Judges could be forced to bow to Sharia law in some divorce cases heard in Britain. An EU plan calls for family courts across Europe to hear cases using the laws of whichever country the couple involved have close links to.
That could mean a court in England handling a case within the French legal framework, or even applying the laws of Saudi Arabia to a husband and wife living in Britain. The Centre for Social Justice think tank today attacked the so-called Rome III reform as ludicrous. […]
(klip fra Il Ventre Dell’architetto, The Architects Belly) – Interesant interview med Greenaway her på Politiken (min.5:25) Greenaway hylder You Tube og mener at filmmediet sidste gang gav livstegn fra sig, da Fassbinder levede. Jeg ville måske udstrække det til 1999, da Kubrick døde. Jeg går heller ikke meget i biografen, engang imellem hen på det jeg stadig kalder Filmmuseet. Forleden så jeg Righteous Kill, hvor Brian Dennehy også medvirker (sammen med Al Pacino og Robert de Niro, der spiller sig selv som sædvanlig, det er derfor man ser dem.) Han er blevet ældgammel. Kvalitets-tju-bang. Det er sådan noget som gode skuespillere fordriver deres og vores tid med at lave. Lidt som dansk teater der næppe uddeler Reumert priser for de forestillinger, de stakkels skuespillere skal medvirke i. Skuespillerne kan leve af det, publikum kan ikke. I Politiken interviewet siger Greenaway, at H.C. Andersen jo var homoseksuel. Det er en myte med 199 liv, første gang tilbagevist i Hjalmar Helwegs indfølte bog om Andersen fra 1927. Så måske genopstår filmen også fra de døde ? Men se de fem minutter fra Politiken, man kan godt læse avisen, bare man er god til overspringshandlinger.
“Asien börjar i Malmö”
Genom decennier har danskarna blickat klentroget och med rynkade näsor över Sundet, mot Malmö, staden där Asien börjar, mot det karga, vindpinade, svenska Storebrors- och förbudssamhället, där social permafrost dödat all individualism, där en glädjelös, nyttomaximerande överhet med byråkratisk nit lägger livet till rätta.
Hvorfor har vi ikke kommenteret de artikler, spørger nogle. Svaret er, at vi gider ikke. Det var noget Strindberg sagde, det forår 1887 han boede i Skodsborg og sad og kiggede østover Øresund. Jeg kan ikke huske hvor han skriver det, men jeg ved jeg husker rigtigt. Den smule har jeg tilfælles med Søren Kierkegaard – udover at have gået på samme skole og at der også er meget jeg ikke giiider – at jeg aldrig kan huske hvor jeg har læst tingene. Det var forresten hos Kirkegaard, jeg første gang opdagede at man kunne “træde i Characteer”. Så gik der mange år uden at nogen trådte i karakter, og idag træder alle og enhver i karakter i tide og utide og uafprut, som min gamle ven advokaten sagde, bare de skal en tur i Netto. Jeg vil ikke træde i den. Hvem ved, om man har én at træde i, hvis det endelig skulle være ?
UK: Behov for opførelse af et hus hvert sjette minut de næste 20 år
Tilvandringen er løbet fuldstændig ud af kontrol i det ellers gennemkontrollerede Storbritannien, med et tilsvarende eskalerende behov for opførelse af nye boliger. Absurditeten i dette land er på Monty Python’sk niveau, dog ikke spor sjovt for briterne. Sketchen her har en vis relevans for denne problematik (LFPC).
THE United Kingdom will have to build one house every six minutes, day and night, seven days a week for the next 20 years to meet the current scale of immigration, Labour MP and former minister Frank Field warned yesterday.
He said immigration would account for 70% of population growth in the next 20 years – that is seven million, or seven times the population of Birmingham. In 2007, immigrants were arriving at the rate of almost one every minute.
He recalled that he and Tory MP Nicholas Soames had established a cross-party group on balanced migration, designed to stimulate and inform a non-partisan and calm debate about the issue.
“For many years, probably a generation, immigration has been a no-go area to British politics. ‘Racist’, ‘Little Englander’, ‘xenophobe’ – those who have raised the subject have been insulted, abused and, all too often, silenced.” […] Field hits out over immigration levels
Christopher Caldwell: How benefits can be a divisive force in a pluralist society.
Immigration and welfare are a bad mix in other ways, too. Comprehensive welfare systems (transfers, pensions, healthcare) tend not to arise in societies of mass immigration, such as the United States. In the present downturn, many assume that one path to recovery is to give up some economic dynamism and return to the welfare model that existed from Attlee to Thatcher. But Britain is not the place it was until the 1970s. Welfare states require consensus and society may now be too multicultural to provide it.
Muslimer i Danmark er røde. I hvert fald vil kun en ud af ti muslimer stemme på regeringen og dens støttepartier, hvis der var valg nu. DR har fået foretaget en analyse af analyseinstituttet Capacent blandt muslimer i Danmark, og til spørgsmålet om, hvilket parti de ville stemme på, hvis der var valg nu, løber Socialdemokraterne med 58,3 procent af de muslimske stemmer. Omregnet i mandater svarer det til 103. Samlet set ville den nuværende opposition, Socialdemokraterne, De Radikale, SF og Enhedslisten få 89,1 procent af stemmerne. Regeringen og Dansk Folkeparti får lille opbakning
Muslimerne i Danmark stemmer rødt, Muslimerne er vilde med Helle Thorning, Sådan er undersøgelsen foretaget. Resultatet er ikke just nogen nyhed, sådan er det overalt i Europa. I Sverige så ekstremt, at hvis 500.000 svenske muslimer og godt 1 million andre indvandrere kunne mobiliseres til at stemme (dem med stemmeret, naturligvis), ville landet ikke få en borgerlig regering mere i overskuelig fremtid, hvis nogensinde. At Alliancen overhovedet kunne vinde med den snævrest tænkelige margin i 2006, var allerede lidt af et mirakel, der ikke ret sandsynlig gentager sig, de seneste meningsmålinger til trods. I det perspektiv er statsminister Reinfeldts uændrede asylpolitik, i realiteten et politisk selvmord i fuld offentlighed. Hele det politiske billede er parallelforskudt, og trods ringe idésammenfald med venstrefløjen, er det med til at cementere et ægteskab mellem de to parter, der har store konflikter indbygget i sig fra fødslen.
Journalistik under islam
A large majority of Dutch journalists say that they no longer work in certain neighbourhoods because they fear they will be targets for violence, shows a survey held on behalf of journalists’ union NVJ. NVJ asked criminologist, professor Frank Bovenkerk to examine the nature and scale of aggression against journalists on the streets. Of the 691 journalists who filled in Bovenkerk’s questionnaire, 492 said they now avoided certain neighbourhoods when doing their work.
At some time in their career, 374 of the 691 journalists had been confronted with physical aggression or threats. Those working for regional media were most often the victims of violence, in particular cameramen and photographers. A total of 75 journalists reported damage to their equipment or vehicles. There were 36 who reported physical assault, leading to hospital admission in 6 cases. Vast Majority of Journalists Avoid “Certain Districts”
Nogle nøjes med at henstille verbalt til en “pæn tone”, men danske journalister kunne sagtens tale med om mere håndfaste metoder, hvis de turde (se “»Intern instruks til DR medarbejderne«), men det er tys tys. Som man kan se af de hollandske tal, er journalisterne dér allerede tyranniseret betydeligt på retræten. Nylig var der lignende tal fra Sverige og Norge. Melanie Phillips skar torsdag i København det valg ud i pap, som heller ikke en fri journalistik kan undslå sig:
“This is the paradox we are facing: A liberal society has to exercise very robust, muscular and indeed sometimes illiberal measures to defend itself. If it does not do that, it will not survive as a liberal society. That is the paradox of liberalism. If you don’t want to do that….fine, it’s your choice sunshine, but you are gonna have a country that’s going to be engulfed by islamization and violence. Liberalism is in danger of disappearing up its own backside.”
Var fjärde ungdom står utan jobb i Sverige – 24,3 procent. Det är bara Spanien i hela Europa som har en högre siffra. Ändå har det tills nyligen varit relativt tyst om detta jätteproblem. I teorin lever vi i den mest solidariska av världar. De “svaga” hjälps upp av teoritunga yrkesutbildningar som ger entrébiljett till universiteten, av höga ingångslöner och lagskydd mot lynniga arbetsgivare.I praktiken lämnar vi ungdomar, lågutbildade och invandrare i sticket. Anna Dahlberg: Sveket mot de unga
Hvad Dahlberg ikke skriver om, for det kan man ikke, er hvorfra arbejdsløsheden også kommer, og hvor pengene forsvinder hen, for det er historien om Riksdagens godhedskrig mod den dårligtst stillede del af den svenske befolkning, ikke mindst syge, børn og gamle. Dens “generøsitet” koster trecifrede milliardbeløb,(se også her) men ingen journalist eller forsker, der har sin karriere kær, vil røre ved den historie. Et lille eksempel her fra Fria Nyheters serie om Kommunefakta:
2007 var kostnaden för ekonomiskt bistånd 1049,3 miljoner kronor. Av dessa gick 738,5 miljoner kr till utrikesfödda och flyktingar, vilket motsvarar 70,4 % av det totala biståndet. Andelen utrikesfödda var 21 % den 31 december 2007.
