If there are sex shows in windows how much different is it to have sex in public maybe make a law saying you have to be covered up some how or at least covering up the penetrating areas. With all the female escorts available i can only imagine the orgy's that would be taking place in parks. heck i may find my self in one, but for now i'll stick to my in call services.

Although I do not begrudge the Dutch their liberties, and in fact usually support them, the recommendation of the LECD and of Alderman van Grieken is uttery ludicrous. The alderman's plans for Vondelpark are not only wholly undemocratic but illiberal as they impinge on the liberties of the park's patrons whose interest in the park is not of a sexual or "cruising" nature. Nor am I convinced that permitting homosexuals to publicly "cruise" there and have sex after dark will reduce anti-homosexual assaults, on the contrary it may exacerbate them. If the Dutch solution to criminality is to legalize it, then perhaps such assaults should be stricken from the books and not public intercourse. That way, the users of Vondelpark, in a relatively short period of time, can be assured of no sex and no bashing. Or perhaps the homosexual community can be convinced by Dutch authorities to cruise like their heterosexual compatriots, instead of in parks, bathhouses, etc.

However, this cannot compare to Geert Wilders' inability to air his anti-Quran film. Neither the private nor public sectors are obligated to broadcast Fitna, and as a television station in the U.K. or U.S. would have to take into account mob civil disobedience and violence if it broadcast a far-right film, so too does the the IPC have to consider Muslim reactions.

marcfrans: It is NOT very sensible to think that the overwhelming majority of European politicians and voters (believing [sic] in multiculturalism) aim at instituting "totalitarianism". That is just a silly charge, and making such a charge does not help if one wants to be taken seriously by such people...However, it is sensible to think and believe that their policies of multiculturalism could easily lead to "totalitarianism" in the end. 

I fully concur. Multiculturalism is total in the sense that the policies and programmes associated with it impose restrictions on political, social, cultural and economic activities. On the one hand multiculturalism can be regarded as collective resignation to the significant demographic changes resulting mainly from large-scale immigration and declining fertility rates, wherein its passive supporters are no longer convinced of their collective superiority and now occupy a relativist position whereby all human communities are culturally neutral. On the other, multiculturalism's active supporters hold their own communities (or the majoritarian one) to be in fact inferior to foreign ones and inherently unjust. They advocate a utopia in which historical ethnic, national, cultural and racial injustices are redressed by the dissolution of the communities regarded as unjust. Due to its utopian inspiration and revolutionary tendencies, multiculturalism could result in full-blown authoritarian totalitarianism of the anti-nationalist and anti-racist variety witnessed in the former Soviet bloc. However, one can take grim consolation in the fact that the cities of Western Europe and North America will be reduced to pock-marked rubble before a single jackboot of the 'rainbow army' can hit the pavement.

It is NOT very sensible to think that the overwhelming majority of European politicians and voters (believing in multiculturalism) aim at instituting "totalitarianism".  That is just a silly charge, and making such a charge does not help if one wants to be taken seriously by such people.

However, it is sensible to think and believe that their policies of multiculturalism could easily lead to "totalitarianism" in the end.  But, that would require a major effort of explaining why that would be the case.  Using historical observations, and making empirical observations around the world, is the best way to preceed in that endeavor.  Making absurd charges, is not.   

Is it considered an essntial part of a "gay lifestyle" to have sex in parks, or in toilets? Does it infringe their rights not to have this wonderful opportunity? Is it part of an "Islamic lifestyle" to stone them to death? Will their rights be infringed by not letting them indulge their diverse morality?
The Dutch are mad aren't they?

I agree. The real goal is totalitarianism on 'European' level. They want to destroy the religious and ethnic foundations of our nation-states in order to destroy the nation-state and democracy itself & replace it by this undemocratic 'superstate' called EU. The leftish rethorics (gender, multicultibullshit) are just excuses to realise this goal, altough a lot of them really believe that nonsense.

If that is the real goal of multiculturalism, I would add that it is also a weapon used to reach the more sinister goal of totalitarianism. Just like the goals of ultranationalism, racial (and ethnic) superiority and twisted religious beliefs, they all have been used for the same purpose, the same goal.

It seems to me that the real goal of muticulturalism is to create the society so divided and absorbed by its conflicts, that it could not reach any agreement on any issue ever. Muslims and homosexuals will create one such conflict. It will require an Impartial Judge - the European Union. EU is following the rule of Romans - Devide and Conquer. It clearly wants to be a new incarnation of Rome, as it is trying to include all Mideterranian countries which were parts of Roman empire. And as soon as it gets all power, homosexuals may be trashed.