clubs to break up protests over unpaid government salaries near the parliament building in Gaza City and elsewhere in the Gaza Strip.

The wounded included three schoolchildren and a TV cameraman...

"Protests" stretches the meaning of the word doesn't it? If there are guns, shooting and death involved, aren't words like, "riot," "insurrection," or "battle" more fitting?

Predictable

Is this the end of S.African democracy?

I guess when you have an ignoramus like Thabo Mbeki saying that AIDS isn't spread by sexual contact and only a myth invented to make Africans look like they have no self-control, this kind of thing is bound to happen.

Congratulations to the Cape Town mayor-elect, Helen Zille, from the opposition Democratic Alliance, and best wishes at surviving the onslaught. Why can't the DNC see that her victory is a signpost of their political health and just accept the defeat?

By the way, the Telegraph blogsite says:

South Africa needs a serious debate on crime

No less than 18,528 people were murdered between April last year and March this year. By way of comparison, Britain has about 800 murders a year – and its population is 50 percent greater than South Africa’s.

My brother, who works in the movie business, recently came back from South Africa with stars in his eyes I could discern through his rose-colored glasses. South Africa is wonderful he said, people there are really trying. I asked him, rather coldly, whether or not they were still pulling 2 or 3 bodies off the train to Johannesburg each and every morning. I guess the numbers above give the answer.