Nicolai Sennels gør op med tidens farligst vandrehistorie: At integrationen går fremad.
Som tidligere psykolog i Københavns Kommune har det altid været mig en gåde, at venstrefløjens og en række borgerlige integrationsministres udokumenterede påstand om integrationens langsomme, men sikre succes, lever så velgående. Denne vandrehistorie har desværre fået samme sandhedsværdi som ordsproget om, at tiden læger alle sår. For det gør tiden jo som bekendt ikke altid: Efter lange skænderier ender mange med at blive skilt, og efter et overbevisende antal trafikuheld bliver fatale vejkryds heldigvis nedlagt. I virkeligheden …………
Man behøver ikke hedde Samuel Huntington for at se, at der i disse dage, måneder og år udspiller sig en global kamp på værdier og viljestyrke, ideer og identitet. Kampen er nok militær og konkret, men den har også en mere abstrakt karakter af en kamp om hjerterne, der udkæmpes overalt, hvor islamister tester vores fundamentale principper.Det sker i FN, det sker i EU og mange andre internationale fora. Men det sker også i Danmark.
Og her havde vi i går besøg af en ægte kulturkæmper. I skikkelse af den britiske journalist Melanie Phillips, som lagde vejen forbi et København badet i sorgløs sol. […]
Som Melanie Phillips står på talerstolen, ligner hun ikke ligefrem en kulturkæmper. Tynd, nærmest ranglet, taler hun tidens politiske dogmer midt imod. Hun beskriver dem som en fortælling om uimodsagt dyd. Er man uenig i dyden og dydens nysprog, er man at regne for kætter. Afviser man FN’s åbenbaringer, hedder det, at man stiger af verden. Verden har nemlig kun én retning; deri det skræmmende perspektiv, siger Phillips. Verden er blevet unilateral. Tvivler du på FN-ideologien om harmoni, tolerance og afskaffelse af had, drager du verden i tvivl og står ganske udenfor. Politik er blevet et manikæisk spørgsmål om at være for eller imod. Den europæiske elite er for. De umoralske masser uden almen dannelse er imod, og skal rette ind, og gør de det ikke frivilligt, så skal de tvinges. Michael Jalving i Jyllands Posten
Melanie Phillips, speech, the Sappho Award, 4/23/09
Freedom of speech is one of the core values of the free world. Without free speech there can be no free thought. Yet freedom of speech is under threat as never before; and as with the threat to the free world in general, it is a threat being mounted both from outside and from inside. The onslaught from without is being facilitated by erosion from within.
The onslaught from without comes from the Islamic jihad. A few weeks ago, the United Nations Human Rights Council 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.’
Since the proposal came from Pakistan and had the backing of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN’s largest voting bloc, it was clear that Islam was the only religion the drafters had in mind.
And now ‘Durban II’ — the second World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance under way this week in Geneva – threatens to prohibit criticism of Islam as a form of incitement.
This all part of a relentless strategy to use the UN as a vehicle for the jihad to rewrite international law and overturn the core values of the west.
In March last year, the OIC developed what the Associated Press called ‘a battle plan’ to use the law against ‘Islamophobia’ by curbing free speech. That month, it changed the mandate for the UNHRC’s rapporteur on freedom of expression, who was now to be expected to report to the Council on all instances in which individuals ‘abused’ their freedom of speech by giving expression to racial or religious bias. In short, the UN voted to force the official charged with protecting freedom of expression to suppress it instead.
In June last year, the UNHRC president Doru Romulus Costea announced that criticism of sharia law would not be tolerated. This followed pressure by Islamist delegates after NGOs tried to raise the plight of women under sharia. In a curious turn of phrase, the Egyptian delegate claimed that silencing these NGOs was necessary to ensure ‘that Islam will not be crucified in this Council’.
As we have seen from the ‘Durban 2’ meeting in Geneva this week, the UNHRC has turned the human rights it is supposed to protect into a mockery of the term. This is because it has been hijacked by the Islamic states which have turned the UN — the iconic embodiment of western liberal values of reason and negotiation, justice and peace — into a kind of metaphorical suicide bomb strapped to the underbelly of the free world. In the form of the UN, the west now unwittingly embraces a deadly weapon that threatens to destroy it.
Just as the west can’t see that the UN club of terror in fact promotes the negation of freedom, so the west is being equally undermined from within by a crisis of confusion over the core values it is supposedly trying to defend.
It has repeatedly sold the pass over freedom of speech. First there was the fatwa against Salman Rushdie over the Satanic Verses in 1989 when Britain failed to prosecute a single person for threatening to murder him. Then there was the Mohammed cartoons furore.
Now London has turned into a magnet for libel tourism, with the draconian British libel laws being successfully used by wealthy Arabs to intimidate authors and publishers into censoring exposes of the hidden links between Islamic terror and its financing.
You might call this the ‘jihad of the word’ — the suppression of free speech which is such a crucial part of the global jihad. For terrorism is by no means the only threat we are facing. What we are up against is a pincer movement by global Islamism to attack the free world, using both terrorism or hard jihad and cultural infiltration or soft jihad. The two work both together and separately to advance the same end: the Islamisation of the west.
And that’s because the real ground on which we are being attacked – even though so many of us don’t recognise this – is the battleground of the mind. The Islamists understand very well that if they can control public discourse and what is in people’s minds, they will win this great war of civilisation. The ‘jihad of the word’ both recruits terrorists to the cause and confuses, demoralises and terrorises the designated victim population.
All over Europe, elites are caving into the soft terrorism of the ‘jihad of the word’. But Britain is the principal target and recruitment centre for both kinds of jihad, because it has allowed the creation of the most extensive network of terrorism and radicalisation outside the Muslim world.
The reason for that is the hollowing out of British culture, which has paralysed it through the prevalent doctrines of multiculturalism, human rights law and cultural Marxism otherwise known as political correctness. These have rendered Britain’s political, security and intellectual establishment incapable of acknowledging this pincer movement and therefore dealing with the threat. They fully realise the threat of terrorism; but they fail to acknowledge the true nature, origins and full strategic dimension of the attack. They fail to grasp the cultural dimension of the onslaught because they refuse to acknowledge that this is a religious war.
Instead they think it’s terrorism driven by ‘grievances’, that it’s fuelled by a ‘distortion’ of Islam, and that the antidote is to win the hearts and minds of Britain’s Muslims by acceding to their demands that Islam is afforded a privileged status in British society which afforded to no other minority group. So instead of holding the line for western and British values, the government and security establishment show at every juncture that they will cave in to intimidation.
Thus the British government and security world won’t use the word ‘terrorism’ in conjunction with the words ‘Islam’, ‘Islamic’, ‘Islamist’ or ‘Muslim’. One senior official said: ‘We must talk in a language which is not offensive.’ Another said that the terrorist threat must not be described as a ‘Muslim problem’. In a speech on counter-terrorism earlier this year, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, even declared the ‘violent extremism’ that threatens us to be ‘anti-Islamic’.
But if we can’t even name the threat we’re up against we will never defeat it. The problem in the UK is further that the government defines this threat as ‘violent extremism’, not ‘religious extremism’. It does not regard religious fanaticism as a threat; and so when Muslims refuse to tolerate any criticism of Islam, it doesn’t see this as a threat to British values.
On the contrary, so anxious is the British government to pacify the Muslim community that it genuflects to their demand that no offence should be caused to their religion. The government believes it can thus defuse anger and control ‘violent extremism’. But it is the British government being controlled and led by the nose to surrender its core values.
Moreover, in so doing it is abandoning the many truly moderate British Muslims who are neither violent nor extreme and do not subscribe to the interpretation of their religion being imposed by Islamist fanatics. Instead they subscribe to the separation of religion and state and the value of free speech and want to live as British citizens under one law for all. But by seeking to appease the extremists, the government makes it much harder for such moderate Muslims to stand up to them.
The reason the government is so bamboozled and confused is that Britain and Europe have been weakened by their own internal cultural confusion and erosion of core values – a confusion the Islamists are busily exploiting. This is true of two issues in particular: multiculturalism and the fear of giving offence.
Many people think multiculturalism just means showing respect and tolerance to other cultures and faiths. If that were so, it should be unarguable. We should all support respect and tolerance. That’s what a liberal society requires. But that’s not what multiculturalism is at all. It is a specific doctrine which holds that all minority values must have equal status to those of the majority. Any attempt to uphold majority values over minorities is a form of prejudice. That turns minorities into a cultural battering ram to destroy the very idea of being a majority culture at all. And so, since no culture can assert itself over any other, liberalism cannot assert itself as a dominant cultural force. Instead society must fragment into a kaleidoscope of equal — and opposing —values, and liberal values must give way to their opposite.
That is what happened over the Mohammed cartoons. Freedom of expression is a key liberal precept. But under multiculturalism, that cannot trump the doctrines of a minority faith which holds that to publish these images is to give offence. So the minority wins over the liberal majority, and Europeans decry not the violence and intimidation, the kidnappings, riots and murder which followed the publication of the cartoons but the offence to minority religious feelings that was given in publishing them.
Worse still, multiculturalism has reversed the notions of truth and lies, victim and victimiser. Since minorities can do no wrong, they cannot be held responsible for acts such as suicide bombings — which must instead be the fault of their victims if they are from the ‘oppressive’ western world. This key confusion, which has caused intellectual and moral paralysis in the west, plays directly into the pathological Muslim victim culture which makes dialogue impossible. Because so many Muslims genuinely believe they are under attack by the west, which is a giant conspiracy to destroy Islam. So they perceive their own aggression as legitimate self-defence, and the west’s defence as aggression.
