Category Archives: Personal views

These are personal views on topical issues. Some of my opinions are popular and some unpopular. These articles are written in a punchy style.

Say ”no” to Poland’s Holocaust complicity law. ==================

Standard

The Polish Government has passed a law making it a crime to say that the Polish Nation or State participated in the Holocaust.

There is no doubt that millions of Polish citizens were killed during the Second World War. About half of those were Jewish Poles and half were Christian Poles. These Polish people of either faith were shot, gassed, worked to death, starved or they died from insanitary conditions deliberately created by the Third Reich. The Poles experienced the most unimaginable suffering during the Second World War.

Much of the Holocaust took place in Poland when it was under German occupation. The Holocaust did not simply victimise Jews. Gays, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Freemasons, political dissidents, the disabled, Soviet Prisoners of War and others were also murdered.

Some Gentile Poles behaved with the utmost heroism to save Jewish people. A small number of Poles murdered their Jewish compatriots.

This law allows an exemption for artistic expression or academic research. Even so this is an unnecessary abridgement of freedom of expression.

I perceive how galling it is for Poles to read about ”Polish extermination camps” and so forth. Some ill-informed people could easily fall under the misapprehension that Polish people were chiefly responsible for the genocide that was perpetrated in their land 1942-45.

One of the reasons to oppose this law is that it could lead to erasure of the role of certain Polish individuals who took part in the Holocaust.

This piece of legislation also feeds a dangerous misconception. That is the notion that nations can be guilty or innocent. Guilt is an individual thing. Groups can be guilty but only insofar as individuals choose to take part in a crime. Nations being labelled as bad or good is what leads to racism.

Discourse can be irritating and misleading. There is a copious amount of misinformation around particularly on the internet. It is offensive to many Poles to see statements which attribute this genocide to their nation. But no people is entirely blameless or culpable.

Official versions of history protected by law is the sort of thing that totalitarian governments create. This law is well-intentioned but where will it lead? Is the Polish Government really going to imprison people for saying things which many find unpalatable?

I oppose laws that criminalise statements about history even when such statements are fallacious. Holocaust denial laws are the prime example. No other genocide is so enshrined in law. It reaches a stage when historical debate is criminalised. Holocaust denial law advocates also want the trivialisation of the Holocaust to be a crime. It is as though the figure 6 000 000 is sacred. What if it were proven that the true number is closer to 5 000 000? The Holocaust would still be what it is. A number is not a principle. Would stating that the scale of this mass murder has been exaggerated be tantamount to trivialising it? It is asinine and distasteful to make certain versions of history legally endorsed. This includes when one outlaws fallacies.

In briefest summary , this Polish law is part of a wider assault on freedom of expression. This chauvinistic government has shown a tendency to clamp down on dissent. This authoritarianism ought to be sternly resisted.

Advertisements

What is the point of posthumous pardons for suffragettes? ========

Standard

Posthumous pardons do little good. These women were convicted for misdemeanours in the period leading up to the First World War. They would have got away with paying fines. They refused to cough up on principle. This led to their incarceration which is what they wanted.

One can fully agree with the objectives of the suffragettes while still opposing this pardon. Who now disputes that women should be permitted to vote?

There are many contentious issues today. Does that make it permissible to break the law in order to achieve one’s goals? Everyone who has a cause believes that it a just cause.

If someone were wrongfully convicted of murder then a posthumous pardon might be therapeutic for that person’s relatives. This case is different. No one doubts that suffragettes did what they were convicted of doing. The argument is that their cause was righteous. That is not a matter of contention. Why therefore pardon them? Striking from the archives their criminal record will do nothing to enhance the worthiness of their cause.

A pardon for these people would not be woeful. It is not something one should vigorously oppose. It is futile. It is also a green light to those who would break the law for political reasons. At the very least this measure is a waste of parliamentary time. There are many more urgent issues to address.

