Peter Tatchell says no, the new Commonwealth Charter is not a big victory for LGBT rights.

Not surprisingly, the Commonwealth Charter does not include any specific rejection of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This was vetoed by the homophobic majority of member states. They blocked its inclusion.

This makes the Queen’s charter signing even less of a big deal. It is certainly not the breakthrough for LGBT rights that some people are claiming.

Yemisi Ilesanmi says the same thing on her Facebook page Freedom to Love for ALL: Homosexuality is not un-African.

Members of Commonwealth nations include UK, Australia, Canada, Uganda, Nigeria (my home country), Ghana, India etc, I can assure you that the ‘Other grounds’ clause is not new to many of commonwealth member nations and they are not novice to the term ‘Sexual orientation’.

Nope, it is not about confusing them or the issue, it is also not about “They are not there yet and so we must be patient in them getting to the place where they can comfortably say Gays and lesbians and Trans etc”. It is about their refusal to accept LGBTs as persons deserving of human rights.

As a Nigerian openly Bisexual woman, I do not think in this age and day, I must cower in a corner waiting patiently for my government to accept I am a human being entitled to all inalienable fundamental human right. As it is, Nigeria lawmakers are almost sailing through to pass a law that would put me in jail for 14 years for my sexual orientation. I do not wish to be a refugee or asylum seeker; therefore I must put pressure on all ‘democratic’ organizations that my country belongs to and encourage such organizations to speak out against such blatant violations of human rights. Commonwealth is one of these organizations and its failure to condemn the blatant violations of human rights by many of its member nations is something that deserves an outcry, not praise, not patience, not media contortions, but an outright outrage.

Yes!! That’s speaking out.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Sometimes bullying people just doesn’t work out, even if you do it on the internet, and even if all you’re doing is posting pictures of naked girls without their permission.

The founder of a so-called “revenge porn” website has been ordered to pay $250,000 (£170,000) in damages for defamation.

Hunter Moore was found to have made false claims about the chief executive of an anti-bullying website.

Mr Moore used Twitter to falsely claim James McGibney was a paedophile who possessed child pornography.

Mr Moore’s website used to post naked images of people without their permission. He closed it in 2012.

But three days later he was at it again.

Mr Moore used his Twitter account, which has almost 150,000 followers, to make several derogatory comments about Mr McGibney.

Mr Moore encouraged others to post the claims in return for free clothing – Mr McGibney said he would be taking action against those that did so.

“‘Internet tough guys’ are also legally accountable for their actions,” Mr McGibney wrote.

“Hunter and some of his followers now realise this, along with their parents since some of his followers appear to be under the age of 18.”

The settlement amount was said to be a “conservative estimate” of reputational damage caused by Mr Moore’s comments.

The money would donated to women’s shelters across the US, Mr McGibney added.

So you’re not allowed to slander people? Even on the internet? I thought you were.

In addition to the defamation claim, Mr McGibney has launched a class action lawsuit against the site, and has invited users to come forward to share their complaints.

“We’re doing this mostly for the completely powerless, under-age women who were verbally harassed after Hunter posted their completely naked, unedited photos on his site.

“We’ll soon be launching a brand new site for IsAnyoneUp.com that not only shows the history and eventual dismantling of this disturbing website, but also brings valuable information to people who have been wronged by similar behaviour.”

Jeez, they were only having a little fun, and free speech.

One Twitter warrior had a strange reaction to the story.

Interesting libel case. I wonder if this sort of ruling would apply to accusations of “misogyny” & “active racism”?

Wut?

The relevant comparison is to accusations of “misogyny” as opposed to, say, accusations of being a smelly ugly cunt?

Yeh I don’t think so.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Here’s a little job for you – a tiny one: all you have to do is hit a “Like” button.

Hit the button under American Atheists to vote for them to get a booth at Netroots Nation and collect more atheists!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Naturally Maryam is all over the UCL dustup.

Sex segregation not miscommunication

Sexual segregation at a UCL event is a scandal

Institutional incompetence or moral cowardice?

That one is a statement by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain was horrified to learn of sex segregation at an Islamist-organised event in University College London last weekend.

Whilst the behaviour of the organisers is wholly predictable (it has since come to light that UCL were repeatedly informed of their intention to segregate the audience beforehand), the university’s failure to uphold such a fundamental principle of equality as non-segregation is staggering.