This fundamental untruth has created a dialogue of the demented. Instead of treating it as the mad discourse that it is and refusing to play along with it, Britain regards it as an extension of its own multicultural, minority rights doctrine which routinely reverses victim and aggressor where any ‘vitim’ or minority group is concerned. So the untruths driving the terror are merely deepened – particularly since the left, which controls British and European culture, demonises America and Israel. So the central Islamist perception of the Big and Little Satan — based on the Big Lie that America and Israel are not the victims of Islamist terror but instead are aggressors seeking to destroy the Islamic world — is echoed in mainstream British discourse where anti-Americanism is rampant and Israel is well on the way to being delegitimised altogether.
This acts as an echo chamber for Muslim prejudice, reinforcing it and fuelling the sense of paranoia and victimisation. And it has also released the virus of Judeophobia, with claims of a world Jewish conspiracy that are a re-run of the medieval blood libels leading to rising numbers of physical attacks on Jews. Our debased liberalism thus negates the power of reason, the key characteristic of liberal thinking, promotes murderous prejudice and weakens the west in its defence against Islamism by paving the way for its distortions and twisted thinking to take even deeper root.
Another example is the insistence that Islamic terrorism should be represented as having nothing to do with Islam and that to link them is evidence of ‘Islamophobia’. This in itself is the jihadi tactic of using the west’s own corrupted values to sow confusion and be fashioned into a weapon against the west. The west’s victim culture, the belief that all minorities are victims of the majority and so any attempt to hold them to account is a form of prejudice, is used to label all attempts to tell the truth about Islamic violence or cultural conquest as a form of prejudice in order to silence it. Because of the dominance of victim culture and the terror of being accused of prejudice against an ethnic minority, as well as the implicit threat of violence unless this demand is met, the west has caved into this.
This has turned freedom inside out. In London, Islamists freely demonstrate on the streets with their calls for infidels to be beheaded or death to the Jews tolerated by the police as their right to free expression. By contrast, enraged passers-by who protest at such displays find themselves threatened with arrest. Thus defending western liberal values is criminalised by a society exercising tender liberal regard for the interests of minorities.
In similar vein Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom party who defends western freedom against Islamic violence, faces prosecution in the Netherlands for criticizing Islam. It was Geert Wilders who was banned by the British Home Secretary from entering Britain for threatening public order — while allowing into the country a procession of Islamists who preach death to the Jews, the destruction of Israel and the defeat of the west. This is because it is Muslims who threaten violence when hearing something that displeases them — while the authorities know that whatever vile threats or libels are thrown at the Jews, they will never harm anyone. So in Britain, the doctrine of free speech has now been replaced by the doctrine that violence pays.
It’s not just fear that has turned all this inside out. It’s the overriding importance within western society of not giving offence, which has paralysed us when we are faced with the same demand made of us by Muslims. The prohibition against giving offence arises from the importance we now attach to the subjective individual, and thus the primacy of respecting their feelings. With the rise of group rights and victim culture, the giving of offence is seen as an assault on someone’s very identity. It is therefore classed as prejudice regardless of whether it is well-founded in truth. Prejudice is the crime of crimes, and so the giving of offence is criminalised as hate speech.
British authorities repeatedly cave in over this question of giving offence to Muslims. In Britain, attempts to criminalise as hate speech truth-telling about the jihad took the form of a law against incitement to religious hatred. This was watered down after a campaign which seemed driven mainly by outrage that popular comedians would no longer feel able to tell jokes about religion on TV. But the law was nevertheless still passed.
A TV Dispatches programme uncovered disturbing evidence of incitement to the murder of homosexuals and the killing of British soldiers along with hatred of ‘unbelievers’ going on below the official radar in ostensibly respectable British mosques. But instead of prosecuting such fanatics, the police turned on the Dispatches producers, accusing them (in a complaint eventually thrown out by the broadcasting watchdog) of selective editing and distortion and undermining community cohesion.
On another occasion, a Muslim police community support officer stopped two Christian preachers from handing out Bible extracts in a Muslim area in the Midlands. They were told they could not preach there and that attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity was a ‘hate crime’. The officer involved did not uphold the law of the land, which gives people the freedom to say in public whatever they want within the law. Instead he upheld the Islamist principle that this particular area of an English city was a Muslim area, within which it was not permissible to do anything contrary to Muslim principles such as preach Christianity.
Such developments have been made possible by the acceptance within Britain and Europe of the need to prevent ‘hate crime’. Hate crime marches under the banner of human rights. Yet hate crime criminalises the wrong kind of thought. So it is actually a totalitarian measure that is contrary to human rights. This apparent contradiction has come about because ‘human rights’ have been transformed from the rights of the individual to the rights of the group — which has turned ‘human rights law’ from a tool of freedom into an instrument of oppression.
European elites now use hate crime legislation to silence people with opinions that do not conform to prevailing orthodoxy. Under it, favoured minorities are being treated differently from the majority, for whom freedom is restricted and justice stood on its head.
In 2000 Alison Redmond Bate was convicted of obstructing a police officer who stopped her preaching with her mother on the steps of Wakefield cathedral after a crowd of more than a hundred gathered and shouted at them to shut up. The previous year, she had been found guilty of wilful obstruction after allegedly ‘unsettling’ the crowd by warning them not to turn their backs on God. Allowing her appeal against conviction, Lord Justice Sedley upheld true liberal principles when he observed that free speech had to include ‘the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative’.
But this ringing re-statement of western core values certainly didn’t apply to George Staunton , a 78 year-old war veteran who embellished posters he was putting up on a wall for the UK Independence Party — which opposes British membership of the EU — with the legends ‘Don’t forget the 1945 war’ and ‘Free speech for England’. As a result, he was arrested and charged with racially aggravated criminal damage – a case that was eventually dropped by the police, who boasted nevertheless of having launched a ‘dramatic, painstaking, dawn-till-dusk surveillance operation against racist graffiti’ –which netted one 78 year-old man whose crime was to believe that Britain should be independent of Europe to uphold the liberties for which it had fought .
In Britain last year, a law banning incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation was amended in the House of Lords to include a ‘free speech’ clause, exempting from prosecution general discussion or criticism of homosexuality — a move which campaigners hailed as providing protection for comedians (again!) and those opposed to same-sex unions. However, another bill (the Coroners and Justice Bill) has now overturned this legal protection for free speech; as a result, the crime of inciting homophobic hatred could in theory could now target Christians and others expressing a religiously principled opposition to homosexual practices, for which they would face a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.
All these are examples of my point that, far from expanding liberty ‘human rights law’ diminishes it. It has become a tool to enforce the power of minorities against the majority and enforce a narrative of unchallengeable virtue — even if this is actually a narrative of lies — by shutting contrary views out of public discourse altogether. By a ‘narrative of unchallengeable virtue’, I mean attitudes which are considered to be expressions of some absolute truth which brook no dissent whatever and are impervious to any counter-argument, mediating context or factual evidence because they are held to embody a kind of secular version of metaphysical belief.
One of the most conspicuous examples of this is Israel, the target of a systematic campaign of demonisation and delegitimisation based on lies which are regarded as uncontestable truths. This particular ‘narrative of unchallengeable virtue’ has led to an eruption in Britain and Europe of prejudice, bigotry, bullying and physical attack against Israel and the Jewish people. And it has also created the Orwellian situation where blood libels which incite hatred, peddling the calumny of a cosmic conspiracy by Jews who are deemed to have hijacked public policy and control the world, are now considered perfectly acceptable in mainstream debate; but any protest by Jews at this true hate-speech is deemed to be proof positive of the sinister Jewish power to control public debate, thus creating an argument it is impossible to refute.
But then Jews can never be the victims of one of those fashionable ‘phobias’ because Jews fall foul of the prevailing Marxist definition of prejudice, which holds that only those with power can be guilty of prejudice and can never be its victims. Since Jews are seen as controlling western capitalism, they are never to be seen as victims – despite, ironically, thus being conspicuous victims of the bigotry of that very observation. But Muslims are always powerless because they are of the third world, not the capitalist west; and so they can claim to be victims of ‘Islamophobia’.
Thus lies are given precedence over truth — because I suggest that truth can never constitute prejudice. Real prejudice inescapably involves lies or distorted thinking. Although some people are indeed truly prejudiced against Muslims – just as some people are prejudiced against any people or creed – ‘Islamophobia’ is a myth. A phobia is not a type of hatred but a type of fear; and fear of Islam is not a prejudice but a reasonable reaction to the violence and assault on western freedoms being carried out in its name.
Yes of course many Muslims reject this interpretation of their religion; but the fact is that holy war against the free world is being perpetrated in the name of Islam, sanctioned by the highest religious authorities in Islam and in accordance with its theology and history. It is as absurd to say anxiety about this is a ‘phobia’ as it would have been to say resistance against Nazism was a phobia towards Germans. There are, after all, Muslims who bravely speak up against Islamic extremism; are they too to be deemed ‘Islamophobic’? That’s how absurd this is. Yet while ‘Islamophobia’ is being used to shut down legitimate and indeed essential debate about Islam and what is being done in its name, no such attempt is being made to stop the gross defamation of Judaism rampant in the Arab and Muslim world which is fuelling the jihad and hatred of the west.
