For those who are wondering: yes the headline of this post is correct.
Dutch Minister of Justice, Mr. Donner, believes (he wrote this in his new book) that at the moment fundamentalist Muslims 'own' 2/3 of seats in Parliament, they should be able to install Sharia as the law of the Netherlands. "That is how it works in a democracy", according to Donner.
Continue reading at Liberty and Justice
5 comments:
Right. So "that's how it works in a democracy" yet when a majority of citizens want curbs on immigration and an end to the violent behaviour of muslim youth, suddenly "democracy" is subordinate to what our intellectual superiors deem to be good for us.
Democracy my ass. Civil war creeps closer by the day and I for one won't be sorry if it erupts.
How can it be democratic to end democracy? To freely vote for slavery?
I will never submit.
I will die fighting with my sword in my hand and my teeth at their throats.
Science question of the day:
Can one physical object occupy two places at the same time?
Politics answer of the day:
Maybe not, but one ideological Orback sure can.
KG makes an excellent point; I couldn't agree more.
Sounds like another Gnostic politician. Eric Voegelin who saw the Gnostic totalitarians come to power in Germany in the 1930s through "democratic" means became a leading student of Gnosticism and wrote in his New Science of Politics(144):
"a government has the duty to preserve the order as well as the truth which it represents; when a Gnostic leader appears and proclaims that God or progress, race or dialectic, has ordained him to become hte existential ruler, a government is not supposed to betray its trust and to abdicate. And this rule suffers no exception for governments which operate under a democratic constitution and a bill of rights. Justice Jackson in his dissent in the Terminiello case formulated the point:the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. A democratic government is not supposed to become an accomplice in its own overthrow by letting Gnostic movements grow prodigiously in the shelter of a muddy interpretation of civil rights; and if through inadvertence such a movement has grown to the danger point of capturing existential representation by the famous "legality" of popular elections, a democratic government is not supposed to bow to the "will of hte people" but to put down the danger by force and, if necessary, to break the letter of the constitution in order to save its spirit."
In other words, necessity and freedom comes before democracy, and if democracy is not willing to preserve freedom , then free people have must live up to the necessity and reimpose an order of freedom on democracy, even if they are in a minority.
Post a Comment