First They Came for the Brothels….

The Pascha brothel in the city of Cologne has removed from its advertising the flags of two Middle Eastern states (Saudi Arabia and Iran) in response to threats of violence. The flags depicted the list of nations taking part in the World Football Cup that will be held in Germany in June.

First there were telephone threats of violence, then about 30 hooded protesters armed with knives and sticks turned up outside Pascha on Friday, the Koelner Stadt-Anzeiger newspaper reported.

It seems that extremists can issue open threats of violence with no response from the police. Welcome to the new Europe. It may have more than a few similarities to an older Europe.

12 Responses to “First They Came for the Brothels….”

  1. David Jenniches

    On the website of the quoted German newspaper Koelner Stadtanzeiger it says:

    “For security reasons the manager informed the police as well as the Verfassungsschutz [some federal security agency]”

    My own translation of the last sentence of the article published here:

    Tom’s statement of “no response from the police” seems to me a little bit too strong. At least the manager believes that the police can provide some protection because if he believed otherwise he would not have informed them.

    This episode demonstrates that when it comes to crime the law-abiding citizen will be the first to fight with the police usually showing up too late. This is not necessarily incompetence but simply owed to the fact that the criminal chooses time and place of the engagement.

    I think this episode is a good example of the benefits of the right to bear arms. 30 or 100 hoodlums would think twice before threating potenially armed citizens. German gun legislation ensures that the risk for the criminal to encounter an armed victim is almost nil.

    I also wonder why it apparently never occured to the islamofacists to simply write a friendly letter or make a friendly call to the manager and explain why they take offense and just ask in polite way to remove the flags. It seems that violence is not only a means but also an end in itself.

  2. Kip I would think you could at least see the symbolism in the Saudi flag. I’m not saying the Saudi government is in any way not full of corrupt and probably murderous royals.

    But your statement implies that because the flag features a sword, Saudis cherish violence. Just because some Saudi kooks threatened violence doesn’t mean all Saudis who cherish their flag cherish violence.

  3. Huh? Kip says that a sword on a flag indicates evil and says nothing about whether other countries are righteous. Brian disagrees with Kip. Two other commenters write about different issues. So, Jim, just how do you get to your conclusion that “This thread makes common sense” and that anyone had argued that “countries with predatory eagles for symbols are righteous”?

  4. I think John has it right. If the owner thought the police would protect him, he probably would not have changed the advertising. After all, he runs a whorehouse. Do you think he cares about hurting their feelings?

  5. Hey Jim? Hi.

    The point of my comment was that you shouldn’t judge a country’s character, whatever that is, by its symbols. Maybe if a country’s symbol was a large picture of a clubbed baby seal, I might be more inclined to think that that country was prone to violence.

    But something as symbolic as a sword, or even an eagle, can’t be contrued to imply a violent national character.