So where should a liberal society draw the line when it comes to the giving of offence? My own view is that giving offence should never be criminalised. Take Holocaust denial, which is a form of antisemitism. In Britain, this is not a crime and I do not think it should be one. After all, if antisemitism were to be criminalised much of English literature would have to be censored.
But the problem is that such prejudice can easily shade into incitement; and the difficulty is over where that line should be drawn. For example Hizb ut Tahrir, which works towards the overthrow of the west and the restoration of the Caliphate but whose activists in Britain are not associated with violence, is recruiting thousands of impressionable young British Muslims to the cause of overthrowing the British state and inspiring hatred towards their fellow Britons, along with Americans and Jews. Should it be allowed to do so?
I suggest that context makes a difference. For example, Holocaust denial should not be a crime in the UK because there it is unlikely to lead to much harm. But in countries like Austria or Germany where Nazism remains a serious potential threat, those sentiments can become an active risk to the security of the state. So criminalising Holocaust denial there is much more understandable.
Similar considerations should surely apply to Muslim extremism, which does not take place in a vacuum. In Britain and Europe, radical Islamist sentiments are being used to recruit terrorists and radicalise young Muslims against their own country and fellow citizens. Those sentiments are therefore an active danger to the security of citizens and the state.
In other words, freedom of expression is a core principle of our western liberal democracy — but it is not the only principle and not the supreme principle. It has to be balanced against other principles, such as the preservation of life and liberty.
In some quarters, any diminution of free speech is said to undermine our liberal values. But the paradox of liberalism is that it can only defend itself against attack if it sometimes uses robust and even illiberal measures. If we take the view that any such measures are out of the question because freedom cannot ever be constrained without liberalism being destroyed, the consequences of such doctrinal preciousness may well be that liberalism simply disappears up its own backside.
Unless we understand not just the values we need to uphold but also the vulnerability of our own culture and the internal contradictions within post-Enlightenment liberalism, we will not be able to defend it against the onslaught being waged against it. Which is why organisations like the Free Press Society and gatherings like this of people like yourselves are so important.
Folkekirken: “Det kommer ikke til at ske i Danmark”. Javel, ja.
The Central Mosque of Brent was previously a church built around the 18th century but it is now used exclusively for Muslim ceremonies.
The Forest Gate Church, now a mosque, was built by Henry Wright in 1886 and was a Christian church for over 120 years.
St Mark’s Cathedral in Peckham is now called the New Peckham Mosque.
The Brick Lane Church is more than 250 years old, being built in 1743 as a French Protestant Church. By 1819 it had became a Methodist Chapel and in 1898 it was converted into the Spitalfields Great Synagogue. It now serves the local community as a mosque.
The Wembley Central Mosque in Middlesex near west London is yet another church which has been converted into a mosque.
The Glodwick Baptist Church in Oldham was opened in 1927, but is now the Glodwick Jamia Mosque, Dar-Ul-Aloom Nasqshbandia and Muslim “Community Welfare Centre.”
The Green Lane Mosque is based in Birmingham and is one of the biggest and well known mosques in the United Kingdom. It was first used as a church in 1890. Via Des églises converties en mosquées en Angleterre, videos fra et udvalg af kirkerne.
Selektive svenske markedskræfter
Sverigedemokraterna (SD) får inte sända reklam i TV 4. Det meddelar kanalen redan innan partiet har hunnit söka reklamplats. Kanalen har bestämt att bara riksdagspartierna får köpa partireklam inför EU-valet den 7 juni och Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna och Folkpartiet har tackat ja till erbjudandet. TV 4 säger nej till SD-reklam
Den kommercielle trashkanal, TV 4 slægter svensk public service på. Som bekendt har også den som politik, at kun siddende riksdagspartiet kommer i TV inden riksdagsvalg. Det gælder om at gøre systemet så uflytteligt og selvpræserverende som muligt, og det lykkes udmærket. Svenske medier lever i registreret partnerskab med magten.
The people in question are Tamil Canadians. The banners they have long waved are the colours of the Tamil Tigers, a terrorist group banned in Canada whose goals (if not methods) are supported by most of Canada’s 200,000-strong Tamil community. They want Canada to intervene in the bloody civil war that may now be in its final stages, as the Sri Lankan government bears down on the Tigers’ last stronghold. Is this our fight? I’d say no. But Tamil Canadians see it differently. . ….There’s another question: How will Canada evolve when so many people have multiple allegiances, to homeland and to host land? Can you belong to more than one nation?
“I think it’s fair to say that she’s a singular and particular courageous voice in Britain. She is perhaps the best known journalist to the majority of people. Her voice is singular and unique….
She was “Young journalist of the Year 1976, and she was the winner of the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 1996, the most prestigeous prize for journalism in Britain. Perhaps it’s her formidable work that means her critics, when they are attacking her, are often reduced to personal abuse, as opposed to actually answering the questions she poses in her work. In the case of one particular interview that Melanie did in 2003 in the Guardian, that she used to work for, the interviewer said with a certain amount of wishful thinking on his part, that she was “tiring of the battle”, as he put it. Well, he hadn’t seen anything yet, because in 2006 Melanie produced Londonistan, her most important work yet”.
Et endnu hypotetisk scenarium med store konsekvenser for verden: Hvis/når Pakistan kollapser i en række Taliban-lignende ministater styret af sharia, er ét af de helt store spørgsmål hvad der så sker med landets ca. 100 atombomber. De umiddelbare perspektiver er oplagte, og skræmmende, men et afledt spørgsmål man kun kan gisne om på nuværende tidspunkt vil være, hvad de vestlige Gutmenschen og socialister vil sige, hvis USA som her antydet ‘går ind’ og sikrer kontrollen med bomberne. Vil det blive en gentagelse af selvsvinget over den ‘ulovlige angrebskrig’ mod Irak? Vil sortklædte autonome gadekorps foranstalte uroligheder fordi ‘Pakistan har lige så meget ret til atomvåben som USA’? Skal der virkelig et atomangreb mod en europæisk by til før gammelt tankegods om at forsvare os selv og påføre fjenden størst mulige tab bliver gangbart igen? Via Jihad Watch (LFPC):
[…] The prospect of turmoil in Pakistan sends shivers up the spines of those U.S. officials charged with keeping tabs on foreign nuclear weapons. Pakistan is thought to possess about 100 – the U.S. isn’t sure of the total, and may not know where all of them are. Still, if Pakistan collapses, the U.S. military is primed to enter the country and secure as many of those weapons as it can, according to U.S. officials.[…] Does Pakistan’s Taliban Surge Raise a Nuclear Threat?
Den gensidige afhængighed
På Rosengård finns 2 fritidsgårdar, 1 friluftsbad, 1 vattenlekplats, 1 spontanidrottsplats, 2 sporthallar, 1 ishall, 1 vanlig idrottsplats med 1 gräsplan för 11-mannafotboll, 1 grusplan för 11-mannafotboll, en grusplan för 7-mannafotboll och skolfriidrottsytor i norra delen av Rosengård, och ytterligare 1 med 2 gräs- och en konstgräsplan för 11-mannafotboll, 1 tävlingsarena för friidrott, 1 basketplan, 1 sandplan för fotboll och 2 tennisbanor med asfalt. 9 källarmoskeer samt europas största församling i mokseén Islamic Center. Läxhjälp av studenter från Malmö högskola alla dagar i veckan. Är det det detta Alliansen skall rusta upp för 20 miljarder med sannolikt anlitade polacker. De 20 miljarderna tänker de slussa från barn, gamla och sjuka.Stenkastningen kommer INTE att upphöra. Tvärtom. – Metoden har ju vistat sig ytterst lönsam.. MB
Hvis der er noget der passer som hånd i handske, er det svenske pædagoger og politikere og indvandrere i Rosengård, der tér sig som psykotiske 12 årige i verdens flotteste ghetto. For femte nat i træk har pædagogernes uvorne unger skabt sig tosset, og for 127 gang vil pædagogerne “vidta åtgärder” (cirka lig med “tiltag”, standard lingo når man gerne vil lyde af noget, uden at blive konkret.), altså sende flere penge og pædagoger. Det ikke bare ikke hjælper, det gør det være og være og værre. Og meget dyrt. Det er ikke tragisk, det er komplet latterligt at se to parter, der supplerer hinanden så godt, fordi de aldrig nogensinde kommer til at tale samme sprog. Nya bränder på Rosengård i natt, Jag kommer aldrig att åka tillbaka till Rosengård.
Storbritanniens åbenbart uendelige ressourcer til befolkningskontrol
Historien her skulle vist være tænkt som pikant underholdning, men læser man den i sammenhæng med andre historier fra dette land om drakonisk overvågning og sindelagskontrol bliver morskaben så som så. Hvad der burde være en banal sag om husspektakler af den mere uskyldige slags bliver til noget med anholdelser, “anti-social behaviour”, tilhold, trussel om fem års indespærring og, I kid you not, en vaskeægte “environmental Health Officer”. Men briterne finder sig jo pænt i regimentet, så hvad skal man sige? (LFPC)
A woman who was given an Asbo for engaging in noisy lovemaking with her husband has breached it after just five days. Sunderland magistrates issued Caroline Cartwright with a four-year order preventing her from “making excessive noise” last Thursday.