UCL was the first university in England to be founded on an entirely secular basis and to treat women and men equally in admissions. At this point in time it is unclear whether the university’s complicity in enforcing a gender segregation policy was the result of institutional incompetence or moral cowardice. Regardless, UCL must realise that their reputation as pioneers of equality in academia now risks being reduced to tatters unless action is taken immediately to ensure that this is never allowed to happen again.

For more information, contact:

Maryam Namazie Spokesperson Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

BM Box 1919,

London WC1N 3XX, UK

tel: +44 (0) 7719166731

+44 (0) 7719166731

email: exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com
web: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/

Islamist group banned from UCL for gender apartheid

Margaret Soltan at University Diaries also comments.

When people cave that easily – some American atheist waltzes in and gets pissed off, and the organizers act, well, like a bunch of women – they make it harder for everyone else to make the case that stashing females in the backs of rooms and making them shut their faces is an affirmation of their dignity.

I know, right? Sissies! But actually they didn’t cave, they only pretended to.

And Skeptical Science.

Who won the debate?

Clearly, without saying a single word, even before it had started, Hamza Tzortzis did not. The topic under debate was ”Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense?”, so in just that context, when one side demonstrates that they are intolerant misogynists and willing to impose that by force upon others in the public space then they have instantly lost, because none of that makes any sense at all in the 21st century.

Just because they don’t want girl cooties? Where’s the misogyny in that?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Well there’s one good thing about gender segregation, as Maureen pointed out in linking us to this news item about three men arrested on suspicion of sexual assault and false imprisonment at an Islamic girls’ school in Lancaster – it’s a handy way to collect all the girls in one place for ease of access.

Officers are investigating a single alleged incident last Tuesday involving a small number of girls at Jamea Al Kauthar in Lancaster.

A 40-year-old from Bolton and two men from Blackburn, aged 30 and 53, are in police custody.

So was it halal?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

From UCL News.

An organisation known as the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) booked a room at UCL for a debate on Saturday evening (9 March). UCL was notified during Friday by some individuals planning to attend the event that the organisers intended to segregate the audience by gender.

This was directly contrary to UCL policy. We do not allow enforced segregation on any grounds at meetings held on campus. We immediately made clear to the organisers that the event would be cancelled if there were any attempt to enforce such segregation. We also required the organisers to make it explicit to attendees that seating arrangements were optional, and guests were welcome to sit wherever they felt comfortable. We also arranged for additional security staff to be present to ensure that people were not seated against their wishes.

It now appears that, despite our clear instructions, attempts were made to enforce segregation at the meeting. We are still investigating what actually happened at the meeting but, given IERA’s original intentions for a segregated audience we have concluded that their interests are contrary to UCL’s ethos and that we should not allow any further events involving them to take place on UCL premises.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Guest post by Abishek N. Phadnis

The Missionary Position

Six weeks ago, Student Rights published its findings on the infestation of rabble-rousing Islamic preachers in British universities over the past year. Topping the charts was trash-talking noisemaker Hamza Tzortzis, with his hit single “we as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even the idea of freedom”. That he has alchemised this rather exotic view into a career as a self-styled ‘intellectual activist’ is the least of his many contradictions.

Mr. Tzortzis is an alumnus of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a global Sunni extremist movement against the evils of homosexuality, Jewishness, women, democracy, freedom and probably happiness itself. He is a champion of such worthy causes as the criminalisation of homosexuality , the dragging of Britain into the Islamic Caliphate and the amputation of limbs for minor crimes. His brand of rabble-rousing, however, eschews violent radicalisation for a more insidious form of reactionary preaching that sexes up a dark and twisted interpretation of Islam as the ideal.

It is almost received wisdom now that intellectual honesty isn’t one of Mr. Tzortzis’s strongest suits. During his invasion of Sheffield Hallam University last month, his acolytes in the Islamic Society secured him a debate with the Atheist Society who, until the very eve, were given the impression that the opponent would be an Islamic Society student. This afforded Mr. Tzortzis the opportunity to alternate his gormless pseudo-profundity with some self-indulgent whingeing about the reluctance of high-profile unbelievers to debate him.

This bag of squalid tricks resurfaced in the run-up to Mr. Tzortzis’s debate with the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss at University College London. The London heathen audience’s preparations for the debate, focused largely on devising rude puns of Mr. Tzortzis’s name, were thrown into disarray when it emerged that the organiser, Big Debates, was a front for the missionary Islamic Education and Research Academy , which counts among its ‘Permanent Staff’ one Hamza Tzortzis.

