Ahir, Trob? aquest article sobre el Corea del Nord i que fan amb les dones embrasades que entren al gulag. Maten els nadons`per? el m?s malifique es si la dona s'embrass? d'un estranger o ? l'exterior. Els maten perque Kil il Jong pens?a que un b?b? nascut d'un estranger o de l'extragneria no pot se etnic?ment pur.
S? alguns de vostaltres us esgarrifeau. Jo no perque es el comunisme no es gaire diferenciat amb el nazisme. Que no descuidem el Khmer rouge que mataren llur propris ciudtands que si portaven llentes o parlaven una llengua extrangera. O els sov?tics sota Estal?n que deport? poble enters.
Un altre aspect d'aquest pa?s es que manifesta la cultura de la mort en tota sa plentitud si m?s be no dir gl?ria. La gent no son res m?s que coses que es posen utilitzar o matar com b? li sembla el poder. Ja fa temps que sabem que la gent s'han redu?da al cannibalisme, que mil?lions han morts per causa de famines i l'incompet?ncia volguda del r?gim, que centara de mils son esclaus. Doncs, avortar fetus o matar nadons no es gens sorprenent. La societat nord-core?nia ha abra?ada la cultura de la mort i es insostenible car cap tir? pot regnar sobre un cementeri per a sempre. Eventualment, caur?. Menrestant, hem de fer tot el possible per acabar amb aquest r?gim malefic. Corrompre'l atrav?s el contraband de r?dios, diners i altres ast?cies es una manera.
One of those most ridiculous stereotypes that crops up is that French criminal law law makes no provision for the presumption of innocence. Den Beste perpetuate this pernicious myth. Further he confuses civil with criminal law so a few clarifications are in order.
First the Code Napol?on is France civil law. It deals with personality, obligations and succession as well as the substantive ruls of presenting evidence in civil trials. These substantive rules are complemented by the Code de proc?dure civile. Consequently, the civil law code doesn't have any articles dealing with the presumption of innocence because that's properly belongs to the criminal law.(in French loi penale/criminelle.) The Code Napeoleon merely deals with civil responsibility both contractual and extracontractual.
Second, Den Beste asserts that codified law societies don't provide for the presumption of innocenece but cite no evidence to support the claim. Here's a link that refutes the Den Beste's contention and more specifically art. 18. Sharp eyed reader will note that this is the 1791 constitition. However, it changes nothing. Art 66 of the the 1958 Constiution has a laconic dipsoition that no one may arbitralely detained. As a lawyer, I'd argue that the presumption of innocence is implicitly incorporated as a fundamental constitutional right.
The Code penal and the criminal/constitutional jurisprudence have elaborated exactly what art 66 signifies for the accused as well as for the authourities.
Finally, just to be polemical, in France, such charges would've never made it to trial given the murkiness of the evidence and the accusers' behaviour prior to the al ledged assault. I'm not invoking some misplaced Latin machoism; rather just reminding Den Beste of the puritical streak that still crops up in American life from time to time.
What an insufferably smug Mackubin Thomas Owens has written. American hegemony is good for the world? This rhetoric is straight out of the Project for the new American century and I've had enough. To read through Thomas Owens' article reminds me of the same justifications that the British imperialists and jingosits advanced for the British empire.
Also enough of the propganda that Americans have never wanted an empire. If they didn't, they wouldn't have lauched a war of aggression in 1812 to abscond with the Canadian colonies, or to take territory from the Mexicans in 1848 or the Phillipines and Cuba from Spain in 1898. I distrust hegemonic powers that declaim about their benevolence; it's a sure sign that they'll sell out the little countries that no longer have any utility in the grand startegy: like Catalunya at the end of the War of the Spanish success or Canada whenever America experiences protectionist fits.Further hegemonic powers claims of benevolence tend to infantalize likeminded countries. Why should they bother with burdens of the world when the hegemony does everything, delegates nothing but heaps lots blame and scorn?
The likeminded will be glad to help out but don't patronize them!
Hier j'?cris une ?loge ? Iztabegovitch en remarquant que de les trois chef pendant la guerre d'Yugoslavie il f?t l'unique qu'na pas ?t? ni mis en accusation ni au banc d'accus?s. J'aurais peut-?tre parl? trop vite car j'ai visit? le blogue de Nikos qui a publi? ce
lien sur le d?funt.
Selon cet article Iztabegovich aurait ?t? un membre du 13e Division SS dite Handschar. Elle fut compos?e de musulmans bosniques qui avient commis de crimes de geuerre. En, le r?sum? continue en notant qu'Iztabegovic a ?t? condamn? pour de atrocit?. Pendant la guerre de Bosnie, il aurait une unit? app?l?e Handschar dans l'ordre de combat bosnique.
En outre, il a eu assez de preuve pour entamer une enqu?te par le Tribunal p?nal international pour l'Yugoslavie et il aurait eu de fortes chances qu'Iztabegovitch aurait ?t? incupl?.
Pour l'instant, je lui donnera le b?n?fic de la doute car j'avoue que je n'ai ?t? pas de tout au courant de cet aspect de sa vie.
I picked this article at le Monde but there was a similar one at le Figaro The diatriabe launched by Amnon Dankner, editor of Maariv on Sunday. He basically states that Chirac is an antiSemite and so is France. Even the Israeli foreign minister continued the attack. As you can imagine, the French presidential spokesman is up in arms over the personal affront.
Even more complicated is that France has just sent a new ambassador- Gï¿½rard Araud- who supposedly gave a speech characterizing Israel as a 'paranoid' country and Sharon as a rougue (voyou in French) In any case, I'm beginning to wonder if this episode is another manifestation of anti French bashing jumping the shark? I got mad at Chirac when he supposedly blocked the European's condemnation of Mahtir's speech. II caled him a connard based on an early AP report. In retrospect, I may have jumped the gun. There's much confusion as to exactly what Chirac did and said in the closed door session. SO for now I'll give him him the benefit of the doubt. In the meantime, I supect Amnon Danker and especially Silvan Shalom may have to retract their articles and apologize if the events clearly and unambiguously show that Chirac didn't oppose the European statement. Yet for now the situation is sufficently murky that it,s best if everyone cool down in the meantime.