Monday, April 25, 2011

When good guys don't understand Islam

Listening to the unabridged audiobook "The Tea Party Goes to Washington" by Rand Paul, I found much to agree with in his domestic policy ideas, particularly auditing the Fed. I even could agree with some of his criticisms of neocons and nation building, however at a certain point his foreign policy ideas don't hold up to examination.

Chapter 7 of Rand Paul's book states,

“The standard neoconservative line throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars has been that America must fight terrorism there so that we don't have to fight it here. The former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, terrorism expert Michael Sheuer stresses that they come here precisely because we are over there...that Muslim hatred is motivated by US interventionism more than any other factor.

Many like to claim that Muslim hatred for our culture - or our freedom, to use Bush's language, is what causes Islamic terrorism. This is likely a factor in terrorist efforts and recruitment but not the primary factor. Or as Sheuer says bluntly, "We are at war because of what the US government does in the Muslim world - unqualified support for Israel, support for Arab tyrannies, invading Iraq, etc. and not for who we are and how we live here in North America.

If Sheuer was wrong, and the CIA had no justification for developing the term ‘Blowback,’ and it really was Americans' way of life that was the primary factor for Islamic terrorist attacks, logic would follow that more culturally liberal nations like Sweden or Switzerland would have more to fear from radical Islam than the United States.”

Sen. Paul has overlooked the epidemic of rapes of Swedish and Norwegian women by Muslim immigrants

In 2005, "The number of rape charges per capita in Malmö is 5 – 6 times that of Copenhagen, Denmark." Is Sen. Paul also aware that a Muslim clumsily blew himself up in a busy Stockholm shopping area last Christmas in an attempt to kill as many Christian Swedes as possible?

This poor choice of the example of Sweden leads me to ask: has Sen. Paul ever read Robert Spencer's "Jihad Watch" or Pamela Geller's "Atlas Shrugs" website for three days straight?

And exactly what belligerent actions have the Coptic Christians engaged in Egypt, causing Muslims to burn their churches?

In a famous rant by Ewald Stadler of the Austrian Parliament that can be seen on YouTube, Stadler recounts how Catholic Archbishop Luigi Padovese was stabbed 8 times in the heart in Turkey in June of 2010. When no one came to his aid as the Archbishop ran into the street, the young man the cut his head off. Was the Archbishop the cause of this intolerance in Muslim Turkey?

Perhaps Sen. Paul and the like minded Cato Institute writer would care to address the activities a prominent 1940s Islamic cleric, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent World War II in Nazi Germany helping to create all-Muslim SS units. 

What has changed since those times is that the watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) parties ability to place limitations on domestic land and offshore oil drilling in the US which has helped to make many Muslim countries very wealthy, wealthy enough to fund - either directly or as extorted money - many terrorist activities. Ironically, Sen. Paul complains about US forces bribing Taliban officials who then use that money to buy and place roadside IEDs that kill American soldiers. What does Rand Paul think happens with part of the money that Iran and Saudi Arabia get for their oil?

Perhaps Sen. Paul would care to at least address the writings and studies on the Muslim Brotherhood who specifically state they hate our Western way of life and consider it something to overthrow. These writings date from the 1920s and 1940s. Or would Rand Paul care to address the writing of Reza Safa, a Christian convert and evangelist who grew up as a devout Muslim, who wrote a book called “Inside Islam.”
On page 64, it quotes Sura 9:30 of the Koran which states:

‘…and the Christians call “Christ the Son of God.” This is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. . Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!’

Or how does Sen. Paul reconcile his belief that the US caused "Blowback" when the Koran, written centuries before the US came into existence, says:

Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to "panting dogs" with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness.  Verse 7:179 says they are like "cattle" only worse.

Verse 5:60 even says that Allah transformed Jews of the past into apes and pigs.  This is echoed by verses 7:166 and 2:65.

A hadith says that Muhammad believed rats to be "mutated Jews" (Bukhari 54:524, also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).

Verses 46:29-35 even say that unbelieving men are worse than demons who believe in Muhammad.

Sen. Rand further states in his book:

"In my proposals to end foreign aid, many critics often ask: well, what about our ally Israel? Actually, Israel's example illustrates the problem. We give about 4 billion dollars annually to Israel in foreign aid and we give about 6 billion dollars to the nations that surround Israel, many of them antagonistic towards the Jewish state. Does this make any sense at all? Does any of this have actually anything to do with America's security, much less Israel's?

Actually, Senator Paul is conveniently leaving out the hundreds of billions sent overseas to Muslim oil producing countries which tips the scale considerably, even as we let our domestic oil production capacity atrophy.  This linked article speaks of "hundreds of billions of dollars" sent overseas for oil, so I am making a modest claim that Israel's enemies are getting at least one hundred billion of it per year. I would further ask that if spending 10 billion dollars in foreign aid makes no sense, then shipping one or more hundreds of billions overseas makes literally ten times less sense?

A major foreign policy point of Sen. Paul's is that (to paraphrase) "if we act calm and let the Muslims be, they will leave us alone." For a largely reasonable population, that would make sense. But consider this following finding.

Ann Barnhardt, writing in American Thinker, has discovered a blockbuster revelation, the flaw in the argument that "Muslims will eventually assimilate like everyone else" and that they are no more prone to violence or shiftless unemployment than any other group of people. It is a Koranic approved first cousin marriage rate in Arab countries of a typical rate of 25 percent, up to 39 percent and greater. This inbreeding has been going on for Fourteen Hundred Years. And the current first cousin marriage rate among Pakistani Muslims living in Great Britain is 55 percent.

The article is entitled "The Keystone of the Islamic Milieu: Inbreeding" by Ann Barnhardt and is located at

Barnhardt states:

“But there is one culture, one faux ‘religion,’ that expressly condones and encourages consanguineous marriage and breeding.  That system is Islam, and the document that explicitly ratifies incest is the Koran, specifically Sura 4 verse 23:

    Prohibited for you (in marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, the sisters of your fathers, the sisters of your mothers, the daughters of your brother, the daughters of your sister, your nursing mothers, the girls who nursed from the same woman as you, the mothers of your wives, the daughters of your wives with whom you have consummated the marriage -- if the marriage has not been consummated, you may marry the daughter. Also prohibited for you are the women who were married to your genetic sons. Also, you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time -- but do not break up existing marriages.”

Sounds like an exhaustive list -- but it is not.  It is the most lax incest prohibition in all of human culture.  There is a massive omission: cousins only once removed.  In the Muslim culture, marriage and breeding between first cousins has existed since day one.  Mohammed himself married Zaynab, who was his father's sister's daughter.  Mohammed and Zaynab were direct first cousins.


The Reproductive Health Journal reports the following rates on consanguinity in Muslim countries.  Where a statistical range has been recorded, I have used the lower parameter: (A table is found at that website which lists cousin marriage rates in Arab countries ranging from 12 percent in Lebanon to 22.6 percent in Algeria to 48 percent in Libya to 60 percent in southern Egypt).


According to the BBC,    55% of Pakistani-Britons are married to a first cousin, and as a corollary to that produce "just under a third" of all children in the UK with genetic illnesses, despite being only 3% of the total births.

As a direct result of inbreeding, the Muslim population is the only population on earth that is mentally and physically devolving.  This inherent weakness makes Muslim populations more susceptible to nefarious, oppressive leadership and mass manipulation.  The amount of objective evidence supporting this statement is colossal and obvious.

Add to this the fact that roughly 75 percent of Muslims cannot read.

Reza Safa, a Christian convert and evangelist who grew up as a devout Muslim, wrote a book called "Inside Islam." In it, he points out that, very few Muslims have read the Koran because the rate of illiteracy in many Muslim countries is 75 to 85 percent. He also states that since only 20 percent of Muslims worldwide can read Arabic, they don't fully know what the Koran advocates. This makes them especially susceptible to tyrants who use demagogic tactics to whip them into an emotional fury.

I'm not saying that Muslims can't become more enlightened people, but between the genetic inbreeding and the illiteracy and the wife beating, well...let's just say that Thomas Jefferson isn't about to become the Muslim world's role model any time soon. While this grim picture could be reversed with effort (the Koran doesn't require marriage of first cousins and people can be taught to read), to say that all we have to do is leave the Middle East, keep sending them our petrodollars, and expect Islamic countries to adopt a Live and Let Live attitude is a dangerous self-delusion. I suspect that if we dug our own oil, as many conservatives have advocated, the need or desire to placate Middle Eastern despots would lessen.

There are many Rand Paul domestic issues I agree with and I don't advocate nation building and military adventurism as cheap thrill for those that don't fight themselves or send their own sons and daughters. But ignoring the mentality and values of other peoples around the world - and both their potential and very real threats to our way of life - while we send them hundreds of billions in "play money," i.e., money to play with, is not a viewpoint one should adapt.

Rand Paul states, as a generalization, that Democrats want to cut the military budget and not domestic spending, while Republicans want to cut domestic spending and not the military budget. This impasse, if no one wants to rise above it and do what is good for the Country, namely cut aspects of both, could lead to a situation where Sen. Paul may be proven at least partially right on his foreign affairs positions. If the US doesn't reform its spending habits and balance its budget, it will greatly inhibit the ability of the US military to intervene in a number of situations around the world.
Current and former allies of the US are probably looking for ways to self-finance their defense needs because they see that America will either not want to - or not be able to afford – to support its mutual alliance treaties in the same way it could in the past. Either way, Sen. Paul has pointed out the folly of our current conventional political “wisdom.”

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Thursday, September 10, 2009

The Burqa for feminist

Naomi Wolf  Discovers That Shrouds Are Sexy.
Women in chadors are really feminist ninja warriors. But don’t you worry: Beneath that chador, abaya, burqa, or veil, there is a sexy courtesan wearing “Victoria Secret, elegant fashion, and skin care lotion,” just waiting for her husband to come home for a night of wild and sensuous marital lovemaking.

Obviously, these are not my ideas. I am quoting from a piece by Naomi Wolf that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago. Yes, Wolf is the bubbly, feminist author who once advised Vice President Al “The Climate” Gore on what colors he should wear while campaigning and who is or was friendly with Gore’s daughter.

Wolf recently traveled to Morocco, Jordan, and Eygpt, where she found the women “as interested in allure, seduction, and pleasure as women anywhere in the world.” Whew! What a relief. She writes:

“Many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualizing Western gaze. … Many women said something like this: …’how tiring it can be to be on display all the time. When I wear my headscarf or chador, people relate to me as an individual, not an object; I feel respected.’


What the male shovinist and atheist thinks about burqa.

There is a chance for freedom of speach in Canada

Ezra Levant: It’s a great day for freedom of speech
Posted: September 03, 2009, 9:00 AM by NP Editor
Ezra Levant,

Yesterday, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did something its never done in its 32-year history. It acquitted somebody of “hate speech” charges. Until now, the tribunal had a 100% conviction rate.
In a 107-page ruling, tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis didn’t just throw out the case against Marc Lemire, he threw out the law, too, calling it an infringement of the free speech guarantees of the Charter of Rights.

Hadjis is no wild-eyed civil libertarian. In the recent past, he himself has convicted people under this same law. And, before Jean Chretien appointed him to the tribunal, Hadjis was the boss of one of Montreal’s largest multicultural lobby groups, which thrived on ethnic identity politics. But even Hadjis has had enough of the human rights industry and their fetish for political correctness. He ruled that allowing Canadian citizens to express offensive ideas is preferable to living under a government that prosecutes people for expressing those ideas.

As of yesterday, it’s no longer illegal to write politically incorrect things on the Internet. Now it’s illegal to prosecute someone for it.

This will have an immediate impact on the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), which maintains a large censorship department and has other cases under investigation. If the CHRC were a real police force, and the tribunal were a real court, all existing censorship cases would be dropped, and anyone who was previously convicted would have their convictions voided. Dozens of lawsuits against the government for wrongful prosecution, and compensation for costs, wouldn’t be far behind.

But the tribunal isn’t a real court, and Hadjis acknowledged that he doesn’t have the power to strike down the law, only to declare it unconstitutional and to refuse to apply it. The CHRC has ignored the tribunal before: In this same case, Lemire was routinely denied his procedural rights by the CHRC, including its outrageous tactic of waiting until the trial was over before disclosing all of its documents to him. Even worse, some bizarre CHRC conduct came to light, including confessions by their staff that they joined neo-Nazi organizations and published bigoted comments on the Internet to entrap their targets. A real court would have thrown the case out years ago, and a real police force would have disciplined such rogue conduct.

Still, it’s a great day for Charter values like freedom of speech. But how long will it last? The human rights industry knew this was an important case, and over the past six years it spent millions of tax dollars fighting Lemire. The federal government had six lawyers on the case–four from the CHRC and two from the Justice Minister’s office. And there were five lawyers intervening on behalf of Canada’s tax-subsidized Jewish groups, the B’nai Brith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC).

Yesterday, the CJC issued a bizarre press release in which it states that, despite the tribunal’s clear ruling, it believes the censorship law “remains constitutional.” In the next few weeks, the CJC and the rest of the human rights litigation industry will clamour for the government to appeal this decision.

It was one thing for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to defend the constitutionality of a government law that was under attack — that’s standard operating procedure. But now that the law has been found to be illegal, it would be quite another thing for Nicholson to positively act to revive such an illiberal law. Nicholson must also put a leash on the disgraced CHRC, and order it not to appeal either. They’ve already done more than enough damage to Canada’s civil liberties, at great expense to taxpayers.

In fact, just leaving Hadjis’s ruling intact isn’t enough–his ruling illustrates a deeper rot in the CHRC. Hadjis found that the CHRC has become much more aggressive and confrontational in recent years, and at the same time it started applying punitive sanctions — such as issuing fines of tens of thousands of dollars. That toxic mix of abusive conduct with criminal-style punishments was specifically forbidden by the Supreme Court when it last reviewed the censorship laws in 1990.
It’s that bullying corporate culture that Nicholson needs to address. Nicholson should start by ordering Jennifer Lynch, the CHRC’s chief commissioner, to stop her expensive campaign of demonization against the commission’s critics. And then he should call in a retired judge — or the auditor-general — to do a thorough biopsy to find out how Canada’s human rights agency became such a threat to our human rights.

National Post
Ezra Levant blogs at
Check all videos from Ezras youtube channel

Jihad Against Free Speech

The UN’s Jihad Against Free Speech
In a crushing blow to the freedom of speech worldwide, the United Nations Human Rights Council last Thursday approved a resolution calling upon member states to provide legal “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”

Free Speech Tried, Convicted, and Fined in Finland 
Finnish court that has convicted Helsinki Councilman Jussi Halla-aho of "defamation of religion" -- i.e., blasphemy about Islam -- for criticizing Mohammed/Islam on the councilman's (Finnish) blog Scripta.
What did Halla-aho say? He called Mohammed, a man who married a six-year-old, infamously consumating (if you can call it that) the marriage when the child was nine, a pedophile, and "insulted" the lawlessnes prevalent in Somali immigrant culture.
Finnish population for 2008 is 5,244,749, including some 40 000 Muslims -- less than one percent.
The District court in Helsinki fined the City Councilman to pay 30 day fines amounting to 330 euros. This judgement by the Helsinki District Court violates the very essence of what “Freedom of Speech” stands for; the right to say out loud, that, what people do not want to hear.
Read more about this amazing case.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

NO Grand Mosques in Danish Cities!

NO grand mosques in Danish cities!
As a bolt from the blue and peaceful Danish summer sky, the politicians of the Copenhagen municipality decided the other day to erect a grand mosque in the middle of the city.
Only the Danish People’s Party voted against it!
The money will, among other sources, come from the terrorist regime of Iran, but none of the other parties in the local government had any concerns about that.
In three years another grand mosque — in the southern suburb of Amager and funded by money from the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia — will become reality if the citizens do not object.
In other Danish cities similar plans exist.
We grant you this guarantee: The more representatives
from the Danish People’s Party elected at the local
elections on November 17th, the greater the resistance
against the Islamist strongholds, in your city as well.
Vote Danish — also locally
Danish People’s Party +45 3337 5199 Email

Something new in Holland

Dutch city sacks controversial Muslim adviser
A Swiss citizen of Egyptian origin, Ramadan is considered one of Europe's leading Muslim thinkers.
The Hague -- The Dutch city of Rotterdam said Tuesday that Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan would no longer serve as an adviser for hosting a programme on a television channel it claims is backed by Tehran.
Rotterdam's Erasmus University has simultaneously dropped him as a guest lecturer on citizenship and identity, said a joint media statement.
"The reason is Tariq Ramadan's involvement with the Iranian television channel Press TV, which is incompatible with his functions.," Ramadan has been an advisor to the mayor of Rotterdam on issues of multi-culturalism since 2007.
"Press TV is a channel that is financed by the Iranian government," said the statement. "We find (his) indirect relationship with this repressive regime, or even the appearance of such, to be unacceptable."

Ramadan said he would take the council to court.
"I am going to sue the municipality. It is a question of honour and dignity," he told public broadcaster NOS.
Ramadan said he took offence to being labelled a supporter of the Iranian government.
"To put me in a position where I am supporting the regime is just unacceptable," he said, adding that his television programme was of a "religious, philosophical" nature.
The dismissal was "more about the political climate in the Netherlands than anything else ," said Ramadan -- referring to the rise of far-right parties in Rotterdam and elsewhere.
A Swiss citizen of Egyptian origin, Ramadan is considered one of Europe's leading Muslim thinkers.
He is known for promoting a modernised form of Islam and for his opposition to the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
Ramadan, whose grandfather was a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, has been barred from entering US territory since 2004.
AFP / Expatica

But they like Ramadan in England

Oxford won't fire Rotterdam's rejected advisor
Oxford University says it sees no reason to break off ties with Islamologist Tariq Ramadan, who was fired earlier this week as a community advisor by the city of Rotterdam.
Related ArticlesControversial Muslim advisor under fire for Iran TV job
Rotterdam retains services of Muslim advisorRotterdam - The city government said his work as a presenter of a state-sponsored programme on Iranian television was incompatible with his duties in Rotterdam.

Tariq Ramadan is a professor of Contemporary Islam Studies at Oxford, a post which he has held for the past four years.

The British university said in a statement that freedom of expression is a fundamental right. Yet the university adds that it disagrees with Ramadan's views.

