CupidS Escorts
Toronto Escorts

EU PC-Speak: "Or Let's Create Another Group of Victims"

May 3, 2004
1,686
0
0
Our fine-feathered, morally and intellectually enlightened friends across the pond would like to designate another group as offical "EU VICTIMS". They touchy-feely that the good EU Muslims 'character' has been unfairly maligned and impugned by 'grossly unfair' characterizations such as "Islamic Terrorism", "Jihad", "Radical Islam" and the like.

They now wish to stifle free speech, honest debate and obsfucate reality by creating a whole new PC reality with EU endorsed and approved terms such as "Terrorism that Abusively Invokes Islam".

What next, a new characteriztion for suicide-bomber "Psychologically-challenged Human-Explosives Expert with a Cognitively-challenged interpretation of peaceful Islam"?



By Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Mon Apr 24, 4:00 AM ET

Officials in Brussels have embarked on an unusual exercise, combing their dictionaries to excise words and phrases that could cause offense.

When the review is complete and the rules laid down, you will not, for example, hear EU officials talk any more about "Islamic terrorism."

That sort of shorthand reference to the bombings in Madrid and London, and other outrages committed in the name of Islam, is commonplace today. But EU policymakers worry that it lumps all Muslims into the same category, and angers them.

"There is no justification at all for including all law-abiding Muslim citizens in our messages about terrorism," says Friso Roscam-Abbing, an EU spokesman. "The politically more correct term will be 'terrorism that abusively invokes Islam.' "

"That may be all very long and cumbersome," he acknowledges. "But millions of Muslims live in the EU, and they are simply not terrorists."

Mr. Roscam-Abbing may be prepared to admit to political correctness, but he rejects accusations that the EU is soft-soaping "Islamic radicals" - another phrase that is coming under the microscope.

"We are very tough on combating terrorism," he insists. "We will absolutely continue to detect the bad guys and prevent them from committing terrorist acts. But at the same time we are respectful of citizens' beliefs."

The idea of developing a lexicon for EU officials and politicians to use when discussing Islam and terrorism in the same breath came up late last year, as the EU went through one of its regular reviews of its policy to prevent terrorism.

It is emblematic of a peculiarly European approach to the problem, which focuses not only on law enforcement and intelligence, but on the wider context that can breed resentful terrorists. Indeed, the plan for the lexicon falls under the EU's strategy on combatting radicalization and recruitment of individuals for terrorism.

"You don't want to use terminology which would aggravate the problem," one EU official familiar with the lexicon told Reuters. "This is an attempt ... to be aware of the sensitivities implied by the use of certain language."

That means, for example, that officials will be debating if and how to use terms such as "Islamist," "fundamentalist," and "jihad." Though Al Qaeda uses the term "jihad" to mean holy war against "infidels," many Muslim scholars and adherents see jihad as an individual, spiritual battle that each Muslim wages within himself against evil of all kinds.

Officials are quick to reassure skeptics that the new language rules will not be legally binding on anyone, and are designed only for use by people speaking in the EU's name, not for journalists or anybody else.

Rather, says Roscam-Abbing, the exercise is designed to foster "a growing awareness of what Islam means" on a continent where most people were shocked by the angry reaction Muslims showed to the publication of cartoons depicting Muhammad. While the drawings were first published last fall in a Danish newspaper, numerous other papers in Europe and around the world reprinted them later, with protests climaxing in January.

"It is prohibited in Islam to depict the prophet," he points out."But this process of raising awareness has to be reciprocal.

"I hope that Muslims living in the EU will better understand the sensitivities of non-Muslims about their freedom of expression, he says. "I'd hope that Muslims living in Europe would understand why non-Muslims were so upset" by the protests against the cartoons.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
rogerstaubach said:
It is emblematic of a peculiarly European approach to the problem, which focuses not only on law enforcement and intelligence, but on the wider context that can breed resentful terrorists.
Yep, it sure is emblematic of a peculiarly European approach alright, namely trying to leverage away problems with pithy regulations and buzzwords when the root of the problem lies deep in the "European way of life" they're otherwise so ardent about defending. It's true that the Europeans are going to have to learn to accept the presence, in their midst, of people who are different from the majority if they wish to avoid unintentionally moulding the migrant population into a terror recruitment pool. That's not to come about as the result of bureaucratic inquiries concerning what official jargon is to be used on EU press releases and mission statements. It will come about when the nations of Europe get it together to scrap their obsolete collectivist class system and its consecration at the level of the State, namely socialism, and embrace modern individualism the way we have here in North America.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
Yes, a mass revolutionary racialist movement would really help Europe a lot. Look how well it worked in Germany that time there.
 

maxweber

Active member
Oct 12, 2005
1,296
1
36
and the history of all hitherto existing society is..

Truncador said:
Yep, it sure is emblematic of a peculiarly European approach alright, namely trying to leverage away problems with pithy regulations and buzzwords when the root of the problem lies deep in the "European way of life" they're otherwise so ardent about defending. It's true that the Europeans are going to have to learn to accept the presence, in their midst, of people who are different from the majority if they wish to avoid unintentionally moulding the migrant population into a terror recruitment pool. That's not to come about as the result of bureaucratic inquiries concerning what official jargon is to be used on EU press releases and mission statements. It will come about when the nations of Europe get it together to scrap their obsolete collectivist class system and its consecration at the level of the State, namely socialism, and embrace modern individualism the way we have here in North America.
Again, I think there's a lot here. I agree both that Europeans do not (or tend not) to see how deeply rooted their social problems are in their own cultures and traditions, and that they are inexperienced at absorbing large numbers of cultural outsiders, especially compared to North Americans. That staement may seem macabre and ironic to some. For better or worse, North America has been the greatest acculturation experiment in human history.

But, speaking of irony, logic alone demands exception to the self-contradictory expression "obsolete collectivist class system." You don't have to be a Marxist to accept that the interests of classes are typically contrasting, hence intrinsically set against collectivism in any reasonable sense. I doubt in any case that the word means anything, outside Stalinist or Hitlerist practice, at least. "The" collective, vs. "the" individual? Please. These are wooly-minded abstractions of the worst sort. Who is obliged to stop at a red light, anyone or everyone?

MW
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
Terminology

maxweber said:
But, speaking of irony, logic alone demands exception to the self-contradictory expression "obsolete collectivist class system." You don't have to be a Marxist to accept that the interests of classes are typically contrasting, hence intrinsically set against collectivism in any reasonable sense. I doubt in any case that the word means anything, outside Stalinist or Hitlerist practice, at least. "The" collective, vs. "the" individual? Please. These are wooly-minded abstractions of the worst sort. Who is obliged to stop at a red light, anyone or everyone?
The term "collectivist" as I use it strictly denotes a system in which individuals have their social existence in, through, and for various concrete groups, the membership thereof being based on birth or induction, and with each typically standing in antagonism towards the other. What you refer to as "collectivism" can be more rigorously described as authoritarian or paternalistic totalitarianism insofar as (and as your remarks themselves suggest), it is meaningless to speak of a "collectivity" made up of isolated individuals whose unity lies solely in their common subjection to the entirely abstract and impersonal power of the State; where the concept of "the group" encompasses everybody, the words "anyone" and "everyone" become interchangeable. Moreover, such a power by necessity sets out to abolish existing social groupings as so many barriers to its supremacy (look at how Hitler extinguished the trade unions, the Communists vowed to destroy religion and the family, or for that matter how Trudeau attempted to undermine and subjugate the Provinces).
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts