Dutch Minister of Justice Piet Hein Donne thinks it's okay to stone women to death if they've been caught in adultery. He also believes that the principle of democracy is so important that rape victims can be given the death penalty if they cannot produce four male witness as per the Quran.

Oh, and he's a member of the Christian Democratic Party. I'm sure Jebus would be proud.

This is the problem with the democracy-above-all-advocates. They would trade your liberty to the principle that the masses have the final say. Even if those masses wish to oppress themselves and you.

Myrtus:

He says: "I'm certain of one thing: if two thirds of all Dutch people would want to implement Sharia tomorrow, then this possibility should exist. Would it be possible to stop this legally? It would be scandalous to say: that's not allowed! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy."

He made these statements in the book "Het land van haat en nijd" = The land of hate and malice, which is due to hit the bookshelves today.

Hat tip Larwyn who continues to feed me stories so fast I can hardly keep up!

UPDATE: Just to clarify, I've taken what Piet Hein Donne has said to the logical extreme--but it is the extreme. The point of this is not that Donne actually supports sharia, only that someone who takes the position that democracy is the end game, and not the means to an end, is in a problematic position.

Further, reader Danny from the Netherlands writes to clarify Donne's position. Apparently, his words have been taken out of context. The context in which Donne was writing, says Danny, is that democracy can be abused to reach evil ends (If I am reading Danny's letter correctly).

In other words, Donne is taking the exact opposite of the position that he is being reported as taking! He opposes sharia to the point that even if it was adopted through legal and demcratic means, it's still a bad deal. I can't imagine the media ever getting something like that wrong. Nope, never.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:57 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The grassroots have already established this in California. Today they work to abolish the Electoral College. This gives the masses the right to elect president directly. How long before the mob is alloweed to vote for what sort of government is applied? Or when does the mob give itself the right to modify the constitution at a whim?

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 13, 2006 09:09 AM (7teJ9)

2 For democracy to work the minorities must be protected from an overzealous majority. True democracy is not simple majority rules and that's the end of it. It gives minorities power to stop the majority as well when needed.

Posted by: Howie at September 13, 2006 09:09 AM (D3+20)

3 This is why the founding fathers never implemented a pure democracy. From the time of Aristotle it was observed that a pure democracy has the tendency to develope tyranny over a period of time, and this is why the United States accepted a Constitution that granted certain rights upon people that may not be usurped, and why they gave us a republican form of government. They were damn smart men.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 13, 2006 09:14 AM (rUyw4)

4 That's why we have a Constitution. We should follow it-- not the mob, nor judges who make it up as they go along.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 13, 2006 09:22 AM (paKD6)

5 """Dutch Minister of Justice Piet Hein Donne thinks it's okay to stone women to death if they've been caught in adultery. He also believes that the principle of democracy is so important that rape victims can be given the death penalty if they cannot produce four male witness as per the Quran.""""

Thats not what he has said!

Half this country was going apeshit about his remarks. Not to mention the whole cabinet. Later he explained to point out just the weakness of a democratie!

Thats it!

Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2006 09:25 AM (ILHet)

6 Isn't it odd that every perversion known on earth is readily permissable and available in Holland? Buuuuuuut, this guy says adultery by women is punishable by death...... (I always thought it took two to adulterate.)

Well, no matter. This guy is a muslim at heart whether he knows it or not. He sure isn't a Christian.... because "justice is mine, saith the Lord".

btw, who is this Jebus anyway?

Posted by: n.a. palm at September 13, 2006 09:33 AM (CWQzg)

7 I have never been stoned with an adultress. Well there was that time at college...... But I did not inhale.

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 13, 2006 10:13 AM (7teJ9)

8 "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep debating what they are going to eat. Liberty is a well-armed sheep taking exception to the outcome of the vote."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: salfter at September 13, 2006 12:01 PM (+Epz5)

9 Thanks Rusty,

Here in the Netherlands, the day starts to end and the storm about Donner’s remarks this morning is settling down. What was it all about: In theory it is possible for another religion to take over a democratic community if that community lives up truly to its democratic principles. But that’s all theoretically, because you need two third of the people in a country to have them vote for one single party. In a modern society this is almost impossible! In the case of the Netherlands, if all Muslims related people would vote for one single party, they get hardly 17 seats out of the 150. Today they have zero seats. But theoretically it would be possible.


I think his book will do well!

Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2006 12:11 PM (ILHet)

10 This is one of the big issues for me so it's very interesting to see it discussed here.

Everyone above is absolutely right, the founding fathers created a system to avoid the tyranny of the majority. It's a brilliant system.

"We should follow it-- not the mob, nor judges who make it up as they go along"
That statement demonstrates an fundamental lack of understanding of the structure the constitution puts in place. The judiciary is there for the express purpose of protecting the country from the mob.

The House and to a slightly lesser extent, the Senate are, by their very nature, mob rule. The president himself represents the mob as a whole.

It's the judiciary's job to moderate this mob into something resembling a civilized society. The hierachal nature of the judiciary protects the mob from "activist judges" (a term I find entirely wrong-headed and think anyone who uses it seriously should be shot for treason but that's a separate issue).

In essence, you're either with the mob or with the judges, there's no real middle ground.

Posted by: Rich at September 13, 2006 01:23 PM (89Rw1)

11 Rich:  I disagree a little bit. They were also smart enough to require that a minority be substantial or be able to form a large enough coalltion to keep small nutty minorities from always stopping everything..  An excellent balance not easily duplicated. 
 
 

Posted by: Howie at September 13, 2006 01:51 PM (YdcZ0)

12 Howie, nothing I said directly contradicts what you said. Protecting the country from mob rule doesn't mean allowing a minority to rule either. There is a balance there.

