Tuesday, 31 July 2012

The peaceniks have been at it again. Last night, shortly after prayers began at the "Islamic Centre for Afghan Exiles in Bavaria" in Munich, a mass brawl broke out among the peaceful ones. It appears the cause of the dispute was the fact that the married imam was following Mohammed's example and helping a female member of his flock acquire a more intimate knowledge of Islam. Around 50 of Mohammed's minions went at it with knives and bits of wood. Score card: 5 people stabbed, 1 ear almost completely bitten off.

A hundred-strong contingent of police was deployed to contain the incident. Criminal proceedings have been opened against several people.

In mid-June the Süddeutsche Zeitung published a report about internal ructions at the same mosque, involving threats, insults and beatings. The peace just never stops flowing.

Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung Via: PI

In his Cultural Revolution, Mao probably killed more people than Hitler. But he was a leftie. So it's OK. The local government in Montpellier inaugurates a statue to the Great Mao Tse-tung preceded by a homage read by its Socialist president. French nationalists from the group Ligue du Midi then attempt to disrupt the proceedings, shouting "Mao, Mao, murderer!".

Sources: Ligue du Midi, Le Point

Yet another explanation of why human rights are in the enemy camp.
Do You Have a Human Right to Blaspheme?
By Austin Dacey

Do you have a human right to blaspheme? Ask a philosopher and you may get two different answers. If by ‘human right’ you mean a moral claim that governments everywhere have a duty to recognize, then I think the answer is clearly affirmative. If, however, by ‘human right,’ you mean an entitlement provided by international law, the answer is clearly muddled. While human rights law recognizes rights to expression, conscience, and equality that together should protect blasphemy, it also contains provisions that have been used to justify its criminalization.

Legally, the human rights system is rooted in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted in 1948 by the newly-created United Nations. The standards expressed in the Declaration, or UDHR, guided a series of subsequent international human rights treaties beginning with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR, which came into force in 1976. States have voluntarily agreed to be bound by terms of these treaties and—in most cases—by their enforcement mechanisms as well.

Institutionally, the human rights system is embodied in the Human Rights Council in Geneva; the “treaty bodies,” committees of independent experts charged with monitoring the implementation and enforcement of the treaties; and regional human rights courts, chief among them the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

So, what of sacrilegious expression? The foundational human rights documents do not speak of it explicitly; however, the UDHR sets forth both the individual’s right of freedom of opinion and expression in Article 19 and the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion in Article 18, which includes freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Articles 2 and 7 also provide for equality before the law and protection from discrimination, a value that I will be revisiting throughout this series.

The rights enumerated in the UDHR are not absolute. They do not permit acts aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration (a so-called Abuse Clause) and they are subject to limitations “as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” In other words, the rights of one may not be exercised at the expense of the rights of others or of a democratic society.

If you wanted to make blasphemy illegal under international law, or to leave to nation states the ability to make it illegal, there are a number of approaches you could take within the existing framework. You could appeal to the “limitations” based in public order or respect for the rights of others and argue that outrages against religious feeling can run afoul of these limitations. Or you could argue that the denigration of beliefs can rise to the level of incitement to discrimination (or worse) against the believers themselves.

Both of these approaches have been vigorously pursued in the years since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In interpreting international standards for the European region, The European Court of Human Rights, beginning with the 1994 case of Otto Preminger Institut v. Austria, has ruled that existing bans on blasphemy by European states do not violate the guarantee of freedom of expression because they count as legitimate limitations grounded on respect for the rights of others. In this case, it was a right to respect for “religious feelings” the origin and nature of which the judges felt no need to explain.

The other tradition of blasphemy suppression depends on equating blasphemy with incitement or “hate speech.” It takes legal force from ICCPR Article 20, Paragraph 2, which requires states to prohibit “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” The sweep of this language is broad. It expressly calls on governments to pass legislation criminalizing hate speech. Moreover, it does not restrict hate speech to the advocacy of actual acts of lawlessness. Engendering “hostility” is enough to override free speech protections.

Today, laws against religious hate speech, religious defamation, and religious insult are common outside of the United States, where they contradict the prevailing interpretation of the First Amendment. However, as Johannes Morsink recounts in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent, such limitations on expression were firmly opposed by Eleanor Roosevelt—who chaired the commission that drafted the UDHR—along with the majority of Western European nations.

The Soviet delegation repeatedly attempted to introduce more expansive language ostensibly designed to suppress fascist ideology. But Roosevelt and her allies feared that such language could be used suppress dissent of all kinds, including non-communist understandings of democracy. The Soviet Union, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Belarus, Czechoslovakia, Poland, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia (which had opposed the right to change one’s religion) abstained from the vote adopting the Universal Declaration.

However, when the ICCPR was adopted in 1966 by the expanded membership of the UN General Assembly (there were only 58 member states in 1948), it contained the hotly contested hate speech standard of Article 20(2). Today, all European states ban religious hate speech. Yet, as Roosevelt warned, such a standard is liable to abuse. It was under just such a law that Alexander Aan was sentenced last month in Indonesia. Some observations on the sex life of Muhammad that appeared on Aan’s Facebook page were found to violate the 2008 Information and Electronic Transaction Law by spreading religious hatred. It could be arguing that in doing so, Indonesia was upholding its treaty obligations under human rights law.

Austin Dacey is a representative to the United Nations for the International Humanist and Ethical Union. He is the author of The Future of Blasphemy: Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights and The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life. His writings have appeared in the New York Times, USA Today, and Dissent.
Source: The Revealer

Faced with the seemingly almost infinite appeasement of Islam, it's good to ocassionally find that someone, somewhere, still has a spine. Four Muslims working at a children's summer camp have been suspended for refusing to eat or drink during Ramadan. Even more unusually, the decision was made by officialdom, the camp being run by Gennevilliers (north-west of Paris) town council. And - get ready to be amazed - the town council is run by the Communist Party of France!
They "did not respect, in the course of their stay, the obligations of their work contract, thus raising doubts about the physical safety of the children for whom they were responsible", explains the Gennevilliers town council (Communist Party) in a statement. "This lack of nourishment and hydration might have led these agents to not be in full possession of the means required to ensure the holiday activities unfold properly and in safety, as well as the physical safety of the children for whom they were responsible," according to the town council.

"For this reason the town council of Gennevilliers, which has full responsibility for proper conduct during the holidays, terminated their employment, without financial prejudice," continues the town council which hired these hosts in fixed-term work contracts for a sporting holiday at Port-d'Albret, in les Landes, starting on 5 July.