Intrigued by this subterfuge, they dug further and discovered that an iERA functionary was to moderate the event, that questions had to be submitted in advance and had to include a mention of the questioner’s religious belief, that the organisers’ insistence on knowing the religious inclination of each ticket-holder at the time of registration was ostensibly to guide the allocation of tickets and that, in the heart of Bloomsbury, a supposedly serious debate was to be conducted before a gender-segregated audience. Meanwhile, a number of closeted ex-Muslims were distraught to discover that they had been hoodwinked into handing over their personal details to an Islamic organisation.

A spirited volley of e-mails ensued, as the agitated atheists petitioned UCL to reassert first principles of equality. Britain’s original mixed-gender university issued a swift, firm and decisive statement the same afternoon affirming that no gender-segregated seating arrangement would be permitted.

By then, the LSE atheists had discovered the typical iERA debate to be a raucously self-congratulatory affair with an audience ten parts Muslim to one part unbeliever, where every mention of He-Who-Must-not-be-Named is prefaced with a chorus of superstitious Arabic gobbledygook, every mention of homosexuality is greeted by sneering catcalls and crowing videos spring up not long afterwards, with titles like like LOL Brother Muslim speaker CRUSHES/DESTROYS/OWNS atheist opponent.

It became amply clear that iERA had pulled a textbook bait-and-switch on Professor Krauss and his supporters, who, resigned to an evening with Mr. Tzortzis, would now be subjected to the further indignity of doing so amidst an audience so unashamedly stacked against Professor Krauss, he might as well have saved himself the airfare and delivered his address to a cactus in his native Arizona.

Matters came to a head when two male attendees were forced out of a section of the auditorium which turned out to be part of the Ladies’ Area. Incensed, they raised the matter with the organisers but were staggered to see the organisers set the guards on them instead, this time with the express intention of evicting them from the auditorium itself for “unruly behaviour”. Verily this behaviour cited consisted of little more than the temerity to occupy a vacant seat in a public auditorium and to protest one’s unjust eviction, without recourse to raised voices or physical contact.

By then, Professor Krauss had been informed of this scandal, and hurried upstairs to intercede on our behalf. He insisted that the two seemed dignified and restrained, and did not appear to pose the slightest threat to the peace of the gathering. Undeterred, the guards piled falsehood upon falsehood, levelling slanderous allegations of harassment and intimidation, though it eluded many why any man without a Dementor fetish would choose such a gathering for sexual mischief. That the objectors were outnumbered seven to one by the guards indicates how laughable this allegation was. Professor Krauss, unable to unable to bear this pious farce any longer, issued a terse ultimatum – he would leave in protest unless the evictees were returned, unscathed, to the auditorium.

This nuclear option concentrated the organisers’ minds and they sought refuge in one last petty trick, emptying out a row of the Ladies’ Section for the pair by scattering its previous inhabitants to upper reaches of that section.

Organisations like iERA find visceral joy in the blood-sport of bringing down a giant of the opposition, like Lilliputians downing Gulliver, in the rigged travesty of a format they call a debate. One finds increasingly that this lack of scruple is visited upon dissenting members of the audience too. To the extent that Mr. Tzortzis is currently on an Islamic Awareness Tour, we’re delighted he’s raising awareness of the sinister strain of Islam that’s peddled on Britain’s university campuses, a spiteful and bigoted thing that appeals to the base instincts of the hot-headed and the impetuous. That the unapologetic crookedness of his cabal caught us unawares suggests we could all do with a little more awareness.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The following is a statement by concerned students.

Sexual segregation at a UCL event is a scandal

A policy of sexual segregation was enforced at an event at University College London on Saturday, with the organisers’ security trying to physically remove members of the audience who would not comply.

Seating at the event was segregated between men and women, with a small ‘mixed’ space allocated for couples.

Separate entrances were in place for women and men, although ‘couples’ were allowed to enter via the men’s door. Male attendees were refused entry via the women’s door.

The event “Islam vs Atheism” on Saturday 9th was organised by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA), and pitted writer Hamza Tzortzis against Professor Laurence Krauss in a debate.

A policy of segregation was suggested by IERA in a statement before the event, which said: “As for seating, it is according to when the ticket was booked and gender.” This was raised by students with UCL, who gave assurances that no segregation would be allowed.