The Swiss-Egyptian islamologist also lost his job as a visiting professor at Rotterdam's Erasmus University.
Ramadan is furious about his dismissal from his jobs in Rotterdam and is taking the city to court. In his view, the decisions were politically motivated and inspired by the current wave of anti-Islamic sentiments in the Netherlands.
Radio Netherlands / Expatica

That is the same England that banned Michael Savage from entering UK.
LONDON — Britain on Tuesday published its first list of people barred from entering the country for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred, including Muslim extremists, a right-wing American radio host, an Israeli settler and jailed Russian gang members.
The U.K.'s law and order chief, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, said she decided to publish the names of 16 of 22 people who have been banned by the government since October so others could better understand what sort of behavior Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Law Makes Blasphemy Illegal in US

Get a hold of the U.N. and tell them what you think about their little attempt at destroying free speech by going to the following link,

In a 2002 debate with Tariq Ali, Christopher Hitchens outlines the ways in which Jihadism resembles Fascsim:

1. It teaches the embittered and the ill-educated that nothing is their fault.
2. It projects the hatred and resentment of the embittered and the ill-educated onto vulnerable or imagined targets, exclusively civilian.
3. It preaches a fundmantal anti-semtic conspiracy theory.
4. It relies on elite death squads and killing units.
5. It is for sale to high bidders.
6. It declares war on all art, all culture, and all literature, fusing state power with cult and religious power to eradicate knowledge, science and beauty.
7. It can only maintain momentum by the continuous export of violence.
8. It proposes a society run by the precepts of one mediocre book, and that society would be totalitarian in the strict, literal sense: that everything not forbidden is compulsory, and everything not compulsory is absolutely forbidden.

While all of the above are traits that the two share, I personally think that most people who use the term "Islamofascism" use it to invoke thoughts of Nazism, which everyone opposes.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Free Speech, Hate Speech, the UN and Youtube

Hate speech is basically an impossible concept. All you have to do is turn up your sensitivities and then EVERYTHING counts as hate speech. Due to its subjective nature its essentially unworkable.

Islam is very good at getting offended by almost anything, as is scientology. Both are very heavy on trying to classify people who call them on their psychotic beliefs as hate-mongers.

Further the recent UN resolution to attempt to criminalize blasphemy is both a step in the wrong direction and is unworkable.

However when people are using their free speech to advocate the killing of others, they have broken the law.

But what to do when such a minority constitutes a significant portion of the population?
Options include education of western values, imprisonment, or segregation.

Naturally if they can present a convincing argument in an open forum for changing the law, then thats fair enough, but before you have to acknowledge that you are not allowed to threaten anyone who disagrees with you with death or violence.

Finally youtube. C0ctapus got suspended. He helped out with our recent protest against youtube. Apparently no reason was given. I dont remember too much about his videos other than they were of a similar topic (the problems with religion etc) to this channel. He also was a supporter of free speech.

Thetaomega had a satire of Fred Phelps taken down:

C0ct0pus is back at:

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

New Effort in UN to Criminalize “Defamation of Islam”

Discussions of the Fairness Doctrine don’t usually include how it could suppress critique of Islam in the media, but rest assured – if the government authorizes new regulations requiring “balance” in the media militant Islamists will attempt to use those regulations to shut down what they term “defamation” of Islam.

The article below describes how Islamists are busy working to win support for a UN resolution that is clearly designed to prod countries to criminalize criticism and critique of Islam. Imagine a day in the not-too-distant future when countries across the world adopt such laws and the United States has a “Fairness Doctrine” in place. With respect to combating the evil of radical Islam we would be witnessing the end of free speech as we know it.

If this sounds far-fetched, consider that a member of Austria’s parliament has already been convicted of engaging in “hate speech” because of her criticisms of radical Islam; Dutch MP Geert Wilders was denied entry to Great Britain to show his film “Fitna”; and author and columnist Mark Steyn was hauled before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. These are just three examples of what will be our reality if we don’t resist this assault on our First Amendment.

Proposal at U.N. to criminalize 'defamation of Islam'

"Geneva, March 11, 2009 -- A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.)"

"UN Watch obtained a copy of the Pakistani-authored proposal after it was distributed today among Geneva diplomats attending the current session of the UN Human Rights Council. Entitled "Combating defamation of religions," it mentions only Islam."

"While non-binding, the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a "serious affront to human dignity" and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states -- at the "local, national, regional and international levels" -- to erode free speech guarantees in their "legal and constitutional systems.""

"It's an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide."

"The first to suffer will be moderate Muslims in the countries that are behind this resolution, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, who seek international legitimacy for state-sanctioned blasphemy laws that stifle religious freedom and outlaw conversions from Islam to other faiths."

"Next to suffer from this U.N.-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West, with the resolution targeting the media for the "deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.""

"Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry."

"The resolution's core premise -- that "defamation of religion" exists as legal concept -- is a distortion. The law on defamation protects the reputations of individuals, not beliefs. It also requires an examination of the truth or falsity of the challenged remarks -- a determination that no one, especially not the UN, is capable of undertaking concerning any religion."

"Tragically, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China, and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a forgone conclusion. E.U. diplomats hope at best to win over a handful of wavering Latin American states to the dissenting side."

"Following is a copy of the draft U.N. Human Rights Council resolution obtained by UN Watch. Prepared by Pakistan on behalf of the Islamic group, the text was circulated today to Geneva diplomats in advance of a council vote scheduled for the end of March. "

HRC/10/L.. Combating Defamation of Religions

The Human Rights Council,

Reaffirming the pledge made by all States, under the Charter of the United Nations, to
promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
Reaffirming also that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and

Recalling the 2005 World Summit Outcome adopted by the General Assembly in its
resolution 60/1 of 24 October 2005, in which the Assembly emphasized the
responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to
respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind
and acknowledged the importance of respect and understanding for religious and
cultural diversity throughout the world,

Recognizing the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization and the
contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make towards improved awareness
and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,

Welcoming the resolve expressed in the United Nations Millennium Declaration adopted
by the General Assembly on 8 September 2006 to take measures to eliminate the
increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies and to promote greater
harmony and tolerance in all societies, and looking forward to its effective
implementation at all levels,

Underlining in this regard the importance of the Durban Declaration and Programme
of Action adopted by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, welcoming
the progress achieved in implementing them, and emphasizing that they constitute a
solid foundation for the elimination of all scourges and manifestations of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,

Welcoming all international and regional initiatives to promote cross-cultural and
interfaith harmony, including the Alliance of Civilizations and the International Dialogue
on Interfaith Cooperation and their valuable efforts towards the promotion of a culture of
peace and dialogue at all levels,

Welcoming further the reports of the Special Rapporteur submitted to the Council at its
fourth, sixth and ninth sessions that highlight the serious nature of the defamation of
all religions and the need to complement legal strategies;

Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of
violence against followers of certain faiths, occurring in many parts of the world, in
addition to the negative projection of certain religions in the media and the
introduction and enforcement of laws and administrative measures that specifically
discriminate against and target persons with certain ethnic and religious backgrounds,

particularly Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001, and that
threaten to impede their full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading
to restriction on the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to
religious hatred and violence,

Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in
general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed
at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting
discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions and in this context
stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement
to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,

Convinced that respect for cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity, as well as
dialogue among and within civilizations, is essential for global peace and understanding
while manifestations of cultural and ethnic prejudice, religious intolerance and
xenophobia generate hatred and violence among peoples and nations,

Underlining the important role of education in the promotion of tolerance, which
involves acceptance by the public of and its respect for diversity,
Noting various regional and national initiatives to combat religious and racial intolerance
against specific groups and communities and emphasizing, in this context, the need to
adopt a comprehensive and non-discriminatory approach to ensure respect for all races
and religions,

Recalling its resolution 7/19 of 27 March 2008 and UNGA resolution 63/154 of 18
December 2008,

1. Takes note of the report of the High Commissioner on the compilation of existing
legislation and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt of religions
and the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance presented during the 9th session of
the Human Rights Council;

2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping and defamation of religions
and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief, still
evident in the world, which have led to intolerance against the followers of these

3. Strongly deplores all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults, and
incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and such acts
directed against their businesses, properties, cultural centres and places of worship, as
well as targeting of holy sites, religious symbols and venerated personalities of all

4. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of deliberate
stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media, as well
as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at
creating and perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions, in particular when
condoned by Governments;

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of
religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and
religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11
September 2001;

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of
religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general have, become aggravating
factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of
target groups, as well as to their economic and social exclusion;

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly
associated with human rights violations and terrorism and in this regard regrets the
laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim
minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;

8. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the
Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related
intolerance and discrimination towards any religion, as well as targeting of religious
symbols and venerated persons;

9. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law including articles 19
and 29 of UDHR and 19 and 20 of ICCPR, everyone has the right to hold opinions
without interference, and has the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which
carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to
limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or
reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or
morals, and general welfare;

10. Reaffirms that General Comment 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the
dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with
freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to
religious hatred;

11. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic
minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on the basis
of religion or belief, and urges all States to apply and, where required, reinforce existing
laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in
order to deny impunity for those who commit such acts;

12. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional
systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and
coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in
general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all
religions and beliefs;

13. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to
religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local,
national, regional and international levels through education and awareness building;

14. Calls upon all States to exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national
legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian law, to
ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and
protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to
desecration or destruction;

15. Calls for strengthening international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the
promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human
rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and urges States, non-governmental
organizations, religious leaders as well as the print and electronic media to support and
foster such a dialogue;

16. Appreciates the High Commissioner for Human Rights for holding a seminar on
freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence in October 2008, and requests her to continue to build
on this initiative, with a view to concretely contributing to the prevention and elimination
of all such forms of incitement and the consequences of negative stereotyping of
religions or beliefs, and their adherents, on the human rights of those individuals and
their communities;

17. Requests the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to report on all manifestations of
defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of
Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers, to the Council during its
12th Session;

18. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at its
12th Session on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible
correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance
and hatred in many parts of the world.

Original article posted by Diana B. on March 18, 2009 at:

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Pamela Geller Interviews Geert Wilders

20:30 min - Sep 25, 2008
Pamela Geller interviews the exceptional member of Parliamnet and filmaker of Fitna.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Islam film Dutch MP to be charged

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression".

"Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said.

Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the "Islamisation" of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned.

"Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?" he added.


The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders's "one-sided generalisations" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians.

"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement.

"The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.

The court's ruling reverses a decision last year by the public prosecutor's office, which said Mr Wilders's comments had been made outside parliament as a contribution to the debate on Islam in Dutch society and that no criminal offence had been committed.

Prosecutors said on Wednesday that they could not appeal against the judgement and would open an investigation immediately.

Gerard Spong, a prominent lawyer who pushed for Mr Wilders's prosecution, welcomed the court's decision.

"This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism," he told reporters.

'Fascist book'

In March 2008, Mr Wilders posted a film about the Koran on the internet, prompting angry protests across the Muslim World.

The opening scenes of Fitna - a Koranic term sometimes translated as "strife" - show a copy of the holy book followed by footage of the bomb attacks on the US on 11 September 2001, London in July 2005 and Madrid in March 2004.

Pictures appearing to show Muslim demonstrators holding up placards saying "God bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to hell" also feature.

The film ends with the statement: "Stop Islamisation. Defend our freedom."

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said at the time that the film wrongly equated Islam with violence and served "no purpose other than to offend".

A year earlier, Mr Wilders described the Koran as a "fascist book" and called for it to be banned in "the same way we ban Mein Kampf", in a letter published in the De Volkskrant newspaper.

Mr Wilders has had police protection since Dutch director Theo Van Gogh was killed by a radical Islamist in 2004.

Correspondents say his Freedom Party (PVV), which has nine MPs in the lower house of parliament, has built its popularity largely by tapping into the fear and resentment of Muslim immigrants.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Friday, December 12, 2008

Islamic Europe

"In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?"
Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, chairman Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.

The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25.

Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.

It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Stoning Death of 13-Year-Old Girl

Link: Original Article
November 2, 2008
A girl who said she was gang raped has been stoned to death in Somalia for alleged adultery, a human rights group has said.

Dozens of men reportedly pelted the 13-year-old Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow with rocks in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in Kismayo. Amnesty International said the Islamic militia in charge of the city had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her. Initial reports said Duhulow was 23, but her father told Amnesty that she was just 13. Some of the Somali journalists who first reported the killing later admitted they had judged her to be 23 based upon her physical appearance.

Somalia is among the world's most violent and impoverished countries.
The nation of some eight million people has not had a functioning government since warlords overthrew a dictator in 1991 then turned on each other.

A quarter of Somali children die before they are five years old. Nearly every public institution has collapsed. Fighting is a daily occurrence, with violent deaths reported nearly every day. Islamic militants with ties to al Qaeda have been battling the government and its Ethiopian allies since their combined forces pushed the Islamists from the capital in December 2006.

Within weeks of being driven out, the Islamists launched an insurgency that has killed thousands of civilians. In recent months, the militants have appeared to be gaining strength. The group has taken over the port of Kismayo, Somalia's third-largest city, and dismantled pro-government roadblocks.

Tuesday October 28, 2008
A woman accused of adultery has been stoned to death by Islamists in Somalia.

The 23-year-old woman was buried up to her neck in front of hundreds of people in a square in Kismayu and stones were hurled at her head. She was dragged out of the hole three times to see if she was dead. When a relative and others surged forward to rescue her, guards opened fire and killed a child.

It is thought to be the first such public killing by the militants for about two years. Witness Abdullahi Aden said: "A woman in green veil and black mask was brought in a car as we waited to watch the merciless act of stoning.

We were told she submitted herself to be punished, yet we could see her screaming as she was forcefully bound, legs and hands.
Witness Abdullahi Aden

"A relative of hers ran towards her, but the Islamists opened fire and killed a child."

The Islamists last carried out public executions when they ruled Mogadishu and most of south Somalia for half of 2006. They were toppled by allied Ethiopian and Somali government forces at the end of that year, but they have taken back land by waging an Iraq-style guerrilla campaign.

In parts, they are welcomed for the security they bring, but they are also imposing fundamentalist practices like banning entertainment seen as anti-Islamic. Islamists said the woman, named as Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow, wanted punishment under Sharia law. Local leader Sheikh Hayakallah said:

"She was asked several times to review her confession but she stressed that she wanted Sharia law and the deserved punishment to apply."
But her sister, who asked not to be named, said: "The stoning was totally irreligious and illogical.
"Islam does not execute a woman for adultery unless four witnesses and the man with whom she committed sex are brought forward publicly."

Islamist leaders at the execution said the woman had breached Islamic law and promised to punish the guard who had shot the child in the melee around the execution.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Muslim's suit over scarves in California


ORANGE, Calif. (AP) — A Southern California county will allow jailed Muslim women to wear headscarves after settling a lawsuit with a woman who claims that deputies violated her religious freedom by making her remove her hijab.

The settlement agreement signed by the county last week and released Monday specifies that Muslim women must be provided a private area to remove their headscarves after arrest and must be provided with county-issued headscarves to cover themselves when they are in the presence of men.

The county, which did not admit wrongdoing, will also pay $45,000 in damages. Plaintiff Jameelah Medina will get $10,000 after subtracting attorney fees, said Hector Villagra, director of the Orange County office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

A spokeswoman for the Sheriff's Department did not immediately return a call Monday from The Associated Press.

Medina, 30, was arrested in December 2005 in Pomona for having an invalid train pass. She spent 12 hours in jail but was never prosecuted.

Medina, a business trainer who lives in Rialto, said that during processing she was forced to remove her headscarf in the presence of a male deputy even though she explained that to do so violated her religious beliefs.

"I felt exposed and vulnerable," she said. "I don't think I could have felt more naked even if I had no clothes on."

Medina and her attorneys said the settlement was important because it addressed the county's concerns about safety while respecting Muslims' religious beliefs.

"We had a concern about religious rights and they had a concern about safety. We met halfway to ensure that nothing like this will ever happen again," Villagra said.

Link: Original article

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Sharia Law In US Court

U.S. company: crash lawsuit governed by Islamic law
Company is sister to N.C.-based Blackwater
Joseph Neff and Jay Price, Staff Writers
Published: Jun 18, 2008

RALEIGH - To defend itself against a lawsuit by the widows of three American soldiers who died on one of its planes in Afghanistan, a sister company of the private military firm Blackwater has asked a federal court to decide the case using the Islamic law known as Shari’a.
The lawsuit “is governed by the law of Afghanistan,” Presidential Airways argued in a Florida federal court. “Afghan law is largely religion-based and evidences a strong concern for ensuring moral responsibility, and deterring violations of obligations within its borders.”

If the judge agrees, it would essentially end the lawsuit over a botched flight supporting the U.S. military. Shari’a law does not hold a company responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their work.

Erik Prince, who owns Blackwater and Presidential Airways, briefly discussed the lawsuit in a meeting today with editors and reporters at The News & Observer. Prince was asked to justify having a case involving an American company working for the U.S. government decided by Afghan law.

“Where did the crash occur?” Prince said. “Afghanistan.”

Joseph Schmitz, Prince’s general counsel, said Presidential Airways was asking the federal judge to follow past U.S. cases where courts have applied another country’s laws to resolve damages that occurred overseas.

The crash of Blackwater Flight 61 occurred in the rugged mountains of central Afghanistan in 2004, killing three soldiers and the three-man crew.

The widows of the soldiers sued Presidential Airways, Blackwater’s sister company, which was under contract with the U.S. military to fly cargo and personnel around Afghanistan.

Presidential Airways argued that the lawsuit must be dismissed; legal doctrine holds that soldiers cannot sue the government, and the company was acting as an agent of the government.

Last year, a series of federal judges dismissed that argument.

In April, Presidential asked a federal judge in Florida to dismiss the lawsuit because the case is controlled by Afghanistan’s Islamic law. If the judge agrees that Afghan law applies, the lawsuit would be dismissed. The company also plans to ask a judge to dismiss the lawsuit on the constitutional grounds that a court should not interfere in military decision-making.

The National Transportation Safety Board has blamed the crash on Presidential for its “failure to require its flight crews to file and fly a defined route,” and for not providing oversight to make sure its crews followed company policies and Pentagon and FAA safety regulations.

Report from the Northern Front: Montreal Redux

by David B. Harris
Special to IPT News
October 14, 2008

Canada's awakening to radical-Islamist penetration of its political, bureaucratic and social infrastructure, reached a watershed moment this month.

Quebec's new French-language anti-Islamist website, Point de Bascule – "tipping point" – sponsored a dramatic press conference in Montreal Oct. 2 on the dangers of hard-line Islamist penetration of Canada. But this was consciousness-raising with a powerful difference.