"Three years ago we had an extremely unfortunate case, a young female host who had refused to eat and had fainted," explained the director of the office of the mayor, Nicole Varet. "The problem is that she was driving a vehicle with children, and she had an accident in which people were seriously injured, in particular a child," she specified.
Source: Le Figaro Via: Salon Beige

This makes perfect sense. From the booming crime figures and accident rates during Ramadan, it's clear that the day-long fast has significant effects on Muslim behaviour and capability. I'm willing to bet that in almost any job where work performance could readily be measured, it would be found that the Muslim metrics drop dramatically during Ramadan. A powerful case could be made for employers banning day-long fasting among all of their employees, but especially, as the article makes clear, in safety-critical positions.

Predictably, the French Islamic Council is now on the case.
For its part the Conseil français du culte musulman (CFCM) [French Islamic Council] envisages a complaint for discrimination. "I condemn the arbitrary and discriminatory decision of the mayor of Gennevilliers with the greatest firmness" writes Abdallah Zekri, president of the Observatoire contre l'islamophobie [Observatory against Islamophobia], which is part of the CFCM. "Religious liberty is a fundamental liberty and we cannot under any circumstances forbid a person from practising their religion. The Observatory reserves the right to file a complaint for discrimination", continues Mr Zekri.

It seems that, technically speaking, the Muslims were suspended rather than sacked outright. They will be paid until the end of their contract term, which was only till the 26 July. Why should they be paid if they're not doing their job properly and are violating the conditions of their work contracts?

Source: BondyBlog

UPDATE: The mayor has now backed down and said he will allow employees to fast after all.

Source: Le Figaro

Monday, 30 July 2012

It seems we haven't been sufficiently respectful of Muslim human rights to earn a pat on the head from Washington.
The United States on Monday accused Egypt, China and European nations of harming religious freedom, citing a rising tide of anti-Semitism, laws banning Muslim veils and attacks on Coptic Christians.

...The report also warned that European nations undergoing major demographic shifts have seen "growing xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim sentiment, and intolerance toward people considered 'the other.'"

It complains of a "rising number of European countries, including Belgium and France, whose laws restricting dress adversely affected Muslims and others."

Ambassador at large for religious freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook, accused some governments of limiting "the right to wear or not to wear religious attire."

"This decision should be a personal choice," she insisted to journalists, presenting the report at the State Department.

And it criticizes a law passed by the Hungarian parliament to regulate registration of religious organisations.

"The law went into effect on January 1, 2012, reducing the number of recognized religious groups from over 300 to fewer than 32," it noted.
Source: AFP
Morisco Games
This is another of those stories that seem almost surreal. In a time of straitened economic circumstances, when local Spanish governments are begging for help from Madrid, and the spectre of sovereign default hovers over Madrid itself, Spanish taxpayers are funding a celebration of Muslim treason.

To fill in some of the historical details, we need to go back to the 16th century. In 1502 the Muslims were told to leave Castile or convert to Christianity. Some left; some pretended to convert. The ones who pretended to convert were called Moriscos. They continued with their old customs, speaking Arabic, dressing in the same way, even practising polygamy. There were strong suspicions about their loyalty to Spain - and with good reason.

Later in the century, when Spain was involved in an epic struggle with the Ottoman empire (which, incidentally, may have been decisive in keeping Europe largely free of Mohammedanism), the Moriscos, in collaboration with the Turks, rose in revolt.

Here is an account (overly sympathetic to the Muslims in my view) of the episode and its background from Roger Crowley's book Empires of the Sea. (Incidentally, if you're interested in learning more about the history of the struggle between Europe and Mohammedanism, I can highly recommend Crowley's books as extremely readable, almost novelistic examples of historical writing.)
The Catholic Church felt it­self un­der at­tack on all sides, nowhere more so than in the land of the Catholic King him­self. The in­fi­del was nev­er far away; he was just across the straits of Gibral­tar, a short sail away; he sur­round­ed Spain; clos­er even, he was with­in its very heart­lands. The Moriscos, the rem­nant Mus­lim pop­ula­tion of south­ern Spain, forcibly con­vert­ed to Chris­tian­ity by im­pe­ri­al de­cree, re­mained un­fin­ished busi­ness; they were some­how inas­sim­il­able. As the shad­ow of the Turk length­ened over the whole sea, fear grew that the Moriscos were still cryp­to-​Mus­lims, a fifth col­umn of Ot­toman holy war in the home­lands. Chris­tian Spain be­came in­creas­ing­ly wary of its home pop­ula­tion. Year af­ter year, tight­en­ing de­crees at­tempt­ed to de­ter­mine the zeal of the sus­pect new Chris­tians. On Jan­uary 1, 1567, Philip is­sued an edict to erase the last cul­tur­al traces of Is­lam in Spain: Ara­bic could no longer be spo­ken, the veil was pro­hib­it­ed, and so were pub­lic baths. It was the last straw for a goad­ed peo­ple, backed in­to a cor­ner by in­tol­er­ance and re­li­gious dog­ma. On Christ­mas night 1567, Morisco moun­taineers from the Alpu­jar­ras scaled the walls of the Al­ham­bra Palace in Grana­da and called for up­ris­ing in the name of Al­lah.

The south­ern moun­tains of Spain crack­led with re­volt. Catholic Spain found it­self sud­den­ly em­broiled in in­ter­nal holy war with Is­lam, and its best troops were hun­dreds of miles away in the Nether­lands. The up­ris­ing pro­ject­ed all the fears about the Turks on­to a huge screen. The Moriscos had been ap­peal­ing for aid from Is­tan­bul for sev­en­ty years. In the late 1560s they sent out cries for help, dis­patch­ing rep­re­sen­ta­tives to the sul­tan. Se­lim or­dered men and arms from Al­giers in ear­ly 1570; ar­que­bus­es were shipped across the straits; there were soon four thou­sand Turk­ish and Bar­bary troops in the moun­tains of south­ern Spain. There was live fear that the Turks were plan­ning a long-​dis­tance in­va­sion of Spain; it was claimed they would sail in 1570 “to give heart and help to the Moors of Grana­da.” Sokol­lu Mehmet open­ly asked the French king for use of Toulon as a base. And in the con­fu­sion the cor­sair Uluch Ali de­throned a Span­ish pup­pet regime and re­cap­tured Tu­nis. At a stroke, Charles’s proud­est achieve­ment had been un­done. Sud­den­ly dis­tance was tele­scoped: Is­tan­bul was no longer a thou­sand miles to the east. The spec­tre of the Turk was very close in­deed.