Fiona McClement, UCL equalities and diversities adviser, said on 8th March: “We have been in contact with the event organisers and made it clear that UCL will not permit enforced gender segregated seating. All attendees are free to sit wherever they feel comfortable.”

Sarah Guise, head of equalities and diversity, deans of students Mike Ewing (academic) and Ruth Siddall (welfare), as well as UCL gender champions Professor Mary Collins and Baroness Diana Warwick of Undercliffe, were also informed of the plans of the organisers to breach UCL’s Equality and Diversity policy.

Ms McClement and Rob de Bruin, co-chair of the 50:50 Gender Equality Group, said: “The UCL security team will be in attendance to ensure compliance with this. If the event organisers do not comply, the event will not be permitted to go ahead.”

Despite these assurances, segregation was enforced on the night.

At the entrance to the UCL building audience members were separated into male and female only queues by the organisers’ security staff.

The policy of segregation was strictly enforced inside the building. Male attendees were refused entry via the women’s door to the lecture theatre. When asked if the event was segregated, one of the security staff said: “It’s slightly segregated.” Dr Aisha Rahman said she was an organiser and that the room had been booked on behalf of UCL Chemistry. She said the segregation had been agreed with the University and suggested more than once that the men should be refused entry.

Several attendees approached UCL’s security personnel to alert them to the situation, but found that the staff were unwilling to intervene, and were instructed to comply with the organisers’ policy of segregation.

After more discussion, three male attendees were told they would be permitted to sit in the women’s section, but were directed to an isolated space on the side of the lecture theatre, away from everyone else.

One of the students, Christopher Roche, said: “It was clear that the segregation was still in effect as when I sat in the same aisle as female attendees I was immediately instructed by security to exit the theatre. I was taken to a small room with IERA security staff and an organiser named Mohammad who told me that the policy was actually given to IERA by UCL.

“Shocked, I said that I would like to return to my seat but was told that security would now remove me from the premises for refusing to comply with the gender segregation.”

The organisers’ security staff then tried to physically remove Mr Roche and Adam Barnett, a journalism student and friend of Mr Roche, from the theatre.

Professor Krauss intervened and threatened to leave to stop the removal of the two audience members. The organisers then prepared a row near the women’s section at the back of the room where the two men sat quietly for the event. Professor Kraus said he had been told in advance that there would be no segregation, and that people could sit wherever they wanted.

Adam Barnett said: “What happened on Saturday is a scandal. UCL and the organisers owe an apology to me, my friend, the audience and the general public. For a London University to allow forced segregation by sex in 2013 is disgraceful.

“The organisers should also apologise for their appalling behaviour if they want to hold any more events on campuses in the future.”

He added: “It’s insulting to be told that because I’m a man I can’t sit near women in the audience. I’m not in the habit of forcing my presence where it’s unwanted, but the event’s organisers have no business policing social matters of this kind. Furthermore, the women in question were never asked whether they cared where we sat.”

“In this case the segregation was non-voluntary. But voluntary or not, segregation is wrong, as well as a violation of UCL policy.”

Chris Moos, a PhD student who sought assurances from UCL before the debate, said: “Having personally attended this event, I cannot tell you how disappointed I and many other attendees are that UCL did not live up to its promise to make sure that its Equality and Diversity policy was enforced.

“Overall, the atmosphere of the event was intimidating for both male and female students, who were shocked to see that although concerns about the plans to enforce gender segregation had been raised before with UCL, the organisers were able to

violate its policy and create a threatening and divisive atmosphere that was not inclusive to all attendees.”

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A press release from the Secular Medical Forum:

On 7 March Ed Miliband told an audience in London that he supports ritual genital cutting of children.  In reference to circumcision and kosher food the leader of the Labour party said:  ‘These are important traditions … ways of life must be preserved’.  The Secular Medical Forum condemns this announcement and asks Mr Miliband to rethink his support for ritual genital cutting.

It is a Jewish tradition to remove the prepuce (foreskin) of baby boys when they are eight days old.  This operation disregards autonomy and exposes the child to significant risks, including bleeding, infection and death.  The Secular Medical Forum questions why Mr Miliband supports ritual circumcision given that it is ethically flawed and medically dangerous. Ironically, the meeting was held at the Royal College of Surgeons, a respected organisation that educates surgeons in the ethics and practice of surgery. The first principle of healthcare is ‘primum non nocere – first do no harm’.  This guidance is disregarded by supporters of ritual circumcision.  The meeting was arranged by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the senior representative body of Jewish people in the United Kingdom.

