PC strikes again, this time: EU court versus Poland

[Skybird]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11957863

A man serving an 8 year sentence for rape, claims to be a Buddhist and sued the prison for not providing him a vegetarian diet. The EU court gave him right, and the Polish state now has to pay 3000 Euros in compensation vor the prison was violating this man's precious religion he claims for himself.

The same precious religious conviction that did not hinder him to commit raping...?

One of these stories that are so insane that they make me pulling my hair out at times. Now you know why I am half bald.

Reminds me of British prisons where they broke toilet seats off the wall one or two years ago, and re-attached them by a changed angle so that Muslim prisoners could piss and sh!t into the religiously correct direction.

EU institution involved. Well, then at least the verdict is no surprise.


A spokesman for the prison service told The Daily Telegraph that Jakobski had previously claimed to be an ardent Catholic and fought to have a cross in his cell.

"We are not entirely inclined to believe that he is sincere and that his demands were not related to a desire to annoy the prison service and the justice system," said spokesman Captain Artur Bojanowicz.


Ah. What did I just say...?

[Jimbuna]

Madness! :nope:

The latest trick in the UK is for drug dealers to purposely get themselves sent 'inside' so they can supply drugs to the inmates at huge profit margins :yep:

[Skybird]

Madness! :nope:

The latest trick in the UK is for drug dealers to purposely get themselves sent 'inside' so they can supply drugs to the inmates at huge profit margins :yep:

Ring the WTO. That sounds like market protectionism to me. :O:

[Tribesman]

Skybird strikes again , how many things in his post can you spot which are simply not true?:rotfl2:

[Jimbuna]

Ring the WTO. That sounds like market protectionism to me. :O:

LOL...you might just be right :DL

[the_tyrant]

Skybird strikes again , how many things in his post can you spot which are simply not true?:rotfl2:

Can you prove it?

[Tribesman]

Can you prove it?
Yes very easily.
But first you can start with the opening post and work your way through it, then say how many you spotted:know:

[Respenus]

Skybird,

I could not agree more on your analysis and I concur that recently multikulti and cultural relativism has been pushed far too high on the political agenda.

Yet again, I must ask that you remember what I said before and that I will keep repeating. This has NOTHING to do with the EU, but with the CoE and the ECHR. Now, we may differ in our analysis how useful the Court has been throughout history and it is a discussion which depends on your views of the world and the international relations; but I have to demand that at least, you point the finger to the appropriate guilty figure. The EU isn't the beginning or the end of everything you know. :03:

[Tribesman]

I could not agree more on your analysis
Even though its clearly mainly bullexcrement he posted?:rotfl2:

[Platapus]

One of my favourite cases was: A prisoner escapes from a Utah prison. After he is caught, he tries to sue Utah for the mental anguish and injuries he received when he was fleeing and hiding from the police.

He told the court that he felt like a hunted animal.

Nor surprisingly the Utah courts did not rule in his favour.

Some people's kids. :nope:

[Skybird]

Respenus,

you are right in so far that the European polit-operetta has established THREE different political entities all called "European commission" or "Commission of Europe", and only two of these are directly linked to and established by the organisation called the European Union. However, all these three bodies, independent from the EU or not, and although on paper serving different purposes (too many different purporses for to many actors, if you ask me), together with the EU, all have the same idea about what Europe should become, and by what means. That's why I tend to throw them all into the same drawer, because in practice they all help the vision the EU has drawn for the European superstate. And what I think of this damn thing, you probably know by now.

So, formally you are right, but in practice I do not see it making much of a difference to the EU. The European project has been derailed and politically and ideologically infested so heavily that to me it all is the same rubbish. Or in short: it all is "the EU".

Wikileaks, thanks to them, has revealed what American diplomats think about the European narcissism and operetta-style wannabe-great-leaders craving for Obama's attention. The EU alone confronts the Americans with at least four different diplomatic titles/entities/bodies, plus the individual national leaders. No wonder that Obama has reperateedly shown total desinterest to engage with this Kindergarten and left them standing in the rain, while his diplomatc cooly calculate how to play the individual European kids best against each other:

USA spotten über Zwergenmacht Europa (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,728613,00.html)

[Dowly]

Skybird strikes again , how many things in his post can you spot which are simply not true?:rotfl2:

You know, instead of being a total wanker, you could just prove him wrong. :roll:

And no, this doesn't mean I agree with Skybird or that I am a SB fanboy, just getting fed up with you tbh.