The Morisco re­volt served to con­cen­trate Philip’s mind firm­ly on the Mediter­ranean; troops were re­called from Italy; more were levied in Cal­abria. Don Juan of Aus­tria was giv­en the task of crush­ing the rebels. It was a dirty fight, driv­en by the long-​re­pressed re­sent­ment of the Moriscos and the match­ing fear of the Chris­tians. Fought with vis­cer­al ha­tred across the fault lines of cul­ture and faith, it pre­fig­ured the hor­ror of Goya’s fir­ing squads, the piti­less mu­ti­la­tions of the Span­ish civ­il war. The Moriscos were buoyed up by the en­cour­age­ment of Turk­ish in­ter­ven­tion; they fought des­per­ate­ly and hor­ri­bly in the snow-​blocked pass­es of the Alpu­jar­ras. But the Span­ish op­er­at­ed with slam­ming bru­tal­ity. On Oc­to­ber 19, 1569, Philip gave the army the right to take booty from the Moriscos. The war of fire and blood dragged on through 1570. On Novem­ber 1 of that year Philip made the dras­tic de­ci­sion to or­der the ex­pul­sion of the whole civil­ian Morisco pop­ula­tion from the low­lands for tac­it­ly abet­ting the re­volt. Don Juan ap­proved its log­ic but found it heartrend­ing. “It was the sad­dest sight in the world,” he wrote on Novem­ber 5, “for at the mo­ment of de­par­ture there was so much rain, wind and snow that the poor peo­ple clung to­geth­er lament­ing. One can­not de­ny that the spec­ta­cle of the de­pop­ula­tion of a king­dom is the most piti­ful any­one can imag­ine.” The re­bel­lion col­lapsed. The promised Turk­ish ar­ma­da nev­er came; it was prob­ably nev­er in­tend­ed to come: it seems like­ly that Sokol­lu used the Moriscos to dis­tract at­ten­tion from deep­er in­ten­tions. The cor­ner­stone of Sokol­lu’s think­ing was to en­sure the de­vel­op­ment of Ot­toman plans with­out pro­vok­ing uni­fied Chris­tian ac­tion.
Source: Empires of the Sea by Roger Crowley

Aben Humeya, a town councillor who claimed (probably falsely) to be a nobleman, was elected as leader of the revolt. During their rampage the Muslims butchered Christian families and priests and destroyed churches and Christian relics. When they captured a town called Purchena, Humeya decided to host a games event there, so that the Muslims could supposedly recover their traditional customs, which had been forbidden to them by the Spanish state. These were called the Juegos Moriscos (Morisco Games although often rendered into English as Moorish Games).

Now, hundreds of years later, and ignoring the atrocities against Christians committed during the Morisco revolt and the background of treason that lay behind it, the town bizarrely funds a celebration of these games and presents them as an example of multicultural harmony between "three civilisations". Someone in the International Olympic Committee preposterously claimed that these games were "the link that preceded the current Olympic Games".

The headline in El Almería reads, "Aben Humeya Reconquers Purchena". At the event children are invited to attend classes to learn Arab dancing. Delegations from Morocco will be present. I hope someone is doing a careful head count on the Moroccans to make sure that the number who leave is the same as the number who arrived.

Sources: Minuto DigitalEl Almería, Juegos Moriscos

Children's Arab Dancing Workshop

Sunday, 29 July 2012
Muslim occupiers in Toulouse

Muslim occupiers in Le Havre

Do you remember not long ago the French government gave an assurance that there would be no more Muslim street prayers in France? Well, that was before the election. Now, it seems, things are back to normal. Muslim street occupations are again occurring regularly. Always with the excuse that "we don't have a big/nice enough mosque and we don't have any money to build one because we're a bunch of useless welfare parasites so we need you dhimmis to hand over the cash!". Plus: "Oh, by the way did you know it's Ramadan so you need to appease us even more than usual!" It's clear that the Muslims are using these street occupations as a form of extortion to get us to give them the next round of jizya. And we do.

UPDATE: Just came across this story in Le Figaro which provides an interesting counterpoint to the above. Apparently a Catholic association which since 1990 has held a memorial mass once per year in the Mercantour national park in Nice is now facing legal action. Both the president of the association and the priest who conducted the ceremony have been charged with offences for holding the mass without authorisation and ordered to pay a 1500 euro fine. This is like Saudi Arabia now. Muslims block streets with unauthorised weekly prayer meetings and are rewarded with free land grants and wads of taxpayer cash. Christians hold annual masses on the edge of a park where they bother no one and face criminal charges and fines.

Source: Le Figaro     Via: Christine Tasin blog

Any member of the Counterjihad movement who supports the idea of human rights must take a public position on the way the idea has been implemented in modern Europe. An abundance of news reports make it clear that human rights judges are facilitating the islamisation of Europe and its demographic conquest by third-worlders generally.

Presumably, Counterjihadists do not support this. Yet still they do support the idea of human rights. There has to be at least some doubt about the moral validity of supporting an abstract system of ideas while distancing yourself from all its real-world implementations. As I've said before, this is like the diehard Communists who claim real Communism has never been tried yet. Somehow the dozens of real-world Communist regimes never got the idea quite right, we're told. Real Communism would be much better. It also recalls Muslims claiming Islam is a religion of peace and that somehow the millions of Muslims across the planet who wage jihad on their neighbours or otherwise subject them to maltreatment haven't properly understood their own religion. If only, we're assured, people could arrive at a true understanding of Communism/Islam/Human Rights (delete as appropriate) it would be like the arrival of paradise on earth! But let's skip this point for now and, for the sake of pursuing the discussion, generously concede that these Counterjihadists may support human rights without bearing any blame for all of its damaging real-world implementations.

Even then the very fact that Counterjihadists distance themselves from the way the human rights racket operates in modern Europe undermines the validity of the concept itself. Our interpretation of what human rights should be differs from that of the judges, they would presumably retort. But the whole idea of human rights is that they embody fundamental moral entitlements. If decent, rational people can disagree about what these moral entitlements are, it suggests they are something less than fundamental. But if human rights do not embody primal moral claims but simply competing political agendas, the idea itself loses all ethical force. It becomes clear that human rights, like war of old, has simply become a continuation of politics by other means. But the appropriate way to pursue political agendas is through the ballot box. And the cheapened concept of human rights is revealed to be no more inherently deserving of respect than the average party political manifesto issued by the latest gang of crooks in power.

Moreover, by insisting that they disagree with the human rights ideas of human rights judges, Counterjihadists concede my core criticism of the concept, namely that it is dangerously ambiguous, so lacking in clarity that we can never be confident of its effect in the real world.

Furthermore, these human rights supporters who oppose the advance of Islam ought to explain how exactly it is that they envisage the idea of human rights operating in Europe. I realise that, like the multicultists they claim to oppose, their commitment to bringing betterment to the lives of non-Europeans is so profound that it must be awfully boring for them to have their attention dragged back to their own continent. But, really, due to our entire civilisation - the greatest the world has ever known - now standing on the brink of perdition thanks to this spirit of relentless xenomania, this obsession with barbarous brown people who need to be redeemed, I'm afraid I really must insist that they leave off expostulating on the latest outrages of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the OIC in Jeddah and spend at least a few minutes on home. Because, in case you haven't noticed, the barbarous brown people are now living amongst us. And they haven't been redeemed.

Here are some questions that need to be answered. Do you agree with the standard formulations of human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights? If not, what version of human rights do you prefer? Do you have a written formulation of what you believe our human rights are? Do you believe that human rights should be justiciable in modern Europe? Or said differently: do you believe that we should have human rights courts with the power to invalidate laws passed by elected governments? If you believe human rights judges have got their interpretation of human rights wrong, how can you possibly justify creating an undemocratic monster with the power to invalidate laws? And once it has been created, and is making these "wrong" interpretations of human rights, what do you propose to do about it? Since you have made it immune to democracy, because you don't trust democracy (since "Hitler was elected and the dumb plebs, I mean people, don't always get it right and might oppress the nice minorities!"), what do you do when it starts to go rogue and make unsound decisions about issues critical to the future of Europe?

Your only strategy is to keep spreading anti-Islam propaganda in the hope that it will one day percolate through to the elites who comprise and appoint the human rights judges. But elite membership depends on public acceptance of the very moral ideals that are responsible for the islamisation of Europe. Witness Thilo Sarrazin, former Berlin senator for the German Socialist Party (SPD) and Bundesbank board member until he wrote a book critical of Muslim immigration. As soon as a member of the elite dares to dissent, in very short order he will no longer be a member of the elite. So a strategy focused on hoping that elites will one day snap out of their entrancement with Islam (which is actually an entrancement with the ideal of non-discrimination, an ideal that goes hand in hand with the concept of human rights) is a bit like democracy campaigners of old writing petitions to the king, asking him to do the right thing and grant them the vote.

There are never answers to these questions from the human rights fanboys and fangirls within the Counterjihad movement. There are no answers because there can be no answers. To even ask the questions is to expose the foolish inconsistency of the ideas and the fact that those who expound them haven't properly thought the issue through. They are simply roping in the phrase "human rights" because it adds a bit of moral glamour to their cause and helps deflect accusations of racism/imperialism/islamophobia. But that's not good enough. The idea that all religions are inherently deserving of respect is what is allowing Islam to make its advances. That idea comes straight out of the standard human rights charters. It's not on our side. It's what we're fighting against.

UPDATE: Baron Bodissey has responded to this on Gates of Vienna. He asks why Counterjihadists must clarify their position on human rights. Well, because it's not responsible to do otherwise. Just as it would not have been responsible to go around promoting Communism during the Cold War era without making it clear whether you supported the regimes in Moscow and Peking or had some other understanding of what Communism should be.

He also asks who, specifically, these Counterjihadists are that endorse human rights so fulsomely. I haven't named names partly to focus on ideas and make it less personal. It's all very well saying "We're all adults", but even the limited debate that has taken place on the comment threads on this site shows that people very easily tip over into irrationality and pique once their ideas are challenged. But also I haven't felt the need to name names because it seems to me the promotion of the idea of human rights is so pervasive within the Counterjihad movement. Part of the movement clusters around Gates of Vienna; another part clusters around Robert Spencer/Pamela Geller/SION. Examine the public statements issued at their conferences, self-descriptions and major declarations of principle and you will almost invariably find the phrase "human rights" to the fore, usually without further qualification. For example, the very first words in the Mission Statement of the English Defence League read, "The English Defence League (EDL) is a human rights organisation...".

If people make use of a phrase and concept in common use without specifying in what way their understanding of it differs from the generally accepted understanding, most people will assume that they are using it in the standard sense. Of course the clarifications in the Baron's post are welcome. In particular, if human rights are understood to be non-justiciable, much of the problem they present is eliminated. But that is clearly not how many other people understand them. And by invoking the mantra of human rights without careful and continuous qualification, you are effectively promoting their understanding of the concept as well as your own.

According to FPO (Austrian Freedom Party) politician Johann Gudenus, thousands of Chechen asylum seekers in Austria are returning home for their summer holidays each year.
Thousands of Chechens request an entry permit for their homeland for a few thrilling days of holiday each year. "Those people, who are supposedly persecuted at home and therefore are being provided for by us, are confident enough to go back without batting an eye?"

"Of the almost 42,000 Chechens, some of whom live in Austria as asylum seekers, some of whom are here illegally, apparently up to half go home for the summer." For him it is clear: "If they really were persecuted, no one can tell me they would go back there willingly for their holidays...Most them enjoy their lives in the social welfare net. The Interior Minister must finally act and make the existing return agreement work!"
Source: Unzensuriert.at

Saturday, 28 July 2012

A couple of days ago, I posted France24's account of the Muslim mob attack on police in Marseilles while they were trying to do an identity check on a burka-wearing woman.

Le Figaro also published a report on it, which has some interesting details the France 24 account left out, notably those that relate to the Muslims declaring that they refused to recognise French law.
It is around midnight. Two police officers are patrolling in the IIIe arrondissement of the city, close to the Es-Suna mosque. They then see a woman dressed in a burka. As the law authorises them to do, they decide to check her identity. When the officers approach the young woman, she starts to yell and tries to strike one of them. According to the statements of the police officers, Louise-Marie, 18 years old, said that she refused to submit to the identity check "because she didn't recognise French law".

Immediately, a man of around 40, intervenes to help the young woman. According to the statement, he yells that "this was his place and the police don't make the law here." Within a few minutes, around 50 people are encircling the two police officers. Several of them start to strike them and try to knock them down. However one of the police officers manages to make a radio call to colleagues. A police woman arrives to reinforce them and tries in her turn to arrest the veiled young woman. But she reacts violently and bites her forearm.

Finally, Louise-Marie, Michel and two other men are arrested and taken to the police station in the XVe arrondissement. However, the prosecutor's office decides to release them a few hours later, with a simple summons. The decision shocks the Marseilles police. "We would have wanted them to be held for a longer time at least," explains Lionel Vidal, local delegate of the Unité SGP Police trade union. "The officers hadn't even finished writing their reports and they were already out."

Source: Le Figaro

UPDATE: The Telegraph has some more on this. It seems the police are now being investigated over complaints that they used excessive force when making the arrests!

The officers involved, however, now face an administrative inquiry after people present during the incident complained they had used "illegal force".
Police unions were furious. "Nobody can understand how police officers can be attacked…and in the end the people arrested are released before the officers themselves," said David-Olivier Reverdy, of the local Alliance union.
"The niqab, according to laws that we enforce but don't make, is forbidden. We are simply applying the law," he told France Info.
Yannick of the Unité SGP-Police union, said: "This affair underlines the difficulty we have in applying the law. We get the feeling that many would prefer us to shut our eyes to avoid any incidents.
"In short, you can make police checks but don't make waves, otherwise you'll carry the can. It all smacks of hypocrisy and doesn't make police work in the field any easier."
Marseille's deputy mayor Nora Présozi, supported the police, saying: "If we want to avoid an explosive situation, the police must imperatively enforce the law.
"Many women wearing the burka are looking for confrontation with the police. By doing so, they are conveying a poor image of Islam."
But Muslim website aijib.fr claimed the officers were being over zealous as an interior ministry circular advises police not to intervene in or around "places of worship".

Source: Telegraph

It's also interesting that the woman's name is Marie-Louise, suggesting that she may be a convert rather than an alien. A couple of months ago, I posted about a similar incident in Brussels in which a Muslim mob attacked a police station after a burka-wearing woman was stopped for an ID check. In that incident, too, the woman was a European convert to Islam rather than an alien. It seems the converts are actually more aggressive than the dyed-in-the-wool Muslims and go around looking for confrontation.

Friday, 27 July 2012

Is it me or are the stories just getting crazier and crazier? This one is from Breisach in Germany. A Christian funeral is being held for a baby. Two Muslims of Turkish origin then invade the funeral and subject the baby's corpse to Islamic burial rites.
Two men, 62 and 28, appeared in front of Breisach District Court (Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald) on 1 August charged with disruption of a funeral. During the entire ritual the two accused had violently driven back all guests who wanted to intervene, said a spokesperson for the court. The baby died of Sudden Infant Death syndrome.

The 28-year-old physical father of the child - who however never acknowledged paternity - and his 62-year-old father had taken the corpse out of the coffin, removed its clothes and washed it in a tub they brought with them. According to the spokesperson for the court, all funeral guests were then able to see the child's autopsy scars. After the washing, the child was wrapped in a cloth, placed in the coffin and very roughly buried by the two men.
Source: Tagblatt.de Via: PI

The Front National is taking legal action against Madonna because of the video shown at one of her concerts depicting a swastika superimposed on the face of Marine Le Pen. At her concert in Paris last night, the video was not used again. Madonna decided to give France a lecture on the values of the multicult, however. Here it is in all its glory if you can stomach it.

It seems the concert lasted less than an hour, of which a not insignificant chunk must have been taken up by the lecture. She was booed at the end, with some fans demanding their money back, chanting "Remboursez!"

Source: Fdesouche.com

There have been a few attacks on police in France and Belgium while they were conducting burka checks. But this is the first time the state has taken the side of the attackers. With a 40% Muslim demographic in Marseilles and 93% of Muslims voting Socialist, the police can expect a lot more betrayal from Socialist politicians, including the new Hollande government.

In the restive port city of Marseille, police fear that the release of four people arrested for allegedly attacking officers during an ID check on a woman wearing an Islamic veil will undermine their fight against violent crime in the city.

By FRANCE 24 (text)

Marseille police say three of its officers were injured in the early hours of July 25 when a mob of some 50 people tried to prevent them from checking the identity of a woman who was wearing a full Islamic veil.

Under a controversial law passed in 2010, wearing a full veil or covering one’s face in a public place is illegal in France and offenders must submit to ID checks.

According to the police, the woman was stopped just after midnight near a city mosque and refused to cooperate with the officers.

A man accompanying her as well as a large group of bystanders came to her aid and three officers were “lightly injured” in a scuffle.

After police reinforcements arrived, four people, including the 18-year-old woman named only as “Louise-Marie”, were arrested for allegedly assaulting the officers – but were promptly released with a warning on the orders of the city prosecutor.

According to an AFP source, the decision was “a gesture of appeasement during the holy [Islamic] month of Ramadan.”


“What kind of message does this send out?” asked David-Olivier Reverdy, head of the Alliance police union. “We are absolutely astonished.”

He told FRANCE 24 the prosecutor’s decision would have “heavy consequences” in a city where “gun crime and ultra-violence is common” and where relations between city residents and local law enforcement are “particularly tense”.

“The prosecutor has given carte blanche to criminals in Marseille,” he said. “The message is that they can behave with impunity. It is extremely worrying.”

FRANCE 24 contacted the Marseille prosecutor but he was unavailable to comment when this article was published.

Marseille has a long history of criminality associated with its status as a port city.

Particularly worrying for law enforcement authorities has been the proliferation of firearms which has given Marseille the dubious distinction of being the Kalashnikov capital of France.

The police have been fighting back, and in the first five months of 2012 seized 261 firearms in the city, compared to a total of 309 for the whole of 2011.

Reverdy said the efforts had reduced the number of armed robberies in the city by 25% - a reduction of around 100 in the first half of 2012.

‘The law of the Republic’

He told FRANCE 24 that he and his fellow officer believed leniency after an alleged attack on policemen risked undermining recent progress.

“It is the law of the Republic [that ID checks are made on people wearing veils] and whether we like it or not we have to be seen to be enforcing it,” he said.

Reverdy’s feelings were backed up by Marseille’s deputy mayor Nora Présozi.

“If we want to avoid an explosive situation the police must be allowed to apply the law,” she told weekly news magazine Le Point. “Every citizen is obliged to submit to identity checks when required, as was the case in this disgraceful incident.”

The 2010 law, which came into effect in April 2011, bans the wearing of any garment that prevents easy identification of an individual by police in a public place.

As well as ski masks and balaclavas, the law also applies to Islamic “niqab” and “burka” veils.

Refusal to remove veils in public or to comply with ID checks is punishable by a 150 euro fine, while people who force others to cover their faces in public face fines of 30,000 euros and a year in prison.
Source: France24

See here for more detail on this story.
Thursday, 26 July 2012

Greece's far right Golden Dawn party on Thursday condemned a decision to expel triple jumper Voula Papachristou from the Greek Olympic team over comments she posted on Twitter which were deemed racist.