The Vice-President of the Board of Deputies, Jonathan Arkush, debated the controversy of circumcision with the chair of the Secular Medical Forum, Antony Lempert, on 28 February. Mr Arkush astonished the audience by refusing to protect babies from metzizah b’peh, the tradition in which the Jewish circumciser sucks the infant’s cut penis.  Mr Arkush, a barrister, disapproved of oral-genital contact between an adult and a child but refused to call for a ban upon this tradition saying: “I’m not in favour of banning things”.  The full debate is available here.  The Secular Medical Forum would like to ask Mr Miliband if he is aware that metzizah b’peh takes place in the UK and whether it should be banned so that children are protected from the harms of this tradition.

Mr Miliband, quite rightly, told the Board of Deputies that he was against anti-semitism, which is the hatred of Jews simply for being Jewish.   In confusing contrast, Jonathan Arkush compared all people who oppose ritual circumcision, including those working in child protection, to Hitler. Dr Lempert, who is the GP representative member of a Local Safeguarding Children’s Board, responded to this misguided attack. Dr Lempert said that he also abhors anti-semitism and explained that anti-semitism is happening when well-meaning people fail to protect children of Jewish parents from the harm caused by ritual circumcision.  Supporters of ritual genital cutting, including Mr Miliband, should not attempt to preserve a way of life at the expense of the genital integrity of a child who is too young to consent to the operation.

The Secular Medical Forum calls on Mr Miliband to focus squarely on the rights of vulnerable infants and children.  Mr Miliband should prioritise the rights of children rather than harmful religious traditions.  Mr Miliband should defend the weak, rather than preserve abusive traditions.  He should not be misled by misplaced allegations of anti-semitism against those striving to protect children from harm.

The Secular Medical Forum works to protect all people from the imposition of other people’s beliefs in medicine.  The Secular Medical Forum wants there to be freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion, especially for children. The Secular Medical Forum campaigns against all forms of ritual genital cutting and campaigns for a safer world where children can grow up with an intact body and can make their own decisions later in life.  The Secular Medical Forum is a non-profit campaign organisation run by volunteers for the protection of patients.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

As I mentioned, Richard Dawkins has an informative post about the UCL debate yesterday at RDF. Very good. I tried to add to the information Richard provided by linking to the information I had provided on Friday, but a moderator removed the link to my post almost instantly.

Why?

I took a look at the Terms & Conditions, and I can’t find anything that forbids links to blog posts. I’m not surprised not to find such a thing, because that would be an incredibly stupid policy for a website to have. Blog posts can be informative, so it would be ludicrous to make a general policy against links to blogs.

So then why?

I have no idea. The Friday post is relevant because it documents that the organizers were on the record as having agreed to Krauss’s insistence that there be no gender segregation. It documents that this was public information on Friday.

Why on earth remove that?

I did another comment explaining the (obvious) relevance and asking for the link to be left, but that whole comment was deleted.

What is wrong with them? If they have an ironclad rule against posting blog links, why isn’t it visible somewhere? And if they do, why do they, when it would be such a stupid rule?

Then I wrote the post that quoted Chris Moos’s new letter to UCL, and commented at RDF to say I had new information and posted that link – and it was instantly removed.

What is wrong with them?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Guest post by Simon Davis.

On Thursday March 7, an Athens court acquitted Greek neo-nazi Golden Dawn MP Ilias Kasidiaris on charges of assault. Outside the courthouse, Kasidiaris stated:

I am rubbing this decision in the faces of the media and sad politicians. I have a lot of opposition that today would like me to be in jail and a lot of people who want Chrysi Avgi to be on the sidelines, but we are here, we are very powerful and soon we will be dominant.

The Greek site Luben published the following account from a person who “had the misfortune of living through this seven year ordeal from the beginning”, which I have translated to English. I have spoken to several people familiar with the case who have vouched for the veracity of the account. The original in Greek is here.

———–

You are a graduate student.

You are on campus.

A car stops at a location where you are alone.

Five muscle-bound men with shaved heads and sticks beat you to a pulp and stab you in the leg.

They steal your police ID and therefore know where you live.

The only reason for their actions is your appearance.