But she has been arrested by police officers after reports she was flouting the ban with husband of 24 years, Steve. Now she could find herself jailed for up to five years when she appears at Houghton Magistrates on Monday.
Last Thursday, Cartwright, 48, of Washington, Tyne and Wear, was convicted for five breaches of a noise abatement notice and fined a total of £515. Magistrates considered whether or not an anti-social behaviour order was necessary to restrict her behaviour.
An environmental Health Officer told the court Sunderland Council had received 250 complaints on its logging system and recordings made from a neighbour’s house – through a soundproofed wall – were played in open court. […] Women arrested for breaching ‘noisy lovemaking’ Asbo
Far-Right Crimes Up Sharply in Germany
Interessante kontraster mellem denne historie, og historien fra Holland nedenunder. Hvad skal man konkludere af denne stigning? Man kunne jo alternativt lave en anden modstilling end mellem højre/venstre eller tyskere kontra ‘udlændinge’ – hvordan ser billedet ud hvis man kigger på kriminalitet, herunder vold, begået af politiske og religiøse ekstremister under ét (oftest forenet ved antisemitisme), kontra kriminalitet begået af islamkritikere i almindelighed? Artiklens fokus kan desværre risikere at blive udlagt som en begmand for ‘sådan nogle som os’. Begge historier via Gates of Vienna (LFPC):
Political crime is on the rise in Germany, and far-right crimes in particular rose 16 percent in 2008, according to new government figures. Part of the increase is a result of new statistical standards, but the numbers on the right include two murders. […]
Far-right crimes accounted for two thirds of all “politically motivated” crimes last year, which reached 31,801 — an increase of 11.4 percent and the highest level since 2001. […]
But the rise was also driven by a growing far-right youth scene whose members dress like left-wing anarchists, in black-hooded jackets. “They are attracting young people to a greater extent than the conventional far-right scene has been able to so far,” Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said in a statement. Left-wing politically motivated crimes rose 14.6 percent to 6,724. Far-Right Crimes Up Sharply in Germany
Hollands efterretningstjeneste: “Extreme Left more Dangerous than Extreme Right”
Som altid skal de officielle vurderinger af ‘moderat’ og ‘ekstrem’ islam vægtes ud fra et udgangspunkt hvor det er vores langsigtede interessers overlevelse der er kriteriet. ‘Moderat’ er ikke bare et spørgsmål om de benyttede metoder og om fravær af erklærede antidemokratiske mål, eller en moderat placering på en islamisk skala. Ægte moderat vil betyde, at selv ved stigende muslimsk befolkningsandel vil de vantro ikke opleve forringelser af levevilkårene. At “the resistance within the Turkish community to radical Islamic ideologies in general remains great” er et pauvert grundlag at basere en fremtid på. I Tyrkiet selv, der i årtier har været regeret af streng kvasi-sekulær kemalisme som modvægt til islam, er den ikke-muslimske befolkningsandel faldet til omkring 1%. Vil selv de allermest moderate hollandskboende muslimer være en garant mod en lignende udvikling? Jeg er ikke i tvivl om at dette spørgsmål ikke er blevet stillet, så meget desto mere fordi der ikke findes nogle beroligende eksempler at holde op (LFPC).
THE HAGUE, 23/04/09 – The AIVD secret service is concerned about far left and Islamic extremism. Conversely, there is scarcely any threat from the extreme right, according to the AIVD annual report on 2008.
The AIVD warns that radical Muslims often wear a mask. The service “has observed in the past year that the well-known Salafist centres (…) express themselves more moderately in public than in closed circles. Outwardly, they try to create the impression of fostering integration of Muslims into Dutch society, while behind closed doors, polarising statements are made that could have a negative effect on society in the longer term.”
Fra fakkeltogsbrigadens desperate skrig af afmagt, iklædt nedslidt hippieretorik –
[…] “Vi tager gaden tilbage med kaffe, gøgl, musik & kærlighed torsdag kl. 17 på hjørnet af Blågårds gade / Bagge sens gade. Send gerne videre.”
Sådan lyder en sms, der netop nu bli ver sendt rundt. Det skriver pol.dk. Planen er, at beboerne hver gang, der har været skyderi vil møde op på stedet kl. 17 dagen efter.
– til en af de meget, meget få klartseende og klar-i-mælet politikere, Søren Pind:
[…] Det er naturligvis fint, at mange så går ud og siger, at nu tager vi gaderne tilbage. Sagen er bare den, at gaderne ikke bliver taget tilbage. I mange år har den sociale og kulturelle udvikling gjort det acceptabelt, at unge mennesker på Nørrebro kunne te sig som de ville, og dermed også i stigende grad erobrede gaden. Det skete med graffiti. Det skete med stenkast. Det skete senest med visitationer. Det eskalerede konstant og hele tiden, simpelthen fordi man lukkede øjnene for udviklingen. […] Søren Pind: TAGER vi gaderne tilbage?
Så har man sådan cirka beskrevet yderpolerne i det danske spektrum. De første sælger formentlig ikke mange billetter uden for deres eget reservat, og den sidste har lang vej før han får lov til at blive bedømt på det faktuelle og på hans argumenter, og ikke bare blive præsenteret som en farlig mand med rabiate synspunkter (LFPC).
Stigmatisering
Mange mener, at hovedårsagen til de voldsomme integrationsproblemer skyldes “stigmatisering”. Stigmatiseringsargumentet bygger på en lommepsykologisk omgang vrøvl om, at tryk avler modtryk, og at indvandreres anti-sociale adfærd er en naturlig (og dermed retfærdig?) reaktion på ubegrundet kritik fra omgivelserne. Som autoriseret psykolog vil jeg her komme med en faglig indvending: Menneskers adfærd og personlige valg styres langt mere af deres opdragelse, kultur og religion end af, hvad folk og fæ skriver om dem i aviserne.At forklare ting som stigende kriminalitet, islamisk fundamentalisme og arbejdsløshed med stigmatisering alene afslører således en katastrofal mangel på menneskekundskab og humanisme, fordi man derved undlader at kigge på hele mennesket, inklusiv dets baggrund, opvækst og frie vilje. Det er en katastrofe for debatten, at medier i så lang tid har taget denne udokumenterede påstand for god vare. Nicolai Sennels psykolog, Medierne har været mere end almindeligt naive, JP 17.04
Og afværgereaktionerne kører lige efter drejebogen
‘Appel til en kollektiv besindelse der aldrig kommer’ kalder jeg dette velkendte blindgydeargument: Ytringsfriheden skal ikke bruges til at håne andres tro, eller som her, medierne bærer en del af ansvaret for urolighederne på Nørrebro ved deres ordvalg. Så længe ordet er frit i vores samfund vil der komme disse uønskede ytringer. Appeller hjælper ikke, dette er udelukkende et spørgsmål om magt. Den rituelle hændervriden kan derfor kun tjene til ansvarsforflygtelse og rygdækning hvis det går endnu mere galt.
[…] Siris Hartkorn, der læser Freds- og Konfliktvidenskab på Lund Universitet, har sammen med en medstuderende lavet en undersøgelse af de skrevne mediers nyhedsdækning af bande- og rockerkonflikten fra august 2008, hvor konflikten for alvor brød ud – og frem til januar i år. […]
Undersøgelsen viser, at der blev brugt etniske begreber i 73 procent af artiklerne. Det mener, Siris Hartkorn er et problem, der har gjort, at bandekonflikten ikke længere kun er en konflikt i den kriminelle underverden, men en konflikt som de danske medier og politikere også har været med til at skabe.
Siri Hartkort fortæller, at mediernes og politikernes fokusering på etnicitet er med til at piske en stemning op om indvandrerbander og rockere, dem og os. […]
[…] Formand for Det Kriminalpræventive Råd Eva Smith har blandt andet været ude og sige, at politikernes sprogbrug omkring indvandrere i denne her konflikt er med til at gøre bandekrigen værre. […] Sprogbrug forværrer bandekonflikten
Og en Nagieb Khaja, en ven af indehaveren af den skudsikre vest, bedyrer på TV2 – som det også hører sig til på den velkendte arabiske tæppehandlermaner der er blevet et fast indslag hver gang nogen i dette miljø roder sig ud i noget – at vennen skam er et aldeles fortræffeligt menneske der aldrig, aldrig ville begå noget kriminelt (LFPC):
“Han er en af de sødeste og rareste mennesker jeg kender. Han er en person som ikke kunne gøre en flue fortræd. Altså, han er ikke involveret i noget kriminelt – han har aldrig ageret voldeligt på nogen måder.”
Bruce Bawer: Fortuyns arvinger?
(Bruce Bawer i midten)
These two factors—immigration and the economy—are intimately connected. For while some immigrant groups in Europe, such as Hindus and East Asians, enjoy relatively low unemployment rates and healthy incomes, the largest immigrant group, Muslims, has become such a burden that governments have made extensive cutbacks in public services in order to keep up with welfare payments—closing clinics and emergency rooms, reducing staff in hospitals, cutting police and military spending, eliminating course offerings at public universities, and so on. In 2002, economist Lars Jansson estimated that immigration cost Swedish taxpayers about $27 billion annually and that fully 74% of immigrant-group members in Sweden lived off the taxpayers. And in 2006, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise warned that Norway’s petroleum fund—which contains the massive profits from North Sea oil that have made the nation rich—could wind up drained to cover outlays to immigrants. (This in a country whose roads, as a report last year indicated, are in worse shape than Albania’s.)
The past few decades in Europe have made three things crystal-clear. First, social-democratic welfare systems work best, to the extent they do work, in ethnically and culturally homogeneous (and preferably small) nations whose citizens, viewing one another as members of an extended family, are loath to exploit government provisions for the needy. Second, the best way to destroy such welfare systems is to take in large numbers of immigrants from poor, oppressive and corruption-ridden societies, whose rule of the road is to grab everything you can get your hands on. And third, the system will be wiped out even faster if many of those immigrants are fundamentalist Muslims who view bankrupting the West as a contribution to jihad. Add to all this the growing power of an unelected European Union bureaucracy that has encouraged Muslim immigration and taken steps to punish criticism of it—criminalizing “incitement of racism, xenophobia or hatred against a racial, ethnic or religious group” in 2007, for example—and you can start to understand why Western Europeans who prize their freedoms are resisting the so-called leadership of their see-no-evil elites. […]
The November 2001 general election in Denmark is the most decisive—and successful—rejection so far of a Western European left-wing establishment. Alarmed by a widely publicized study showing that their country would have a Muslim majority within 60 years if immigration rates didn’t change, Danish voters sent the Social Democrats down to defeat for the first time since 1924. In Sweden, says Mr. Friedman, Mr. Reinfeldt has pursued “a variant of politics as usual” on immigration and integration. Lars Hedegaard, president of the International Free Press Society, insists that Swedish efforts to encourage employment “will undoubtedly prove ineffective over the long haul” because “the fundamental problem is demographics. Sweden remains Europe’s main importer of Muslim immigrants who are unwilling to assimilate and whose imams order them to detest Swedish culture. So long as the current government is unwilling to tackle this basic problem, everything else will be for naught.”…….Who will win the war for the soul of Western Europe? The Islamofascists and their multiculturalist appeasers, many of whom seem to believe that their job is not to defend democracy but to help make the transition to Shariah as smooth as possible? The nativist cryptofascists? Or Pim Fortuyn’s freedom-loving heirs? Wall Street Journal
Bawer er de facto nordmand. Document kommenterer artiklen. I Sverige er selv Dagens Nyheter begyndt at blive bekymret, nu hvor konjunkturerne virker som fremkaldervæske på det, der er sket: ”Segregationen börjar gå mot en farlig utveckling”. Man skal nok være en medskyldig samfundsingeniør, som DN er, for stadig at foregive at Sveriges tilvandrede problemer nogensinde kan løses. Den smule håb jeg havde for ti år siden, er fuldstændigt forsvundet nu: fremtidens Sverige er krig, det har været uafvendeligt antagelig fra midten af halvfemserne. En dag – om 20-30 år – når det også har stået i Politiken, må alle gerne sige det. Måske vil det gå, som med det seneste, svenske politiske mord, jeg vidste det ville ske, blot ikke at det ville ske så hurtigt. Man vil bladre tilbage hertil og sige: “der var måske noget om det Snaphanen skrev”, men kun gode mennesker kan sige sandheden, så derfor vil dette stadig være løgn og ondsindet, stuesnavset digt. Også til den tid. I et demokrati af overvejende glade amatører, er folk der vil forebyge større ulykker, pr. definiton onde. Enoch Powel er eksemplet par excellence.
»We are led by a bunch of traitors filled with loathing for their nation«
On almost every street there were groups of hardened youths, many wearing headscarves. A sullen look was in their eyes, an aggressive tone in their Arabic voices. But this intimidating scene was not from downtown Algiers. It could be found just a few miles from the white cliffs of the Kent coast, in the historic French port of Calais, where thousands of immigrants gather with the aim of crossing the Channel. Just before Easter, my wife and I drove through the out-skirts of Calais. The atmosphere of fear was almost palpable, as if the city were under siege. OUR WELFARE STATE IS TO BLAME FOR ILLEGAL MIGRATION
Lavtakseret angreb på staten
Bombeattentatet på anklager i Trollhättan Barbro Jönsson, udløste idag to gange 3.5 år fængsel til Ahad Abadi og Askan Moayed Abedi. Jönsson har måttet gå under jorden og arbejder nu et andet sted. Svenske MMS medier undlader at gå i detaljer. Den svenske retsstat går ikke til yderligheder for at forsvare sin ukrænkelighed. Evigt ejes kun det tabte. Der kan være to forklaringer: sociopati og politisk vold, er stadig kun en behandlingskrævende sygdom i Sverige. Og – selv med de nybyggede fængsler, er kapaciteten spændt til bristepunktet. Derfor.
Idag klockan 14.00 kom domen för de två åtalade männen som var misstänkta för bombdådet mot åklagaren i Trollhättan och tingsrätten i Vänersborg dömde männen till 3,5 års fängelse vardera.
Åklagaren i målet hade yrkat på minst åtta års fängelse för de två åtalade männen. Främst med tanke på att brottet allmänfarlig ödeläggelse har ett högsta straff på så mycket som åtta år. Åklagarens hypotes har varit att bombdådet som sådant var speciellt riktat mot åklagare Barbro Jönsson och därmed skulle straffet ligga i toppen av straffskalan. Sven-Erik Alhem anser att fängelsestraffen är “löjligt låga” för de två män som utförde sprängattentatet mot Barbro Jönsson.Detta är alldeles för billigt för ett av de värsta övergreppen mot rättssystemet som vi känner till.
“61 percent of the Koran talks ills of unbelievers or calls for their violent conquest and subjugation,-
– but only 2.6 percent of it talks about the overall good of humanity”
Jeg vil gætte på at det ikke-essentialistiske akademiske parnas kun vil have foragt til overs for konklusioner baseret på statistisk analyse af Koranen og andre muslimske tekster – ‘sådan kan man slet ikke stille det op’. Men lægfolk der kan konstatere at islam er et mere og mere påtrængende element i de daglige nyheder må, og vil, alligevel tænke deres om de skærende kontraster der udtrykkes i citatet i overskriften. Hvad betyder mest for min egen fremtid – at ‘islam er mange ting’ og at ‘der foregår en løbende dialog’, som mantraet lyder hos Jørgen Bæk Simonsen og epigoner, eller at de nøgne tal fortæller en helt anden historie? Jeg har valgt side, og jeg deponerer ikke min tiltro til fremtiden hos Bæk Simonsen eller Kate Østergaard m. fl.
Perspektivet som Muthuswamy anlægger her passer som fod i hose med mit lægmands-mantra: At man ikke skal kigge på individuelle kvaliteter hos (her-og-nu) velmenende og sympatiske muslimer; dét der bestemmer fremtiden bliver systemet – helt konkret vil disse sympatiske individer i takt med større islamisk islæt i samfundet også opleve et pres for at rette ind efter ‘menneskesynet’ i islam, og dette menneskesyn er os særdeles aggressivt og fjendtligt stemt (LFPC).
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Moorthy Muthuswamy, an expert on terrorism in India. He grew up in India, where he had firsthand experience with political Islam and jihad. He moved to America in 1984 to pursue graduate studies. In 1992, he received a doctorate in nuclear physics from Stony Brook University, New York. Since 1999 he has extensively published ideas on neutralizing political Islam’s terror war as it is imposed on unbelievers. His new book is Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War. […]
At tænke sig – 40-61% af de cyklende, hashrygende, nøgenbadende, promiskuøse hollændere er ekstremister, men endnu er der håb for Holland. Intelligentsiaen støtter ham ikke. Samme gamle historie.
Some 40% of the Dutch population agree with many of anti-Islam MP Geert Wilder’s statements, according to research by TNS Nipo for magazine Vrij Nederland. According to opinion polls, Wilders would take about 18% of the vote if there was an election tomorrow. But this research shows support for his ideas is much wider, Vrij Nederland says. Some 42% of those polled agreed with the statement that Wilders says ‘what ordinary people believe and want’. Some 35% do not think Wilders goes too far in his comments about Islam and Muslims and 38% agree with Wilders’ statement that Muslims have come to the Netherlands ‘to take things over’. A large majority – 61% – agree with Wilders’ call for ‘street terrorists’ to be deported. Wilders used the phrase to describe gangs of youths, mainly of Moroccan origin.
Although support for Wilders among people with a university education has increased slightly, his main support is still found among ‘the ordinary man who does not feel that the established parties take him seriously. Wilders’ ideas enjoy 40% support
Mere om defensiv jihad og Jakob Scharf
Jeg citerede her under PETs leder Jakob Scharf for disse ord:
Det er nemlig terrororganisationens argument, at islam er under angreb, og at det derfor er legitimt for muslimer at gøre brug af terror, sagde Jakob Scharf. JP
Scharfs logik – som altså er herskende paradigme hos vigtige allierede som USA og Storbritannien, og som han derfor ikke kan distancere sig fra – er at vi vantro kan trække tæppet væk under jihadisterne hvis vi ikke anerkender dem som rigtige muslimer. Ud over den hjerteskærende naivitet i denne antagelse, som med garanti vil få forfærdelige omkostninger for Vesten indtil næste paradigmeskift forhåbentlig indtræffer, er det også som udgangspunkt en uacceptabel strategi som vil binde os på hånd og mund i stedet for at vi forholder os til de islamiske tekster og tolkninger som Al Qaeda m. fl. henviser til. Man kan ikke løse et problem man ikke anerkender eksisterer, og terroristernes henvisninger til begrebet defensiv jihad er objektivt dokumentérbare forhold. At imamerne spiller det yderst effektive offerkort og prøver at blokere for en åben debat om terroristers legitimering i traditionel islam bør få alvorlige konsekvenser for deres samarbejde med danske myndigheder.
Offensiv jihad med henblik på at erobre verdensherredømmet er fastslået dogmatik i de fire store sunni-lovskoler. Den skal imidlertid erklæres af kaliffen, så i fraværet af et kalifat gør terroristerne i stedet dét at de henviser til den defensive jihad. Den kræver ikke nogen kalif til at påbegyndes, men er tværtimod “obligatorisk for alle” muslimer (‘Umdat al-Salik, [The Reliance of the Traveller] o9.3), når islam kan hævdes at være under angreb – og dette er et begreb med meget vide definitioner. Osama bin Ladens læremester Abdullah Azzam er citeret for dette vedrørende defensiv jihad:
“And righteous ancestors, and followers,… and scholars, and commentators of the Koran are unanimous in the opinion that in this case Jihad becomes mandatory for the residents of the country that was attacked by Kafirs and for its closest neighbors. So, son should come out without permission from his father, a wife without permission from her husband, and debtor without permission from his creditor. If there are not enough of these people, i.e. residents and neighbors, or if they show negligence and carelessness or taking no actions to repulse the enemy, then this obligation extends to all Muslims.”
Hvem ved deres fulde fem kan erklære sig enig med Jakob Scharf i at vejen frem er at benægte denne legitimerings traditionelle islamiske rødder? (LFPC)
Espersen fik muslimer til at udvandre fra PET-konference
’Verdens problem er islam’. Denne udmelding var for meget for imamer. Flere muslimske deltagere er udvandret fra en konference, som Politiets Efterretningstjeneste, PET, holde om “Terrorisme og kommunikation” i Eigtveds Pakhus ved Udenrigsministeriet i København. De muslimske deltagere – heriblandt en imam – valgte at udvandre, da Søren Espersens fra Dansk Folkeparti rejste sig op at sagde, at verdens problem er islam. Søren Espersens udtalelse kom, efter at efterretningschef Jakob Scharf ved konferencens start havde slået fast, at det var PET’s vurdering, at ved at sætte lighedstegn mellem islam og terrorisme, så gik man netop Al-Qaida ærinde.. Metro
Det er nemlig terrororganisationens argument, at islam er under angreb, og at det derfor er legitimt for muslimer at gøre brug af terror, sagde Jakob Scharf. JP
Memo til Jakob Scharf: Virkeligheden forsvinder ikke ved at man benægter den. Den forsvinder heller ikke ved at udskamme dem der gør opmærksom på den. Dette “terrororganisationens argument” handler om defensiv jihad, og dette er ikke en doktrin som Al Qaeda har opfundet. Dette er solid mainstream-islam med rødder helt tilbage til Muhammed:
The rationalization of violence by invoking the hostility of unbelievers is also warranted by Muhammad: because of the rejection of him by his tribesmen the Quraysh, Allah “gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them [Muslims] and treated them badly.” A review of Spencer’s The Truth About Muhammad by Bruce Thornton
Dette paradigme er desværre globalt, og PET er i denne forbindelse bare en flue på væggen. Vi kan ikke nedbryde det, det må vente til virkeligheden bliver så ubehagelig at man ikke længere kan lukke øjnene for den. Men gøre opmærksom på den landsskadelige blindhed, det skal vi gøre (LFPC). (Talerlisten, hvor der ikke forekommer imamer.)
Khalid Alsubeihis frie debat
»Jeg mener, ikke det ville gå ud over den frie debat at forbyde angreb på religion. Man kan sagtens have en fri og saglig debat og samtidig forbyde hån,« JP.DK
“Britain appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state”
Jeg ved ikke hvad der er det vanskeligste at forstå, hvordan Storbritannien har bragt sig selv ud i denne misère, eller hvorfor vanviddet bare fortsætter og fortsætter, uden nogen nævneværdig opposition fra befolkningen. Hvor er de organiserede trodskampagner, den civile ulydighed, bevidst afprøvning af lovgivningens grænser, subversive løbesedler og plakater, masseprotester, underskriftindsamlinger – det skulle da ikke være svært at finde på noget. Hvor er de kändiser der bruger deres berømthed på at revse konformiteten og tankeregimentet, hvor er for den sags skyld alle de uartikulerede og mindre heldige tilkendegivelser? Jo, jo, jeg ved godt man kan finde eksempler, Rowan Atkinson f. eks., og kommentarerne på avisernes hjemmesider afspejler også vrede og frustration, men vi er tilsyneladende uendeligt langt fra nogen form for bevægelse. Hvor er den brite der stiller sig op som hovedpersonen i tresserserien The Prisoner og siger “I’m not a number, I’m a free man”? (LFPC)
BRITAIN appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely. There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.
Wiesel er overlevende fra Auschwitz og Nobelprisvinder. Man prøver at forestille sig hvordan det er netop for ham, at blive vrælet “nazi” af, af den iranske delegation af verbalterrorister, der kaster skam over ethvert land der (stadig) deltager i FNs pinefulde elendighed.
Ekstra Bladet taler ud: Derfor forsøgte vi karaktermord på Karen J.
Jeg så forleden en spiseseddel for Ekstra Bladet der skilte sig ud. Emnet har jeg glemt, men det var den første jeg havde set i lang tid der ikke handlede om tv-underholdning, sport, forbrugertips (‘her finder du de billigste fladskærme’) eller personlige skandaler og tragedier. De kulegravende kampagner hører åbenbart en anden tid til, og den slatne sprøjte er i enhver henseende det “kuponblad” de yndede at kalde BT. Artiklen her er det ikke værd at gå nærmere i dybden med. Det drejer sig om shaming af Karen Jespersen, klinisk renset for enhver forholden sig til, endsige falsifikation af, de konkrete fænomener i det danske samfund som hun fører sit “korstog” imod. Og det er jo også det nemmeste for EB-nulliteten: Det ville han heller ikke kunne, falsificere altså. Det er en af de artikler hvor små bidder til illustration af ‘tonen’ er fuldt tilstrækkelige (LFPC):
Klar til ny ballade: Forvandlingskuglen og anti-islam -korsfareren Karen Jespersen som ny integrationsordfører […]
… hendes holdninger til de islamiske minoriteter i i Danmark anses for så rabiate, at de kan trække ‘brødet’ ud af munden på Pia Kjærsgaard, og få Pia K. lidt at lyde som et blidt lam..
Brænder for konfrontation […]
Det skal nok blive underholdende, men måske ikke særligt rart for muslimer i Danmark, hvis udnævnelsen er udtryk for en ny skærpet kritisk holdning fra Løkke Rasmussens nye regering. Har Venstre med udnævnelsen af Karen Jespersen som ny integrationsordfører lagt op til konfrontation i stedet for dialog med det islamiske Danmark
Skulle Lars Løkke have taget skridtet ud og udnævnt Karen Jespersen til integrationsminister, og dermed fået en minister, der med sin adfærd og holdninger allerede har overhalet Pia Kjærsgaard højre om. Karen J. i nyt korstog mod muslimer [Ekstra Bladet 21.4.2009, ikke online]
Ritzau: Tyrkiets vej mod EU næsten en naturlov
I hvert fald er det en proces helt uden indblanding af de europæiske vælgerbefolkninger. Dette er nok det eneste der er værd at bemærke sig ved dette lille stykke candy floss – den helt ureflekterede beskrivelse af Tyrkiets vej mod indlemmelse i EU med et ordvalg der giver mindelser om geologiens kontinentaldrift, noget der bare sker. Eliten og mainstreammedierne er besat af tanken om at få dette kæmpestore, ludfattige land, som Pia Kjærsgaard engang kaldte Tyrkiet, med i EU. Som med islamiseringen af Europa i almindelighed ‘håber’ jeg på skibskatastrofer og pludselig død som det eneste der kan stoppe den ellers uafvendelige proces mod afgrunden. Mere præcist, at Tyrkiet, inden optagelsen bliver et fait accompli, når at synke ned i det morads hvor det hører hjemme, og uden omsvøb vælger “this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, […] a rotten corpse which poisons our lives”, som Kemal Atatürk udtrykte det. Konsekvenspædagogik mens tid er, med andre ord (LFPC).
Optagelsesforhandlingerne mellem EU og Tyrkiet går den rigtige vej.[…]
– Samtalerne viser, at at Tyrkiet rykker tættere og tættere på EU, vurderer Karel Schwarzenberg, udenrigsminister i Tjekkiet, som bestrider EU’s roterende formandskab indtil sommer.
– Vi har en fælles strategi med Tyrkiet, tilføjer finske Olli Rehn, EU’s udvidelseskommisær. […] Tyrkiet nærmer sig EU
Gerne, men nødigt…..