“The expulsion of an athlete in the wake of backstage political interventions -- simply because of a joke that is going around the Internet -- proves how miserable and anti-Greek our state and the international bodies that use the Olympic ideals as their own are,” the party said in a statement.

“The only racism in Greece is the racism against the Greeks,” it said.

“Anybody who says even a word against illegal immigrants is held up to public ridicule... It would be more honest to pass a law condemning everybody who has different views to death by stoning,” it said.

Papachristou was due to compete in the London 2012 Games, which officially start this Friday. But the Hellenic Olympic Committee said her posts mocking African immigrants and expressing support for Golden Dawn went against the Olympic spirit.

Papachristou has apologized for the “unfortunate and tasteless joke.”

Golden Dawn, which won 7 percent of the vote in Greece's recent elections on the back of a rising anti-immigrant sentiment, also attacked Democratic Left, a member of the country's governing coalition, for allegedly being the first party to ask for Papachristou's punishment.

“Unfortunately, the country that gave birth to the Olympic spirit -- a spirit that elevated and deified the excellence and superiority of Hellenism -- is dominated and ruled by Marxist parties like Democratic Left,” the party said.

The only thing she did wrong was apologise.
"I would like to express my heartfelt apologies for the unfortunate and tasteless joke I published on my personal Twitter account. I am very sorry and ashamed for the negative responses I triggered, since I never wanted to offend anyone, or to encroach human rights."

Oh, we musn't infringe against the new religion of human rights. Human rights is for the western world what Mohammedanism is for the Islamic world: an ideology that generates an almost infine number of practical problems which the affected societies are unable to extricate themselves from because the ideology is seen to have transcendent moral authority. And the number of people who can see through the glittering facade to the hollowness within is tiny.

Papachristou should stand as a candidate for Golden Dawn. She will have a lot of sympathy.

A recurrent motif among those opposed to the EU project is that, in its bureaucratic monstrosity, it resembles a recreation of the Soviet Union, a concept mockingly summed up in the (fake) initialism: EUSSR. But now the EU is moving a step closer towards making this caricature a reality.

It has actually invented a post with the initialism EUSR! Step forward Stavros Lambrinidis, newly appointed EU Special Representative for Human Rights.
Parliament called on the Council in June to appoint a high-level EU envoy with an established international reputation and a proven track record to fulfil a role MEPs have long considered essential.

The new Special Representative must have a strong, independent, flexible and sufficiently broad mandate, Parliament said. It should reflect EU human rights policy and cover areas including strengthening democracy, international justice, humanitarian law, abolition of the death penalty, freedom of expression, gender issues and children and armed conflict.

MEPs also called for adequate funding and staff to be allocated to the new EUSR, who should, they say, attend a hearing at Parliament and report regularly to it on the human rights situation in the world.

This is a good example of the insidious process of self-degradation that the Muslim presence inevitably triggers in any civilised country.

On this occasion it is the the famous Hotel Danieli in Venice that has demeaned itself. In the past, it has played host to such luminaries as Wagner, Alfred de Musset, George Sand and Goethe. More recently, its standards seem to have fallen.

A Muslim porter, of Egyptian origin, told his bosses that he wasn't going to take orders from a woman. The management initially invited him to respect Italian norms. But when he refused, and handed in his resignation, the management decided to appease his sensibilities "as he was well regarded by clients and other employees".

We therefore decided to guarantee that during his work hours, his boss would have a male colleague at her side who would act as a liaison with the Egyptian to communicate the tasks to be performed.

Source: Novopress Original Italian Source: Gazzettino

Wednesday, 25 July 2012
Da Vinci's Last Supper, complete with figures performing the Islamic Shahada, according to Webislam

We're so used to Muslims making preposterous claims about history that they are hardly worth noting any more, except for an occasional laugh. But when the claims are being made in Europe at the expense of European taxpayers, the matter deserves to be taken a bit more seriously.

In Spain there is a website called Webislam that is published by the "Junta Islámica" [Muslim Council]. This is one of these non-profit Muslim propaganda outfits that takes taxpayer cash and claims to be promoting a wholesome, decaffeinated version of Islam that is compatible with human rights and equality of the sexes.

But the website publishes an unending stream of outlandish propaganda. One recent article claims Leonardo Da Vinci was a Muslim. Based primarily on a book written by the Iranian "scholar" Morteza Khalaj Amirhosseini, it claims Da Vinci's mother was an Arab slave and that a fingerprint found on one of his paintings has a 60% probability of being from an Arab. It also claims that in several of Da Vinci's paintings, including the Last Supper, there are figures making the sign of the Islamic Shahada.

Elsewhere, the website has claimed that Muslim North Africans discovered America in the 12th century and that no Muslim invasion of Spain ever took place. Not long ago it claimed that the footballer Messi had converted to Islam. A few days ago it posted an article claiming that Muslims in Burma were being subjected to genocide. The article was illustrated with a photograph of burnt cadavers in Africa. These were the bodies of Christians who had been murdered by Muslims but the website represented them as the bodies of Muslims being subjected to genocide in Burma!
According to Webislam, these are Muslim massacre victims in Burma. In reality they are the bodies of Christians murdered by Muslims in Nigeria. Shameful propaganda at Spanish taxpayer expense.

And the hard-pressed Spanish taxpayer [and probably, let's face it, the German taxpayer] is paying for all this!

[UPDATE: An anonymous commenter says the photo of the bodies in Africa actually shows the aftermath of an accident rather than a jihad attack.]

Sources: Minuto Digital, Minuto Digital

Today is the feast day of the apostle St. James, patron saint of Spain, known here as Santiago Matamoros: St. James the Moorslayer. He is said to have appeared on a white horse and fought against the Muslim invaders at the battle of Clavijo in 844, helping the Christian side secure victory.

But he must be displeased with how recent Spanish governments have betrayed his legacy. In Salamanca today, after weeks of cloudless skies and scorching heat, suddenly there is thunder and pouring rain. The Moorslayer is sending a message to the politicians of Spain: How dare you side with the Muslim invaders against my people? How dare you let Moors re-occupy the land?

Unfortunately, it looks as though a Reconquista 2.0 will one day be necessary here. Hopefully assistance from on high will still be available.

