« Where the NHS Money Goes. | Main | David Davis. »

May 11, 2005

Tsk, Tsk, Margot.

Chris Harper noted something on TEBAF Margot’s blog that he (and I) think worthy of more attention.

"I warmly welcome a debate on the horrendous slave trade with women and children for sexual purposes that goes in Europe and the world every day."

As Chris says via email:

She welcomes A DEBATE?
Is she implying that those who support this trade have something to say worth listening to? Is this official EU policy?

He also sent in a comment which appears not to have made it onto her site yet:

You welcome a debate on the slave trade? You WELCOME A DEBATE on the utterly vile trade in women for sexual purposes?
A DEBATE?
Why? Do you think that those who are in favour of it have something to say worth listening to?
Personally I would prefer to welcome the news that those carrying it out have all been strung up by the testicles and left to the crows.
I think mine is a far more rational position than yours.

Chris’ solution is of course illegal as capital punishment is not allowed. Indeed, depending upon how you read the new Constitution, even to agitate for its return is illegal as noted by EU Serf.

An interesting catch by Chris, don’t you think?

Update: Both Bunny in the comments and the Moderator at TEBAF’s  site tell me to chill out. She is quite obviously talking about a debate on what to do about it, not a debate with those doing it. Mod also tells me to give her a break as English is not her first language. Both fair comments. Still think she should have phrased it better...if you’re going to write in English you do need to get it right. Othewise we’ll get all sorts of strange ideas, like that TEBAF thinks if the Constitution isn’t signed then the extermination camps will come back.
 

May 11, 2005 in Margot Blogging | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d83479272e69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tsk, Tsk, Margot.:

Comments

A careful reading reveals that he's suggesting testicular punishment rather than capital punishment.

Posted by: dearieme | May 11, 2005 10:19:14 AM

>An interesting catch by Chris, don’t you think?

Nope. Wallstrom doesn't want a debate about whether it's right or wrong. She wants a debate about what to do about it, not a debate between those who practise it and those who don't.

There's enough material to attack Margot with (eg. the "New Holocaust" nonsense) without readers having to invent a position she clearly doesn't hold.

Posted by: Scott Campbell at Blithering Bunny | May 11, 2005 10:27:02 AM

The post of hers you linked to is hilarious, though:

I received a management award recently. But there have been days when I waited for them to come and take it back. Days when being "the boss" have brought new challenges of unforeseen kind:

— people completely losing their temper; shouting and crying,

— trying to keep up the dynamics of the group/team,

— handling "backstabbing" from somebody I thought was an ally.

Posted by: Scott Campbell at Blithering Bunny | May 11, 2005 10:32:19 AM

Well of _course_ there has to be a debate. After all, slavery is part of Islam. It is as wrong to forbid what Allah permits as to permit what Allah forbids. We _must_ have a debate.

And then, in good old PC style, the west must roll over, grease its rear, and just take it.

God, I _hate_ the 21st century.

Posted by: Tom Kratman | May 11, 2005 2:35:03 PM

Well of _course_ there has to be a debate. After all, slavery is part of Islam. It is as wrong to forbid what Allah permits as to permit what Allah forbids. We _must_ have a debate.

And then, in good old PC style, the west must roll over, grease its rear, and just take it.

God, I _hate_ the 21st century.

Posted by: Tom Kratman | May 11, 2005 2:35:03 PM

Presumably, if you're not allowed to debate something, the alternative is to blunder into doing the first thing that comes into your head without consulting anyone else it might affect.

Typical isolationist hypocrisy/hysterics

Posted by: Alex | May 11, 2005 2:50:27 PM

Tim,

Just a little comment on your link to EU Serf.

I might the EU serf post a little more seriously if they actually managed to get the quote right. As it happens they left off half the last sentence. That's quite an omission.

You may want to check the text for yourself:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/charte/index_en.html

Now - I'm not necessarily defending the charter. And this omission by EU serf may have been accidental. Or perhaps it was a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation to make a cheap political point?

Tim adds: the phrase in full is:

"Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein."

I still read that as stating that we have no right to any activity or act that might lead to a reduction in the rights enumerated. For example, campaigning for capital punishment. Yes, they did truncate the quote but I don’t see that it is all that different.


Posted by: rjw | May 11, 2005 5:39:51 PM

Well I see Mr Campbell has written what I was going to (far more eloquently than I could) and Mr Kratman wrote something that fortunately never entered my mind.

Posted by: mrs mcmuffin | May 11, 2005 5:58:59 PM

Salutations Tom Kratman. You're not on your own.

Posted by: John Archer | May 11, 2005 9:19:47 PM

Yeah, chill out, Tim. Whattabully: how dare you insist that the EU's chief of "Communications" communicate with clarity and logic.

Posted by: thibaud | May 11, 2005 11:39:21 PM

"we have no right to any activity or act that might lead to a reduction in the rights enumerated"

That sounds rather like the J.S.Mill notion that the only limitation of one's liberty is that you do not infringe on that of others.

Posted by: Alex | May 12, 2005 9:58:37 AM

I think that the bad thing about the illegal trade in women is that its being done by criminals.
Perhaps if the Gvt made 2 years of enforced prostitution a prerequisite of immigration into the UK we would solve more than one problem with the single stone.
Cheap, government-subsidised prostitution. WIN
Increased Gvt revenue. WIN
Less crime. (Maybe less rapes) WIN
Pro-active on immigration. WIN

Also never forget that a lot of the people who get rich out of this trade are WOMEN not men. As I understand it women entice other women into the trade and the men provide the muscle. Secondly, realise the people "enforced" are 90pc exploited not forced, the forced trade is very small, and most wanted to come the the UK as illegal immigrants anyways.
Thirdly, is the UK responsible for solving enforced prostitution in other countries?

Posted by: Monjo | May 12, 2005 11:38:01 AM