Ett symboliskt tacksamhetsbevis för den hjälp Sverige och inte minst Södertälje gett hjälpbehövande irakier. Nu vill svensk-irakiska föreningen resa ett monument. Gärna i Södertälje.Sverige blev under åren av Saddam Hussein-förtryck och den efterföljande krigiska utvecklingen en fristad för cirka 100 000 irakier. Det är en fin tanke, men det blir märkligt om Södertälje kommun som inte beslutar om landets asyl- och flyktingpolitik ska stå som värd för ett sådant monument. Särskilt när vi sedan 2002 arbetar aktivt för att för att begränsa och stoppa inflödet av asylsökande och flyktingar till Södertälje, säger Anders Lago. Vi i svensk-irakiska föreningen tycker att det finns goda skäl till skapa en symbol för den stora tacksamhet vi känner mot Sverige och inte minst Södertälje. Idén kommer ursprungligen från den irakiske konstnären och mosaik-konstnären Hussein Al-Moussawi. Den svensk-irakiska föreningen, med bland annat en fd svensk ambassadör i Irak som medlem, ger inte upp idén så lätt. Lago säger nej till irakiskt tackmonument
100.000 irakere i Sverige (!) Hvordan forestiller man sig i længden at opretholde støtte til konventioner, der ikke bare sanktionerer folkevandringer, men påbyder underskriverne lydigt at underlægge sig dem ? Vi var inde på Japan forleden: Japan to Immigrants: Thanks, But You Can Go Home Now. Spanien har samme problem. For få år gav de amnesti til hundredetusinder, fordi de behøvede hænder. EU var betænkelig, de lokale humanister begejstrede. Nu få år efter, hvor er arbejdsløsheden 15.5 procent (for under 25-årige 31.8 procent), vil de betale dem for at rejse hjem, men få synes det er en god byttehandel. De fleste irakere i Sverige kunne rejse hjem uden problemer, men det vil aldrig ske.
»Uniformofobi« ®
Väljer man ett uniformsyrke så måste man räkna med att saker kan hända. Och man får inte backa förrän man blir attackerad. Det duger inte att generalisera om var det kan vara farligt. Uniformsyrken medför större risker i jobbet.
En mand døde af et hjerteinfarkt fordi han boede i en uniformofob bydel, ambulancen ikke turde køre ind i ubeskyttet. Rosengård har igen i nat været ramt af slem uniformofobi. Vi har selv lige fundet på ordet, det lyder lidt mere Genéve-agtigt end et “præ-Bellum omnium contra omnes- samfund”, som det desværre nok er en præcisere beskrivelse af situationen. Svenskerne selv siger “risk-zoner”. Zoner, det var noget sovjetterne kaldte Gulag, men den samme tanke ligger bag: en ulykke skal lyde tilforladelig for de brede masser, der jo ikke er for kloge. Enhver med et medansvar har en interesse i at tale sandheden ned. Den egeninteresse kalder de ansvarlighed. Verbal sminke igen og ad infinitum. Spørsmålet er hvor megen sminke, der overhovedet er nødvendig……Jeg ser at Piratpartiet nu er Sveriges fjerde største, giv folket en gratis fil og de glemmer det virkelige livs plager. Jeg er helt enig når Matthias Karlsson skriver: Piratpartiet som exempel på samhällets infantilisering, men journalistikken elsker infantiliteten, så skal de ikke skrive om noget kontroversielt så længe. En ond parodi.
Støjbergs sharia
En normal minister med et minimum af sagkundskab ville nemlig bare konstatere, at bigami er kriminelt og kan koste op til 6 års fængsel. Men nu har vi minister Støjbergs ord for, at visse kriminelle kan undgå strafforfølgning, hvis de bare finder et andet land at bo i.Som de ældste iblandt os måske endnu husker, lagde SF-formand Villy Søvndal grunden til sit partis voldsomme fremgang, da han fornyede den politiske debat med en kraftig opfordring til en bizar organisation af fanatiske, herboende muslimer formuleret således: Rejs ad helvede til! Få troede, at Villy Søvndal med dette primitive populistiske greb ville danne skole, men de tog fejl. Med sin udtalelse i anledning af formodningerne om, at et eller andet antal muslimer dyrker flerkoneri her i landet, røber ligestillingsminister Inger Støjberg, at hun har lært af Søvndal. Dog har hun, som naturligt er, tilført Søvndal-grebet et tør vi sige mere feminint præg, idet hun ikke siger gå ad helvede til, men skratter: »Find et andet land at bo i«. Udtalelsen undrer Groft sagt. En normal minister med et minimum af sagkundskab ville nemlig bare konstatere, at bigami er kriminelt og kan koste op til 6 års fængsel. Men nu har vi minister Støjbergs ord for, at visse kriminelle kan undgå strafforfølgning, hvis de bare finder et andet land at bo i. En lidt kringlet måde at slå til lyd for indførelse af sharia i Danmark på. Eller måske synes Støjberg, at en Stein Bagger også bør kunne undgå strafforfølgning, hvis blot han følger hendes opfordring om at trække teltpælene op? Claes Kastholm
1) Tilvandret bigami har eksisteret i mange, mange år. Min kontakt på et af de steder, der prøver at samle kvinder op, efter at de har fået “the full Muslim treatment” af deres såkaldte mænd, har prøvet at råbe adskillige ministre op om problemet. Men Støjberg faldt altså ned fra månen igår. Og 2) ingen aner omfanget af flerkoneriet. Tror man ligefrem imamerne fører “kirkebog” over deres kriminalitet ? Altså – bigamy is here to stay, og det med tak til generationer af kvindesagskvinder i Folketinget. Deres slå-på-tæven-retorik kan få en bar Støjberg at trutte i af den virkelige verden.
Uenige nationer
Vi var optaget i det civile liv og fik nyheden pr. SMS og troede først at Danmark definitivt forlod Geneve, men så skulle det desværre ikke være. Det bliver ikke den sidste omgang Israel bashing vores embedsmænd lægger ører til i denne omgang. Endnu et skridt nærmere demokratiernes FN? At hykleriet på et sekund kan blive et tveægget sværd, ser man i sidste klip ovenfor, hvor den paliarabiske læge der blev uretmæssigt fængslet og tortureret i Ghadaffis Libyen sammen med fem bulgarske sygeplejersker skaber panik hos ordstyreren. PR-katastrofe for FN,Ahmadinejad speaks at Durban II; EU walks out.
Mon Danmark holder ugen ud? : Tjekkiet vil ikke længere deltage i FNs racismekonference, men i Danmark har vi da heldigvis samfundsvidenskaberne på Syd-Thy´s Undervisitetscenter: FN-møde kan forbedre Danmarks flossede ry, siger forsker. Det er i det hele taget dagen for udstedelse af tomme veksler – det danske Folketing vil også være med: Et fælles Folketing sende et politisk budskab om, at antisemitiske overgreb i Danmark bør stoppes. Det vil formentlig gælde allerede fra den næste krig, Israel bliver påtvunget af sine naboer. Fremragende! Så bliver heilende, gennemfotograferede, let identificerbare arabere på Rådhuspladsen måske ligefrem straffet fremover? Et spagfærdigt gæt er dog, at den næste bølge af jødehad i Danmark, vil være så omfattende at Folketinget kan “sende de buskaber” de vil, de vil ikke betyde noget somhelst for jøden på gaden. Da det nu meget passende er Hitlers fødselsdag, lidt apropos fra Tyskland:
“The idea that an old wheelchair-bound man could have been a brutal SS man is likely to overstretch most people’s imagination.” Henryk Broder, a German author and journalist, said putting a “human wreck” like Mr Demjanjuk in the dock would harm the image of the justice system. ‘Last big Nazi’ trial leaves Germany cold
Norge 11 procent muslimsk i 2060 ?
IDagbladet i dag hevder Steinar Lem at «Oslo snart får et flertall med ikke-vestlig bakgrunn, med stø kurs vil det samme kunne skje med hele landet i løpet av dette århundret». Han mener de fleste ikke-vestlige vil ha muslimsk bakgrunn, og at konsekvensene vil bli dramatiske. Men vi kan likevel resonnere rundt spørsmålet om hvor mange muslimer det er blant innvandrere, fortsetter Brunborg. Han forklarer at i 2008 var det registrert 84.000 medlemmer av muslimske trossamfunn i Brønnøysundregistrene. Dette kan tolkes som en nedre grense for antall muslimer i Norge. Samtidig var det registrert 163.000 innvandrere og norskfødte med innvandrerforeldre med bakgrunn fra muslimske land. Disse tallene utgjorde henholdsvis 18 og 36 prosent av antall innvandrere og deres barn født i Norge. Dersom disse andelene holder seg, vil muslimer i 2060 utgjøre mellom 4 og 11 prosent av folkemengden. Det er langt fra halvparten av folkemengden. Mellom 4 og 11 prosent muslimer i 2060
Der er to aberdabei´s her: “Dersom disse andelene holder seg”, men det gør de jo ikke med den nuværende tilstrømning. Og to: Norske statistik tæller kun 1 og 2 generation. I Sverige regner man idag med 4-500.000 muslimer, det er allerede over 6 % og andelen stiger med mange tusinde hvert år. Bortset fra det, så viser den kristne, irakiske masseindvandring til Sverige, især Södertälje, med al ønskelig tydelighed, at ødelæggelsen af vore lande ikke alene handler om islam. Klankultur i sig selv er i det hele taget svært kompatibel med navnlig nordeuropæiske samfund.