Threats, clashes and gatherings of "jeunes" are shaking day-to-day life in certain districts, especially those in Brussels

The period of Ramadan is bringing its share of tensions and incidents in the streets of Brussels. It has only been six days since the month characterised by the Muslim fast has begun. However, the local police in Moelenbeek has already received threats in relation to this period - indirect, it is true - of attacks against public buildings. “These threats involved the possibility of grenades being launched at a police station in Moelenbeek or any other public building such as the town hall or community centre.”

Threats which were taken very seriously. Suddenly, at the end of last week and this weekend, the western police zone raised its state of alert and reinforced its security regime. "We were all on guard. Police numbers were reinforced on the ground as well as technical resources, like cameras, to observe any excesses."

At the time of writing, the regime has nonetheless been lifted, given that the threats have not been acted upon.

In Schaerbeek, the afternoons ends in a rather stormy manner in the Pavillon district between Liedts square and la Cage aux Ours, known as a gathering point for rival gangs. “Every Ramadan, it's the same” , says Ahmed, the manager of the sports shop whose window was struck by gunfire this Monday, around 5.30 pm. "Two stirred-up gangs of 'jeunes' openly fired at one another. Some of them fled into my street. My shop is just collateral damage..."

...Abdelkader was present on the scene on Sunday and confirms that there were indeed clashes. “Two men were driving on motorbike and one of them was firing in the air. Two police cars were there and not one moved...Are they waiting for someone to be wounded before acting?"

In the eyes of the "jeunes" who gather daily in the square, the police are responsible for stoking the tensions. “During Ramadan, we stay in the gange because the fast is very hard physically and so we stick together. But once there are more than five of us, the police do identity checks with an order to disperse. They play on the nerves of the "jeunes" with provocative phrases like My dog is hungry, says one young man.
Source: DHNET
Tuesday, 24 July 2012

Which of these two problems would you rather have to solve?

The first problem has existed for more than 1000 years. It has proved extraordinarily resilient during that time, surviving the evolution of science, military defeat, economic failure, cultural marginalisation, the emergence of a canon of public morality at a global level whose precepts it routinely violates, as well as abundant evidence that its core historical claims are essentially fraudulent.

The second problem has existed for only a few decades, was only made possible in the beginning, and can only be sustained now, by violating the will of the majority in countries that are nominally democracies; criminalising free expression; censoring news reports; subjecting the population to relentless propaganda and threatening them with prosecution and loss of livelihood if they dare to dissent.

Which of these problems seems the most firmly rooted?

In the course of this century the people of Europe must solve one of these problems if their civilisation is to continue to exist. But the optimal strategy for solving one of these problems will be a sub-optimal approach to solving the other. Trying to solve both problems at the same time will involve compromises that increase the likelihood of failure in both cases.

So here is my challenge to the European Counterjihad movement. You need to solve one of the two problems listed above. Pick one. And then adjust your strategy accordingly.

Trying to solve the problem of Islam in Europe is going to be a lot easier than trying to solve the problem of Islam globally. Yet at the moment, with its human rights rhetoric, the Counterjihad movement (including the European part of it which is not yet meaningfully distinguished from the rest) has oriented its approach around trying to solve the problem of Islam globally. It is the wrong choice.
...Now he [Tony Blair] reads the scriptures of other faiths, and finds his own enriched. In particular, he reads the Koran.

''I see the Koran very much as an outsider. It stands in the great prophetic tradition of trying to return people to the basic principles of spirituality. Taken for its time, it was an extraordinarily progressive declaration of principle. It is also extraordinary for a Christian to read: for example, there are more references to Mary than in the Gospels. The tragedy is that it has been so warped and misapplied.’’

And here, Tony Blair has grown sterner. After September 11, 2001, he now thinks, he underestimated the power of the bad ''narrative’’ of Islamist extremists. That narrative – that ''The West oppresses Islam” – ''is still there. If anything, it has grown.’’ It seeks ''supremacy not coexistence’’. He fears that ''The West is asleep on this issue’’, and yet it is the biggest challenge. In Africa, all the good things he sees through his Africa Governance Initiative face ''this threat above all others’’. In ''Sudan, Mali, Nigeria, outbursts in Tanzania and Kenya’’, sectarian Islamist extremism is the great and growing problem. By implication, Mr Blair seems to doubt President Obama’s outreach to Islam, because it tends to deal with the wrong people. Since Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009, ''the whole context has changed’’. The Muslim Brotherhood is taking over large parts of the Arab world, and ''the people without the loudest voices are desperate for our leadership’’.

''We must engage, but also challenge,’’ he warns. The Middle East ''won’t achieve democracy unless it understands that democracy is a way of thinking as well as voting. The key question is how the majority treats the minority.’’ The West, he says, has been too slow to help the people of Iran: ''It is a great civilisation. The people would undoubtedly boot their government out at the ballot box if they could. It is important they know we are prepared to help them. A Persian spring would be very welcome.’’

But have you considered, I ask, that you might be wrong about Islam? What if it is not, at root, a religion of peace? He has thought about this but doesn’t accept it. He makes a comparison with Christianity. ''At Mass, at the end of the Bible readings, we say 'This is the word of the Lord’. We now take it as the spirit of Biblical teaching. We don’t take every element of it as literal. That process took us a long time.’’ Islam is wrestling with the same process today.

Let’s bring the subject home: how does this apply to Muslims here? Mr Blair regrets that the ''Prevent’’ strategy which he devised became unfashionable. ''We mustn’t accept radicalism by accepting its narrative and disputing only its [violent] methods.’’

But he also believes that the anti-religion, Richard Dawkins crowd make everything worse. The extreme atheists ''require religious fundamentalists’’ to make their argument for them, so ''We must push back against aggressive secularism’’.
Source: Daily Telegraph
Monday, 23 July 2012
A participant in the organisation of a festival that took place this week-end in Viviez, a young woman, originally from Morocco, and domiciled in Decazeville, was violently attacked by a group of seven men on Friday night.

While she was driving home, the woman was blocked in by two other cars, from which her attackers emerged. After having beaten her up, they left without saying anything.

The young woman is then said to have returned home before coming out again to file a complaint and quickly give a description of her attackers. It was while travelling to the police station that the seven individuals blocked her in once more so that they could hit her again.

They are said to have insulted her and, in particular, reproached her as follows: "You are a bad Muslim." And they added: "You are the shame of Islam, because you go to a festival on a day of Ramadan."

Before leaving, they threatened her extensively. At the police station, the police have opened an inquiry.
Source: Midi Libre Via: Fdesouche.com
UPDATE: Apparently the oleaginous Vaz is a Catholic! Thanks Martiness

First Minister Alex Salmond said:

"It is with great pleasure that I, on behalf of the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland, wish all Muslim communities in Scotland and beyond, Ramadan Mubarak.