[Respenus]

Sky, the Council of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Council_of_europe_map.svg) spans more or less from Vancouver to Vladivostok, so Russia is getting it's legal ass given to it all the time. Would you mind giving me the third "EU" institution you speak of. The three major ones that I know of are the EU, the Council of Europe, created well before the EU and in my humble opinion the real peace maker in Europe with this mission:
Article 1


The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.
This aim shall be pursued through the organs of the Council by discussion of questions of common concern and by agreements and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters and in the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Participation in the Council of Europe shall not affect the collaboration of its members in the work of the United Nations and of other international organisations or unions to which they are parties.
Matters relating to national defence do not fall within the scope of the Council of Europe.


The EU is meant to join the CoE, as inscribed in the Treaty (Dictate :03:) of Lisbon, something which has some EU leaders worried about possible human rights abuse in the EU. I can almost taste the irony.

What is the third one? I can think of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but that one is well separated with a completely different mission and with just the bare minimum of legal basis in order to be called an Organisation (used to be Conference), so there are also no to extremely limited legal obligations that member states would have to comply to.

So, yes, the first two are connected and maybe have a slightly similar agenda, but I still wouldn't go as far as throwing them in the same drawer. Similar ideas, far from same mission, considering the dispersed and diverse membership. The think about cultural relativism still stand though.

And Tribesman, no, Skybird isn't talking bull****. We have had similar "problems" with local courts in Slovenia. Our Roma community is more or less integrated, but there are still problems, coming from both sides. But there was one case, concerning a forced marriage and abuse, completely contrary to our or international law, but the man was let go on the argument of "it's their culture". You know something is wrong when the most human rights liberal professor of law tells you that this is outmost and complete bull.

[Tribesman]

And Tribesman, no, Skybird isn't talking bull****.
If something isn't true then it is bull****.
Right from the title it hasn't been true, it wasn't the EU and has bugger all to do with P.C., the "toilet" story is so phoney even an avid Daily Mail reporter would probably choke on it.

We have had similar "problems" with local courts in Slovenia.
Yet you are arguing the opposite? Your "roma" local and international laws point is about people getting away with not following the laws, the OP "story" is about getting done for not following the local and international laws.

You know, instead of being a total wanker, you could just prove him wrong.
Why?
Respenus has been patient and explained how Sky was wrong on it just like many people do.
Sky insists that he was still right when plain irrefutable facts show that to not be the case.
Its a common pattern, sky gets a decent story with some real credibility about an important issue, then he goes off on rants about his pet hates and destroys the point he was trying to make by simply lying.

So this story is about an individual playing the system, thats life. Individual people will play the system no matter what system it is and as soon as you change the whole system to stop one individual taking one avenue an individual will play the new system
.

[Hottentot]

Respenus has been patient and explained how Sky was wrong on it just like many people do.
Sky insists that he was still right when plain irrefutable facts show that to not be the case.


And you ridiculing him in the threads he makes helps the situation...how exactly? Especially since you are most likely on his ignore list.

[onelifecrisis]

And you ridiculing him in the threads he makes helps the situation...how exactly? Especially since you are most likely on his ignore list.

Because Skybird uses these forums to preach. He's not interested in discussion, only in conversion.

[Hottentot]

I'm aware of that. I have been lurking here almost daily since I registered. I just can't see two wrongs making one right, it just makes these threads even more difficult to read.

[onelifecrisis]

I'm aware of that. I have been lurking here almost daily since I registered. I just can't see two wrongs making one right, it just makes these threads even more difficult to read.

Most forums have a lot more readers than posters, and without opposition Skybird's sermons may seem persuasive to some.

[Hottentot]

I see Skybird getting plenty of opposition in the threads he makes, but I have hard time labeling Tribesman's messages as opposition. But I guess it's a matter of taste and style.

Edited to add: I also remember seeing Tribesman making lots of good and well thought out points in other threads. So I just can't understand why he doesn't make more of those and if he doesn't want to do it with Skybird (which I can understand), then just ignore him and let those, who want to, do it.

[kranz]

Because Skybird uses these forums to preach. He's not interested in discussion, only in conversion.

qft

[onelifecrisis]

But I guess it's a matter of taste and style.

Exactly. Not everyone is swayed by the type of counter-argument you prefer. Besides, Tribesman usually produces the goods sooner or later.

[Tribesman]

He's not interested in discussion, only in conversion.
Would that make it a bit like that fundamentalism?:yeah:

Besides, Tribesman usually produces the goods sooner or later.
Sometimes, I generally just prefer to prod so people may look for themselves, Sky makes it so easy because he either makes claims which are about something well established that clearly contradicts him when you look at it or makes claims that he backs up by linking to real loony websites which he describes as "academic".

[onelifecrisis]

Would that make it a bit like that fundamentalism?:yeah:

You noticed that too, did you?