All three panelists were moderate Canadian Muslims. All three face death fatwas. And all three spoke unsparingly – some giving names and startling specifics – of the Sharia surge and stealth jihad in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Indeed, detailed allegations were heard about Islamist inroads into the federal New Democratic Party (NDP), Canada's social democratic party, and about infiltration of a government commission with power to define and silence "hate" speech. These were momentous claims in the context of Canada's national election campaign – the national vote takes place today. As evidenced by the number of journalists in attendance, the Quebec media were galvanized.

India-born Dr. Salim Mansur of the University of Western Ontario opened by calling on Canadians to end the political correctness and self-censorship that has muffled efforts to debate the stealth jihad – the gradual radical-Islamicizing of Canadian society. Like other speakers, he distinguished between moderate Muslims and Islamists, and warned of accelerating fundamentalist efforts "to establish a parallel society within Quebec and within Canada, as they are doing in Europe, that will be administered on the basis of Sharia."

Mansur cited Islamist demands, "in our multicultural society," "for gender exclusion ... for legal arbitration on the basis of Sharia in Ontario and Quebec, the promotion of Sharia finance." He pointed to demands for the right to have "veiled voting" in elections, complete with male-free zones in voting stations and female-only government cadres to verify veiled-voters' identity.

Professor Mansur warned stirringly of increasing radical penetration of Canada's political and social infrastructure. In the midst of the election, he turned his guns on Canada's social-democratic New Democratic Party (NDP). The Party and its leader, he said,

"have gone to bed with Islamists, operatives of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and other organizations, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations Canada, the Muslim Student Associations in our universities, ISNA – the Islamic Society of North America ... for reasons of sheer political opportunism at the expense of the security of our citizens, and defending the fundamental values of our democracy."

(For those unfamiliar with Canada's radical scene, the hard-line Canadian Islamic Congress was revealed to have given a media-excellence award to the founder of a Canadian-Islamic newspaper said to have had as its editorial line the assertion that 9/11 was a success, that Iranian-style theocracy should spread worldwide, and that Canada is a "fully paid-up member of the Anglo-Saxon mafia, which is responsible for most of the recorded genocides in the world." The Canadian Arab Federation (CAF), mentioned below, also recognized this individual with a special anniversary award.

During the first Gulf War, the CAF portrayed Canadian Arabs as victims of unnecessarily-aggressive interviewing by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), a portrayal that the independent, nonpartisan CSIS watchdog Security Intelligence Review Committee, found baseless. More recently, the CAF became notorious for campaigning against the outlawing of Hezbollah in Canada. For its part, the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR-CAN] is the Canadian chapter of the Washington, DC-based, Saudi-funded Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR], an unindicted co-conspirator in the US Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial. Like its American parent, CAIR-CAN engaged in unsuccessful lawsuits against media and other commentators who raised questions about its background and links; and, like its parent, CAIR-CAN is a defendant in the New York 9/11 lawsuit, Estate of John P. O'Neill, Sr. et al. vs. Al Baraka Investment and Development Corporation.)

Pakistani-Canadian Raheel Raza, a noted cross-cultural and interfaith facilitator and author of Their Jihad, Not My Jihad, rose to damn the radicals. She condemned Islamist grievance-mongering and attempts to alienate Muslims, particularly Muslim youth, from the mainstream. Noting that she was Number 5 on a radical-Islamist list of the world's most hated Muslims, she said she aspired to reach the Number 1 position.

But it was Pakistan-born pro-Palestinian socialist author, Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, who put a discernible chill through the assembly. A former senior official and candidate of the New Democratic Party (NDP), he declared that the NDP was the target of an Islamist takeover bid. This campaign was having success, he warned, and risked suborning the federalist party with the third largest number of seats in Canada's House of Commons.

Fatah highlighted the case of Dr. Samira Laouni, the NDP's veiled Moroccan-Canadian fundamentalist candidate for the Montreal constituency of Bourassa. A Canadian Islamic Congress Quebec operative, she had recently organized a visit to the city by British Taliban-apologist Yvonne Ridley. That event caused upset in Quebec, especially when it emerged that the federal NDP's Quebec "lieutenant," Thomas Mulcair, had rolled into the hardcore CIC session, yet continued to support Laouni despite her outlook. And all this came on top of the resignation of Laouni's Muslim campaign manager, when he was fixed with authorship of a published poem that contrasted the purity of veiled Muslim women with – as journalist Barbara Kay captured it – his idea of non-Muslim Quebec women as "promiscuous drunks."

But, according to Fatah, all this was only part of his concern about his former party. The 17-year veteran of the NDP, looked back with dismay on the Party's apparent unraveling by radicalism, and took careful aim:

"But slowly, I saw the Party open its doors to Islamists – first under [former NDP leader] Alexa McDonough, when supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah managed to join her personal legislative staff; and later, under [current leader] Jack Layton, when the doors were flung open. One Hezbollah supporter even managed to become the Ontario NDP's vice president."

Fatah claimed that "in the last NDP leadership campaign, I was witness to an attempt by a group of wealthy Islamists, to back one Member of Parliament for the leadership, with the stated objective of controlling the Party." He spoke of "six or seven" business people "who were advised that, of all the parties in Canada, the NDP was the easiest to take over and make to serve the Islamist agenda."

Fatah asserts that he "was present when this meeting took place," and would be prepared to "point out the people" who raised about $100,000 for the Islamist leadership campaign. The author of Chasing a Mirage and now a supporter of the Liberal Party, said he "informed Jack Layton of the scheme" including the radicals' attempts to portray Layton as "pro-Israel."

"But," Fatah added, "by 2006, I had come to the conclusion that the Party was up for grabs, and noticed a countrywide recruitment in the NDP by pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah activists," and withdrew from the NDP. "Today, the NDP is running Islamist candidates and its discourse is dominated by support of terror suspects in the guise of a defense of human rights."

Fatah expressed particular concern about certain Muslim NDP candidates' waging of a "relentless campaign to portray Canada as essentially anti-Muslim, and to instill a sense of forced victimhood among Muslim youth." He took to task one such candidate – a lawyer – for reportedly proclaiming that the judge who recently convicted the first of the alleged "Toronto 18" terrorists, did so because of anti-Muslim bias.

