Mabel Criticizes President Bush on AIDS: December 2005 - Page 2

hsh1969 · #21 12-01-2005, 03:48 PM

I just hope the Queen kicks her bony behind for those kind of comments, so out of place; if you want to be part of the "wall flower society" of the monarchy. Those comments coming from somebody who had connections with druglords/criminals are not admirable, but just opportunistic. If she wants to be a political or world leader, go ahead, but before you do that renounce to be called princess, HRH or whatever title will tie you with any Royal House. There is nothing wrong with help whoever is in need be a sick AIDS patient or a prostitute, great we (the world) need helpers but get your behind where your mouth is and show how much is needed. Don't show up all dressed up and pretty and talk and offend, but go to those places with the press behind you and show, bring the press where is needed, not to show your face, but the face of the needy ones. I really wish she gets stripped of her titles and courtesies, maybe then I'll respect what she says, but she is not doing anything brave.

pollyemma · #22 12-01-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hsh1969

I just hope the Queen kicks her bony behind for those kind of comments,

LOL. i'm having trouble visualizing that...

SpiffyBallerina · #23 12-01-2005, 04:01 PM

All political figures are up for criticism. It's everyone's duty to keep them in check so the various political systems work. It all goes back to social contract and whatnot. The USA does need to do more to help stop the AIDS pandemic and we're very rich and powerful and Mabel was just saying that we could do more. She didn't do anything ad hominem really, she just said a fact that maybe some people don't like to hear.

Maxie · #24 12-01-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiffyBallerina

All political figures are up for criticism. It's everyone's duty to keep them in check so the various political systems work. It all goes back to social contract and whatnot. The USA does need to do more to help stop the AIDS pandemic and we're very rich and powerful and Mabel was just saying that we could do more. She didn't do anything ad hominem really, she just said a fact that maybe some people don't like to hear.

I so totally agree with you! Everybody should critizise political figures when it comes to matters like this. Whether your live in the US, Europe or anywhere else. And next to that I think Mabel really is too smart to say something ad hominem. Ad hominem never works when people want to figure something out...

SpiffyBallerina · #25 12-01-2005, 04:21 PM

Her Royal Highness Princess Mabel, Countess of Orange-Nassau, is acting as director of the Open Society Institute (OSI).
Her institute has started a lawsuit against the Bush Administration. According the Princess -in an address on an Aids-conference in Amsterdam, yesterday- the Bush Administration is blocking all UN, bilateral and NGO-help in which the exchange of clean needles or prostitution is involved.
According to the Princess, in a country as Russia, 80% of all people who are infected with hiv are intraveneus (using needles) drug users. The problem the Open Society Institute has with the Bush Administration they only want to co-operate with organizations who explicitly declare to stand against prostitution.
On itself an understandable demand, but Princess Mabel stated:"Workers in the sex industry often are the victims of stigmatization, discrimination and violence. And now organizations, who are partially financed with US-funds, are forced to speak out an explicit condemnation against these people." Earlier this year, the Brazilean Government has refused a 40-dollar contribution because of this dispute. With the lawsuit Princess Mabel hopes that the 'anti-prostitution declaration' the US Government requests will be labelled unconstitutional.
The Princess also uttered sharp critics on the so-called abc-principles, which are favorite by the US Government: abstinence, be faithful and use a condom. According to the Princess this idealistic principle is no realistic option for by far the most girls and women.
The Princess stated that worldwide between 20 to 50% from all first sexual encounters are not out of free and own will for the girls or women involved. Women often are the victim of domestic violence, modern slavery in sex industry, rape and increasing sexual violence in wars. "In all these cases the so noble 'abc-principle' is totally irrelevant" so said Princess Mabel.
The Princess showed her deep concern with the situation in some countries which were unbelievably hard hit by AIDS. "Nurses, judges, soldiers, teachers, policemen, in some countries they die faster than that we can educate them. In the last 15 years in a country as Zambia 102 by-elections were needed: all of these because the elect involved died of AIDS." Princess Mabel figured out that each by-election costs 200,000 US Dollars. "Enough for a year long AIDS-blockers for 1,000 people!" so argued the Princess, who showed deep concern about the frail democracies in the countries hit by AIDS.

-Benelux message board

hsh1969 · #26 12-01-2005, 04:46 PM

As I said opportunistic, to tell you the truth I did not realized she worked for George Soros, otherwise I would have never opined about Mabel. Incredible; a member of a "dead society" critisizing other's countries policies, but she works for who she works. Still she is not puting her behind where her mouth is, or her money where her "concerned" mind is.
This thread is about whether is her position as a member of a rf to speaks as she does, IMO no, she should be quietly using her position to have the cameras following her into places where crimes are happening, meanwhile the institution is suing the US Gov for policies enforced thru UNited clowns of the world; there are kids being victimized at any scale. She is so hypocritical that is a shame somebody like Queen Beatrix has "that" in her family bringing her issues.
But that's my IMO. I shall not return to this thread till she shows her "bows" in needy lands.

Emily · #27 12-01-2005, 05:03 PM

Opportunistic? Mabel is and our President is not? Let's not be the pot calling the kettle black. A majority of the American population thinks that President Bush - as in 'Bush of oil money' - is being exactly that by invading Iraq. Opportunistic? By President Bush using the beautiful tenets of a major world religion to amass political clout but not following those same tenets when it isn't politically expedient? Freedom of Speech is a wonderful privilege to keep the truth from being hidden. Talk on, Mabel....