Despite your fear, you decide to fight back.

You find out that someone had recorded the car’s license plate.

You press charges.

The police discover that the car belongs to a man by the name of “Kasidiaris”, who is a candidate for parliament in the Golden Dawn political party with 0.5% in the polls.

The court case drags on for seven years due to repeated delays.

During that time, you see the thug that stabbed you be elected to parliament.

You see him become of popular hero to a segment of society.

The day of the trial, you have to testify about your traumatic experience in front of a court room that is full of Golden Dawn members in the audience.

You ask that the trial be held in a different hall. Your request is denied.

As you describe the scene of the attack, the hostile audience mocks and teases you.

The orchestrator of the attack, the person who in previous delays of the trial would taunt you in the courthouse corridors, now speaks as if he is Mother Teresa and that he “sympathizes” and “condemns violence, as does the whole of Golden Dawn”.

How ironic.

He is found innocent of the charges.

He rubs the verdict in your face, they are all-powerful, they are dominant.

You learned your lesson. “Don’t get involved – don’t speak – it’s pointless.”

———–

You are 60 years old.

You have worked at the university your entire professional life.

Your husband is in and out of the hospital for chemotherapy.

You see five muscle bound men beating up a student on campus.

You record the license plate number.

You try to find out what happened. The students who are there tell you “I didn’t see, I don’t know, don’t involve me”.

You report the incident to the university, and you together with the victim, give a statement that you saw the license plate number to the police.

After a few days, the police officer informs you that the car belongs to a man named “Kasidiaris” that is a member of a neonazi gang. He recommends you do not get involved. (It will turn out that he gave good advice)

You know that you will go through a gruelling process, and you know that your are getting involved in a case that could put your life at risk, but you decide to do the right thing regardless of the cost.

You find out from television that you are a “top official for the SYRIZA political party” despite the fact that you have never been a member of any party.

Kasidiaris refers to you publicly as a “pimp”, claiming that you are following orders.

He states publicly that you are charged with a crime, without mentioning that this because he has sued you for perjury.

You are in and out of court for seven years as the case is repeatedly delayed.

You testify about what you witnessed.

The pro-nazi lawyer insults you and insinuates that at 60 years of age you decided to involve in a totally unrelated case a complete -at the time- unknown person, for political purposes.

The prosecutor and the judge allow the lawyer to insult you and to speak to you as if you are a criminal. They dismiss your testimony.

A reporter with spiky hair states from the witness stand that you could have very easily found the license plate number from the website indymedia. You did not even know that indymedia existed.

You are found to be an unreliable witness, as opposed to the defendant’s friends who testify that they saw him in his car that morning, who are found to be reliable despite there never having been any evidence presented that the car was located elsewhere.

The trial is over. Innocent.

Now you are charged with perjury. At 67 years of age. Your predicament continues and the court decision will weigh against you.

The newspaper “Proto Thema” publishes your name and picture which are now on neo-nazi sites alongside filthy comments.

This is what you won for your good deed.

You learned your lesson. “Don’t get involved – don’t speak – it’s pointless”

———–

You are a thug for a neonazi organization.

You write odes to Hitler on their official magazine.

You manage to become the great führer’s right hand man.

You go on raids with your car and beat people up.

One of these people dares to press charges.

Now you are a member of parliament.

Beating up a 50 year old woman and avoiding arrest for two days you manage to become a popular hero and a political star.

Seven years later when you can’t get any more continuances, you appear in court.

You have arranged to have 100 muscle-bound men sit in all the seats in the courtroom two hours before the start of the trial.

Even though your car was leased by your employer and you claimed it was in a parking lot, and even though your company asks for receipts in order to reimburse for expenses, you have no evidence to present to the court.

The judge and the prosecutor speak to you with the utmost deference. The word “defendant” is never used.

The prosecutor recommends acquittal. It is obvious that this a political conspiracy from the left.

The presiding judge agrees. Disagreeing in that atmosphere was hardly an option.

You rub the verdict in their face. You are all-powerful, you are dominant

Now they learned their lesson. “Don’t get involved – don’t speak – it’s pointless”

Simon Davis is director of online marketing at a healthcare publications company. He grew up in Greece. You can tweet him at @SimonKnowz

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Apparently the big fuss happened after all, even though we were told that the organizers had agreed that there would be no segregated seating. Apparently Krauss had to make a fuss to make that concession a reality.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)