"Thia is a practicing lawyer accusing our judiciary of being anti-Muslim," Fatah declared. Practically demanding a professional-conduct investigation by the Ontario attorneys' governing Law Society of Upper Canada, he added, "Can you imagine what effect this [claim] is going to have on 10- or 12- or 15-year-old young men who are consistently told that this is a war against Islam?"

Infiltrating and Silencing

Depicting the NDP travails as a reflection of the broader international jihad by "political Islam" against the liberal-pluralist values of the West, Fatah then turned to the campaign against free speech. He reminded the audience that the Organization of Islamic Conference is pushing at the UN and elsewhere for Sharia-oriented "blasphemy" laws that would silence efforts to define and describe the enemy. He pointed to the way that the Canadian Islamic Congress had used Canada's human-rights' commissions, and their complaint mechanisms, to lay siege to publications such as Maclean's, Canada's leading newsmagazine. Then his focus narrowed to one illustrative aspect of this campaign.

Earlier this year, Commission chief Barbara Hall, handed down a decision that dismissed a complaint against Maclean's for publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's bestseller, America Alone. The CIC had complained that the publication was anti-Muslim hate literature.

Free speech advocates would have been satisfied with the dismissal, and this should have ended the matter. But Hall, in a virtually unprecedented departure from acceptable conduct, went on to proclaim that Maclean's had been guilty of anti-Muslim prejudice. Indeed, as though writing from the CIC's playbook, she even pelted Maclean's with that rather contrived construct, "Islamophobia." Few understood at the time, how such extraordinary and damaging conclusions could have been reached without benefit of hearings, evidence, or any opportunity for Maclean's to cross-examine or make a defense.

After the release of the Commission's statement, the middle-of-the-road Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC), an organization originally founded by Mr. Fatah, spoke for many in its official April 2008 response:

"... in editorializing and coming out to bat for Canada's Islamists, the OHRC is sending a very dangerous message to moderate Muslims who reject Sharia and do not take inspiration from overseas Islamic countries or groups.

On the one hand the OHRC criticizes Macleans for "portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics," but then does the same thing by perpetuating the Islamist myth that Muslims in Canada are a persecuted group. Those of us Muslims who do not share this addiction of victimhood, seem to have no resonance with the OHRC.


The OHRC decision must be cause for celebration in Osama Bin Laden's cave and among the soldiers of the world Jihadi movement that love to spread the falsehood that Canada is at war with Islam and that Muslims in Canada live under a cloud of racism and persecution. Nothing can be further from the truth."

But how could a Commission of the Ontario Government have erred so seriously? At the Point de Bascule press conference, Mr. Fatah offered an answer:

"... if you're scratching your heads, reading the outrageous attacks on Maclean's magazine by Barbara Hall, ... let me share with you the news that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is itself infiltrated by Islamists, and I say that on the record. One of its commissioners ... is an admirer of Ayatollah Khomeini and has close links to the Canadian Islamic Congress. This is the CIC that filed the complaint against Maclean's, and this man was sitting as judge and jury. Another Commissioner also has close links to the CIC and is a former President of the Canadian Arab Federation – again, closely linked to the Canadian Islamic Congress. But how many Canadians know this is happening?

And, [as] if that was not all, let me assure you that the senior policy advisor at the Ontario Human Rights Commission who wrote the document that Barbara Hall signed, is openly supportive of Sharia law – in fact, he comes to work dressed in Saudi attire."

At the Montreal gathering, a small handful of hard-liners eventually made itself known during the event's question period. One mature, head-scarfed woman challenged the speakers' portrayal of Samira Laouni's involvement with Taliban proxy Yvonne Ridley – until the questioner was forced to admit that she, herself, was implicated with Laouni as an organizer of the radical forum. Neither was her case helped by a journalist at the back of the hall, who, offended by the attempt to spin the audience, declared that she – the journalist – had personally witnessed the Ridley performance. A few days after this, and the NDP hierarchy's unappetizing connections seemed beyond doubt.

Days after the Montreal event, on October 6, several controversial Muslim groups – including the Quebec wings of the CIC and Canadian Arab Federation – convened a candidates' debate in an Islamic community center in the Montreal-area constituency of Brossard-La Prairie. Heeding the Islamist summons, the Liberal, NDP and Green parties' candidates reported for duty, as did the incumbent Member of Parliament, the separatist Bloc Québécois' Marcel Lussier. Only the candidate for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's governing Conservative Party failed to show up. The others were in a close, multi-party fight to the finish for the four percent of the vote that would be Muslim.

As though determined to prove the accuracy of the earlier Mansur, Fatah and Raza warnings about betrayal by political elites, the politicos turned the "debate" into a reverse auction. Desperate to win over radical voters, candidates out-pandered and outbid one another, going farther than some of their jihadi audience in condemning counterterrorism, humoring altogether undemonstrated victimhood claims, and generally feeding radicals' propagation of persecution fears.

In the face of this, none of the candidates came to the aid of their country. None of them have argued, like Fatah, that Muslims have more freedom, rights and prosperity in Canada than in virtually any "Muslim" country. No one reassured those who were unnecessarily worried or alienated. No one mentioned that the real victims of racial and religious abuse in Canada were statistically the same as always – black Canadians and Jews – or that American statistics suggested that the extent of abuse of Muslims in the United States, while unacceptable, was only marginally greater than the combined level of abused Protestants and Catholics.

Instead, the candidates accepted without demur questions from their audience incorporating counterfactual premises about rampaging racial profiling, immigration restrictions, persecution and – according to one spectator – the need for "special laws" against such things.

Racial profiling – "le profilage raciale" – was "inacceptable", thundered incumbent Bloc MP Lussier. "[U]ne tolerance zero" for "Islamophobie," exclaimed Liberal Alexandra Mendes.

On the no-panderer-left-behind principle, the NDP's entrant, Hoang Mai, declared that Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act, the country's fundamental counterterrorism measure, should simply be "abolished." Sniffing the wind, Member of Parliament Lussier flashed his trump: the Hamas movement, he said triumphantly, is the legitimate government of the Palestinian people.

Canada is in trouble.

David B. Harris is a Canadian lawyer, Director of INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc's International and Terrorist Intelligence Program, and former Chief of Strategic Planning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).
Original article at