Daniel Cohn Bendit & Wiki information

Morlar

Daniel Cohn Bendit - one of the primary figures in the YES to lisbon campaign has a colourful past. A German born jew who is a former communist/anarchist & apparently a sexual deviant (by his own account). Also with links to extremist terror groups in germany in the 1970's.

You can not help thinking that if say ... Declan Ganley had such a background the media would be full of it. However it hardly ever gets a mention in Irish media.

Much of this information is in the wiki article. The relevant parts coming directly from Cohn Bendit's autobiography :

"It happened to me several times that certain kids opened my fly and started to stroke me. I reacted differently according to circumstances, but their desire posed a problem for me. I asked them: 'Why don't you play together? Why have you chosen me, and not the other kids?' But if they insisted, I caressed them still.[/B]

Wiki article :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Cohn-Bendit

Allegations of Paedophilia

While Fischer was more concerned with demonstrations, Cohn-Bendit worked in the Karl-Marx-Buchhandlung bookshop and ran a kindergarten (of children between five and eight years' old). Later in 2001 he was accused of pedophilia. This accusation was grounded on the following citation from his 1975 book Le Grand Bazar, [1]: "It happened to me several times that certain kids opened my fly and started to stroke me. I reacted differently according to circumstances, but their desire posed a problem for me. I asked them: 'Why don't you play together? Why have you chosen me, and not the other kids?' But if they insisted, I caressed them still.[2]"

On the 31st of January, 2001 in the Berlin newspaper [3] published open letter to Cohn-Bendit from the former German Foreign Minister, Klaus Kinkel, demanding Cohn-Bendit clarify whether there was actual physical contact with the children . The Berliner Zeitung published Cohn-Bendit's response. He said that he was "not aware of the problem" (“das Problem nicht bewusst”). "We tried," ..."a collective discourse of a new sexual morality yet to be defined"( “in einem kollektiven Diskurs eine neue Sexualmoral zu definieren”). The reported sex scenes, were a "me-oriented self-reflection" (“ich-bezogene Selbstreflexion”). Cohn-Bendit, did not say there was no sexual contact with children. When interviewed on the 28th January, 2001 by ”The Observer” [4] Cohn-Bendit told the journalist, “I admit that what I wrote is unacceptable nowadays.”

In the 1980s the Greens experimented with various policies which would decriminalize sex with children. At its national conference in Lüdenscheid (March 1985) the Greens in North Rhine-Westphalia called for "nonviolent sexuality" between children and adults never to be subject to criminal prosecution. In 1987 the policy was " When young people have the desire for older peers outside the family, prevented either because their homosexuality is not accepted by their parents, or because they have pädosexuelle inclinations, be it for other reasons, they must be given the opportunity to do so. " [5].
.................................................................
The European constitution

In 2003, during the Convention that prepared the text of the European constitution, Cohn-Bendit singled himself out by stating that the countries who would vote No should be compelled to hold a second referendum, and in case of a second No, should be expelled from the European Union.

In February 2004, in the context of the preparation of his electoral campaign and in the wider context of the final governmental drafting of the text, he led the foundation of the European Green Party in Rome. Fischer had directly participated to the drafting as German minister of foreign affairs, he was considered one of the candidates for the new role of "European minister of Foreign Affairs" evoked in the text, and his speech was the keynote of the event. Cohn-Bendit described the European Green Party as the first stone of European citizenship, but other commentators described this new structure as a mere adaptation of the former Federation of European Green Parties [4]. Just as in the former structure, only delegates from national parties were allowed to vote, individual supporters were only entitled to receive information, and all other federations of European parties had to adapt their statuses later in 2004 to the new regulations from the European Commission about European political parties, in order to continue receive public funding. However, Cohn-Bendit as usual was early and energetic in presenting this innovation to the media.

.................................................................

[edit] Confrontation with Czech President

In December, 2008, Christopher Booker of London's Daily Telegraph[8] [5] reported that Cohn–Bendit had an impolite discussion with Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic.[9] The Czechs were told by Cohn–Bendit that the European Parliament has verified the reality of global warming and that the Czechs must not interfere with passage of the EU's laws regarding climate change.

______________

Roll forward to today :

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/libertas-loonies-no-check-wikipedia-1718954.html

This story seems bizzare to me - Green candidate Deirdre de Burca is criticising a libertas representative over the source of information used in a discussion (rather than addressing the information itself).

Then uber journalist Pat Kenny goes along with that approach without addressing the points or content of the information being raised.

I am aware that wikiepdia is editable by anyone and even that there are special interest groups who monitor it regularly (for example removing negative comments relating to israel).

However in this case the information comes from the Daniel Cohn Bendit's own autobiography which make it puts things in a different light in my view.

I think this story raises an important question over wikipedia being used as an reference point. Any thoughts on this ? Should only primary sources be quoted when there is no actual question of the validity or correctness of the wiki information ?

donaghs

Just another aspect of how skewed the Lisbon debate is. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the Lisbon Treaty, the European political elite and fellow travellers don't really seem to be giving people a real choice in the matter. The democratic vote is just a rubber stamp.
The burden is on them to provide some alternative plan (a real choice). And threatening people with the various and sometimes vague bad consequences of voting NO isn't helpful either.