It is bitterly ironic that feminists want suffragette convictions to be annulled. Yet these same people seek to severely circumscribe the right of pro Lifers to protest. No one tried to prevent peaceful protest by suffragettes at the relevant place – outside Parliament.

The President’s Club Party ===================

Standard

party all male. young female waitresses. skimpy outfits

flortiation. what do yu expect. groping . how stuid would one have to be not to expedt banter?

ome woman sat on boys; laps. some were hookers going off with makes. femal witress spoke to Emily maitless

some famles enjoyed it

mother of a waitress calle dpolice. no crime to insitae# that waitress wnet back

womenw ere boiggt – jess phulips. lie   totally acceptbale.

at we no longer allowed to be hetero?

appreciate femla beauty. aesthetic pelsure and  sex appeal. puritan get out. bigotry po faced prudes.  a free society.  ptuty the club has closed. I would want to got  such a party.  some people had a bad day at work.  dislike work. someone said bo to you.

no clear deifntion of sexual harassment.

most men are attarcte to wkne. get over it. say no to judgmental feminists. do not go to sucha  party ifyouo do not like it. do not do sucha  job. chouces# feminsust like choice.  men wer eepxlotie dby high price

s have your own paryt. all female dinner. chip en dales.

Address to gun nuts =================

Standard

some are soi -disant gun nuts. self confessed mentally ill.

I am a libtard. American revolution was liberal

boston tea party was against a tax cut. so you want more tax?

tax to support army. You must want  tiny army

I am coming to take you guns. you cannot be trusted.

teach your kids evolution and global warming

your revolution was not conservative

I allow prayer in school – Islamic only

muslims in USA since 19th cenutry

USA seels arms to muslim lands

muslims vital ally in cold war

 

Why gun right should be more circumscribed=============

Standard

there is a hierarchy of rights. rights collide. courts adjudicate.

right to life.

if you had to chose between right to life and right to a gun which should take precedence? Life takes priority over others.

if the right to possess weapons a human right? Why not extended to Iraq, Afgahnistan , Iran and Palestine.

===

A lot of ad personam. are you devoid of rational arguments.?  Hot air. What if I am elitist?  not germane. does it make it good to get shot. engage with the substantive issues.

Martin Luther king – I am not 1 per cent as moral or as valiant as he was. Not all gun nuts are racists bt there seems to be a correlation.

adulterer, alcoholic, communist, plagiarist.

it is a smokescreen. nONE of these means the harm is good.

stop changing the subject.

petty name calling does not bother me

I have doubts about my position. There are lacunae. do not be too entrenched

even wayne lapierre supports mental health checks and extensive menalt health register.

1000 feet ban on guns near schools. Is that oppression?

-disant gun nuts. self confessed mentally ill.
I am a libtard. American revolution was liberal
boston tea party was against a tax cut. so you want more tax?
tax to support army. You must want  tiny army
I am coming to take you guns. you cannot be trusted.
teach your kids evolution and global warming
your revolution was not conservative
I allow prayer in school – Islamic only
muslims in USA since 19th cenutry
USA seels arms to muslim lands
muslims vital ally in cold war

 

 

What is wrong with you tube rants.

Standard

Too many youtube videos are overly partisan and discourteous. The titles of these boast of how decisive and degrading screeds. The titles promise that one’s idol will ”destroy, humiliate, educate, school or demolish” an opinion former on the other side.

Milo Yiannopolous is one of the best offenders. He is a contrarian and an attention seeker. He is entertaining in small doses. It is gratifying to see him trash leftists and feminists but sometimes he goes too far. Milo will do anything to make a splash. He adulates Trump. It is easy to perceive why. He is like Trump in that he is vapid and self-obsessed. He craves publicity. Milo courts Nazis and is a flagrant hypocrite. Yiannopolous boasts he is gay and then says gay should be in the closet.

Milo does not tell the truth abot his name. He twice dropped out of university. This is perhaps why he over compensates and makes strenuous efforts to claim he is bright. He dishonours good causes by linking himself with racists.