SpiffyBallerina · #28 12-01-2005, 07:38 PM

Hey, I'm American and I don't take any offense. I'm on her side.

BeatrixFan · #29 12-01-2005, 07:45 PM

Then I'll re-word my comment. It seems that it's mainly Americans who are throwing their toys out of the pram and saying she should keep her mouth shut whilst people of other nationalities seem to be game for her to speak her mind. I find that interesting.

bbb · #30 12-01-2005, 07:52 PM

Hey, I'm American and I don't take any offense. I'm on her side.

ME TOO
no one claiming to be a Christian can believe prostitutes (or anyone) deserves to die of AIDS that's obscene.

Alisa · #31 12-01-2005, 07:57 PM

Mabel certainly has the best of both worlds, she gets the publicity because she is a Princess and a part of the royal family and she gets the opportunity to publicly vocalize her opinions and criticize government policies because she's not a member of the royal house

I see no problem with Mabel criticizing the administration, officially she is a private citizen is free to express her opinions as she pleases.

Emily · #32 12-01-2005, 08:10 PM

I guess I thought you knew I was an American. Far from taking offense, I am supportive of Mabel's right to speak up on issues, especially because I think she is a rather marginal member of the DRF and therefore not bound to remain impartial. More important to me than being an American, though, is trying to be a decent member of the human race who acts out of a moral base. What is happening with AIDS in Africa is a travesty. If Mabel can use her position to bring attention to this crisis and to put the spotlight on leaders who can, but don't, respond to it, then so much the better.

Emily · #33 12-01-2005, 08:19 PM

PS - In my post #21 -- the whole top part is Lady Marmalade's quote -- I write only at the bottom because I was appalled by her defense of our outspokenly Christian president and then her questioning of why he should help prostitutes....there is a connection there I didn't think she was getting.

pollyemma · #34 12-01-2005, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiffyBallerina

All political figures are up for criticism. It's everyone's duty to keep them in check so the various political systems work. It all goes back to social contract and whatnot. The USA does need to do more to help stop the AIDS pandemic and we're very rich and powerful and Mabel was just saying that we could do more. She didn't do anything ad hominem really, she just said a fact that maybe some people don't like to hear.

do you not believe it is possible that there are people who care deeply about ending AIDS who don't believe that legitimizing prostitution will do anything to help and may in fact be counterproductive?

hsh1969 · #35 12-01-2005, 08:47 PM

What I don't like is a person that shielded on their "royalty" status and behind a mammoth of money as George Soros is, taking cheap shots to a President of another country.

The thread is about is she as a member of RF is supposed to talk about issues that go against the stance of royalty. My answer is still no.

Alexandria · #36 12-01-2005, 08:58 PM

I would strongly urge members to refrain from posting comments about President Bush, either for or against him.

Norwegianne has already posted a warning regarding political discussions. While this thread blurs the line between politics and royals, attacking President Bush, other heads of state, Americans, etc. is not okay.

I do think that there is a way to discuss this situation without resorting to addressing President Bush's policies. But if members continue to take cheap shots on both sides of the debate, then this thread will be closed.

Alexandria
Dutch Forum Moderator

Lady Marmalade · #37 12-01-2005, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily

Opportunistic? Mabel is and our President is not? Let's not be the pot calling the kettle black. A majority of the American population thinks that President Bush - as in 'Bush of oil money' - is being exactly that by invading Iraq. Opportunistic? By President Bush using the beautiful tenets of a major world religion to amass political clout but not following those same tenets when it isn't politically expedient? Freedom of Speech is a wonderful privilege to keep the truth from being hidden. Talk on, Mabel....

Please do not say majority. Opinion polls of 1,000 people do not statisitically or mathmatically speak for a majority of 300,000,000 million people. :)

Lady Marmalade · #38 12-01-2005, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexandria

I would strongly urge members to refrain from posting comments about President Bush, either for or against him.

Norwegianne has already posted a warning regarding political discussions. While this thread blurs the line between politics and royals, attacking President Bush, other heads of state, Americans, etc. is not okay.

I do think that there is a way to discuss this situation without resorting to addressing President Bush's policies. But if members continue to take cheap shots on both sides of the debate, then this thread will be closed.

Alexandria
Dutch Forum Moderator

Thank you Alexandria, for conveying this reminder. It is much appreciated.

Lady Marmalade · #39 12-01-2005, 10:18 PM

As soon as this thread opened I knew it was going to be bad.

Every country spends untold dollars to fight and combat this virus every year.

Whether you agree or disagree, this is not the place to bash political leaders.

Mabel, while she has some interesting points, must remember she is married to a prince of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the daughter-in-law of a reigning, and not ruling, Queen.

They are supposed to be apolitical and I would think Her Majesty probably was more than a little stunned by this when she heard about it.

Now let's get something straight, whether they like or not, whether we like or not, royal families in many of these European countries do not have ruling power or control of goverment. Therefore, from a public standpoint they are to represent THEIR WHOLE COUNTRY, not just being seen as representing on faction of it. They should in fact, whether they like it or not, keep such public views as directed and pointed as this out of public speeches. That forum is not the place for it.

That is why you all have democratically elected governments now, right??

Mabel, marrying a prince, royal, HRH, or not whatever, should have thought twice about the loaded message of her speech.

I am sure there are palace courtiers with their arms up in the air in disbelief right now.

SpiffyBallerina · #40 12-01-2005, 10:50 PM

Politically correct or not, Princess Mabel is a smart lady. Just look at all this attention her cause is getting! It gets people talking about these issues and that was her goal.