That said, most of the "protections" against minority parties were put in place by our two parties, not the founding fathers themselves. This was done to protect the large party's power and not the rights of the people.

It's a point that can be debated but, I don't think the founding fathers intended us to be a two party system.

Posted by: Rich at September 13, 2006 02:19 PM (89Rw1)

13 What abloodthirst monster he is no better then those islamic barbarians

Posted by: sandpiper at September 13, 2006 02:42 PM (S97cI)

14 Rich, I think you are wrong. The Judiciary was created as a check on both the Executive and Legislative branches, but government itself was created to prevent mob rule. That is the fundamental purpose of government. What our Founding Fathers did was say there are some rights that are granted by God, rights that the government has no right to usurp, such as freedom and liberty. The Ten Amendments to the Constitution were written to prevent anyone from taking these God-given rights away from their fellow citizens, whether they had a majority or not. This is why the Muslims hate the US Constitution so much, because it would never allow sharia law, as sharia law violates equal protection and other tenets of the Constitution, including freedom of religion.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 13, 2006 03:26 PM (rUyw4)

15 Actually, Howie, democracy is simply majority rule. What we have is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional representative republic, with democratically elected representatives. Minority rights are protected only by having enumerated, immutably, in the law of the land, i.e., the Constitution. We cannot afford to let America become a democracy, because democracy is the death of nations.

Posted by: Improbulus Maxmius at September 13, 2006 04:29 PM (v3I+x)

16 Thanks for keeping me edumacated Maxie. That's why I'm here.  It's no fun to hang with people that are dumber than yourself.  Well I like to learn so maybe I'm just wierd that way.

Posted by: Howie at September 13, 2006 04:32 PM (YdcZ0)

17 Or the death of freedom, if not nations. Excellent points, IM.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 13, 2006 06:54 PM (rUyw4)

18 Hey Dan, thanks for the update.
I don't think there was ever any doubt that Mr. Donner was explaining how Dutch democracy works theoretically, but what really pisses me off is the fact that he says he will not take back his statement in which he claims that if the majority decides to live by sharia law, then this should be allowed because Dutch law permits it and that's how democracy works. There are so many things wrong about that statement. If that's not an open invitation for Islamofascism to grab hold of Dutch politics I don't know what is. All it takes is a little effort from Islamonutters like Hezbollah for example to start branching out into Dutch politics and poof! Say goodbye to Holland as you know it today. Donner can turn around and claim that he was only theorizing all he wants, the reality is Holland has the opportunity to nip this in the bud now to make sure that something like that would never happen even in the smallest form by taking a tougher stance against anything related to sharia law when it infringes on basic human rights. But then again, maybe it's already too late. A perfect example of how Dutch democracy works is that pedo party being allowed to have a say in politics recently.
What can I say? The man has to say something to sell his book, right?

Posted by: Myrtus at September 13, 2006 07:52 PM (uy3W4)

19 Part of the problem Europe faces is not just the dwindling numbers of Christians, but that most European Christians are so liberal that they no longer have the moral clarity to stand up for right and oppose wrong. The same thing is happening worldwide, and Christianity is now two entirely different faiths; the liberalized one in which anything is permissable and the Bible is not regarded as any sort of authority, and the fundamentalist one which has very little mass appeal due to its disconnectedness with reality and resistance to widely accepted facts. Christianity has basically run its course, and is a dying religion, even though its numbers are growing in some places.
Islam is ascendant, and Christianity is on its way out. The East has new purpose, but the West has lost its purpose. The East is bursting at the seams with a newfound belief in its own potential, whereas the West has ceased to believe in anything. The new East is brash, young and unafraid, but the old West is timid and doubtful. I hate to sound like a defeatist, but the fact is that our enemies are unified in goal and purpose, but we cannot even get a full half of our own population to believe we are at war, and worse, those who lead us in this war cannot let go of the quaint notion that we must limit our efforts according to archaic rules of war that belong to another era. This is a new day, and a whole new set of rules apply. Actually, there's only one rule - win at any cost - but we're still playing by the old rulebook that was originally written when enemy officers would meet to exchange compliments and snuff on the field before the battle. In short; we're screwed, and if we can't get enough people to realize it and stop this idiotic pussyfooting around with the enemy, we deserve extinction.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 14, 2006 08:05 AM (v3I+x)

20 IM, you won't mind if I take exception with those who are trying to kill me, will you? Perhaps I'll ruin the future of quite a few of these shitheads before I depart the World.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 14, 2006 09:49 AM (rUyw4)

21 Nice try Howie. You think IM won't come to kill you now?

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 14, 2006 10:57 AM (Dd86v)

22 IM?  Are you kidding?  He's a big old pussycat.  He's never siad the slightest thing to me.  We've traded a few insults now and then.  I tend to realize what we are up against.  So while we don't always agree, fearing IM would be a major waste of my time and my last nerve.

Posted by: Howie at September 14, 2006 11:22 AM (YdcZ0)

23 All the same I'm keeping my cloaking device up!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 14, 2006 12:16 PM (Dd86v)

24 Okay, I want everyone, and I mean everyone, to go sign up for a critical reading class. Yes, right now. I don't write what I think things are like, I write how things are, and it really doesn't matter if anyone likes it or not, because that's the way it is, so please stop misreading my comments.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 14, 2006 04:08 PM (v3I+x)

25 Hell, I always knew Last Gasp Larry was a damn, stinking Klingon.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 14, 2006 06:59 PM (rUyw4)

26 Jesusland Joe, at the time of my choosing I am going to reach through cyber-space and bitch-slap your wrinkled face!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 18, 2006 04:25 PM (Dd86v)

Hide Comments | Add Comment