I look into the world and i think that we live a great time, where, in a click you can talk to people all around the world.

Interested in being a member (click here) or if you just want to leave a short message (click here)

Wednesday, April 09, 2008


"1. Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.

2. The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.

3. The Olympic Movement is the concerted, organised, universal and permanent action, carried out under the supreme authority of the IOC, of all individuals and entities who are inspired by the values of Olympism. It covers the five continents. It reaches its peak with the bringing together of the world’s athletes at the great sports festival, the Olympic Games. Its symbol is five interlaced rings.

4. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play. The organisation, administration and management of sport must be controlled by independent sports organisations.

5. Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

6. Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and recognition by the IOC."

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Finland: Thought crime or not?

"Yesterday a Finnish blogger, Mikko Ellilä, was convicted of what could be called, despite all the political and legal jargon, a thoughtcrime. What he did was tell several hardly disputable facts: that, on average, white people have a higher IQ than Africans (this difference may be due to nutrition, education and/or genetics but that's beside the point), that crime rates are exceptionally high for Africans (or their offshoots such as African-Americans) and that immigrants consume more of society's resources than what they contribute, i.e., that immigration is a net loss, at least in a welfare state such as ours." (Sandt's Observations )
I don't think that all this thoughts are without dispute. For instance:
- "on average, white people have a higher IQ than Africans" how did they conclude that? Did the studies picked persons from the same level of degree and social background? What I am saying is that you can only conclude that if you pick two persons who are equal and the only diference is the race (one thing that is almost impossible)
- "that crime rates are exceptionally high for Africans" again you have to exclude all things besides race to reach this conclusion. Mixing factors will not allow you to reach a valid conclusion.
- "immigrants consume more of society's resources than what they contribute" my doubt goes if the study did valued the benefit that all Finish have for having lower wages workers? And the jobs they have, don't they create value to Finland?
For me the hard part to believe is that a lawyer could not say that what this blogger said wasn't true, because the hard part is to prove that that claims are true and not the opposite. It is nearly impossible to single out race as a factor for having less IQ or being more prone to violence. There is no cientific proof for this claim. Is this a thought crime? I don't think so.
But this imposes a big and diferent question: Where is the limit for freedom of speech?

Monday, April 07, 2008

What is the Olimpic Spirit

"China views the demonstrations as contrary to the Olympic spirit because the torch belongs to the world." (Bloomberg)

With everything that is happening with this olimpic games, I have a doubt: What is the Olimpic Spirit?
If by chance any generous soul drops here I would like to know what does "Olimpic Spirit" means to you!

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Where is going the freedom of speech

I could not believe these news, I am yet trying to find the full text of this resolution. But if this is true we just took one step back in terms of freedom of speech. I think that religion is a very sensible subject. It is about our own beliefs and it has a strong emotional component.
But religion is also becoming an excuse to allow behaviour that is not normal, and not aceptable in our society.
I think that defamation is always bad, no matter if it is religious, personal or political. But this is diferent from criticizing. My doubt is if a law can trully sepparate both in this subject. For instance the movie that I posted below is it defamation or criticizing? Or saying that some islamic pratices are bad a critic or a defamation?
For instance "The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.""
My question is in this matter: This concern is about our newspappers, some videos or does it extend to Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders? From my point of view this link is more strongly defended by the terrorist themselves when they kill in the name of Allah!
Another example: ""urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred."
Does this mean that Bin Laden movies will be banned? Or that some programs (like a lebanese program for kids that promote hate against Jews) are going to end?
One example of what can be misunderstood is: "The pressure to protect religions from defamation has been growing ever since a Danish magazine published caricatures of Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006 in which dozens of people were killed. The publication of a different caricature in a Swedish newspaper last year again led to protests from Muslims."
I think that the reaction to that cartoons was complete non-sense. I saw all the cartoons, and the truth is that there was no defamation to Islam. I know that Islamic law does not allow representation of Muhhamad (may Peace be Upon Him) but Dannish do not live under Islamic law. And I think this separation has to be clear. For instance Islamic view of whoever eats pig is that it becomes a pig. Should this be considered a defamation of our society? I don't think so, and I am not offended at all when someone said that.
Tollerance and respect is a two way street!

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Freedom of showing...

Because freedom of speech must be defended and not be an argument of extreme-right movements to gain power.

I decided to show this movie (from T. Van Gogh) because:

a) Shows a reality that some women go through and must be condemmed by everybody so it won't be repited.

b) Shows how much we have changed in four years.

P.S. This is my second time that I try to comeback. Sorry for not being writing...