"The ninth month of the Islamic Lunar calendar and this great religious observance in Islam teaches patience, humility, and spirituality. This month of fasting - from sunrise to sunset each day - and spiritual reflection, also places a particular focus on family and charity, reminding Muslims to consider those less fortunate, those who may not know what or when their next meal will be.

"That selflessness is an example we can all follow. This Government values the positive influence Islam has on our communities, and the rich tartan tapestry of faiths add to our strength as One Scotland with many cultures.

"May your Ramadan bring peace and blessings."

For more on this theme, be sure and read the following:

Muslim infiltration of the SNP

Humza Yousaf: the Hamas Connection

Sunday, 22 July 2012
Savage Muslims at their post-fast greedfest in Salamanca

According to this article about Ramadan in La Gaceta de Salamanca, there are only 1800 Muslims here. That's 1800 too many, but still not bad for a European city these days. And the numbers are heading in the right direction. Two years ago there were 2000.


The "worst scandal in the history of German transplant medicine" has erupted at a transplant clinic in Göttingen. Unsurprisingly, a Muslim is at the centre of it. Equally unsurprisingly, the German media are doing their best to cover up the fact that he is a Muslim. When the German television channel covered the story, they pixellated the Muslim's face. One newspaper report used German journalists' favourite euphemism (their equivalent of the "Asian" used by British journalists) for Muslims: "Südländer" [person from southern lands]. Sure, a person from the southern lands. Like, I don't know, Italy, Portugal, Greece? No, not quite. These Südländers are usually Turks. And that appears to be true in this case. Step forward Ayman (or Aiman) Obed, super well-integrated moderate Muslim.

The scandal seems to be gathering momentum as more facts come out. But here's what's known now:

The Muslim arranged for people to receive organs who wouldn't otherwise have been entitled to them. He did this by falsifying their medical records, inventing ailments where none existed and making existing ones appear worse than they really were.

Some or all of the people who received these organs were from foreign countries, including Middle-Eastern countries where the ideology of Islam prevails.

Some of the organs taken from Europeans should not have been taken because the normal conditions for removing organs were not present. For example, one case involves organs having been taken from a man even though the protocols for determining brain death had not been fulfilled. (So was this Muslim killing European patients who might have survived to harvest their organs and give them to his fellow Muslims living abroad?)

There are at least 25 suspected cases.

The same Muslim was caught doing essentially the same thing - breaking the rules to arrange for a patient in Jordan to receive a European organ - in 2006 but somehow got away with it. (No doubt political correctness was a contributory factor.)

The Braunschweig prosecutor's office is now investigating the Muslim for corruption and falsification of documents. Charges of wounding and killing through negligence are also being considered because patients may have suffered or even died because of the deception. (Of course Europeans waiting for a transplant must have died if rare organs were given to foreign Muslims instead.)

The doctor cannot be contacted now. He is believed to now be operating at a clinic in Saudi Arabia.
Regarding the motives of the doctor, who was already suspected of manipulation in his former post at the University of Regensburg, Siess and his colleague Sebastian Freytag can only wonder about: it may be altruistic motives, in order to help patients, but also ambition, to increase the reputation of the transplant centre through lots of operations, but also greed, because ge was bribed - everything is possible.
Source: Goettinger Tageblatt

Everything is possible indeed except medical jihad and the systematic preference for Muslims over non-Muslims that all Muslims everywhere on earth exhibit. This is why no Muslim can ever be trusted in a position of responsibility. Their power will always be abused to favour the interests of other Muslims and disadvantage the kuffar.

The blog Kybeline is all over this story. If you can read German and want to know more, go there (link, link) for links to the primary sources.

Saturday, 21 July 2012

Imagine if a European country threatened to expel foreigners who didn't respect Christmas or Easter. There would be a global outcry from human rights activists. But somehow when non-Europeans do these things, nobody cares.
Saudi authorities warned non-Muslim expatriates on Friday, the first day of Ramadan, not to eat, drink, or smoke in public until the end of the Muslim holy month’s sunrise-to-sunset fast — or face expulsion.

The Interior Ministry of the oil-rich kingdom called on expatriates to “show consideration for feelings of Muslims” and “preserve the sacred Islamic rituals.” Otherwise, a ministry statement said, Saudi authorities will cancel violators’ work contracts and expel them.

Saudi Arabia’s population of 27 million includes some 8 million expatriates, including Asians, Arabs, and Westerners, according to government figures.

But it's not just in Saudi Arabia. These vignettes from an article in a French magazine about "diversity in the enterprise" show that it's now happening in Europe too:
An EDF (French power company) communications manager refuses to touch the telephone or the computer on Friday, the day of the Sabbath. At Orange, a telephone adviser gets his prayer carpet out in the call centre. And forbids his colleagues from eating because it's Ramadan. By email, this employee even ordered his manager to dress decently, arguing that she was offending the Prophet. At Areva, a sikh wants to keep his turban on his access badge photo at a nuclear site, even though those who work there must be recognisable and thus bare-headed.

This is in Mureaux, in the north-west of Paris. The school needs special help for some reason.


Friday, 20 July 2012
Some 200,000 capsules of drugs hidden inside toasties and more than ten kilos of heroin hidden inside 30 Korans were seized on Sunday by Moroccan authorities on board a vehicle preparing to leave the port of Nador for Spain.

The drugs were discovered inside the vehicle of a Moroccan mother travelling with her four children. The family was supposed to deliver the drugs to Spain on behalf of a member of their family who also lives in the Iberian peninsula.

The latter is said to have convinced them to import the drugs and to sell them in Spain, in order to resolve their financial problems. During questioning, the family said it had been strongly affected by the crisis raging in Spain since 2008, reports the info site Nador City.

The fear and hesitation of the 25-year-old son who was driving the car triggered the suspicions of the customs agents, who ordered a search of the vehicle.
Source: Bladi.net

The funny thing is if they had managed to reach Europe, they'd probably have got away with it, because European officials would have been too intimidated by political correctness to search the Korans, but actual Moroccan Muslims were more than happy to.

Recall that at least one British police force has an official policy of not touching Korans during searches.
Salaam alaykum,

Once again, as we approach Ramadan, the eyes of the world are on the Middle East. A year in from the Arab Spring, the people of Syria are still suffering as the conflict with the Assad regime escalates.

As the British Government does all it can to work with the international community to help the people of Syria, citizens of all faiths and none are united in the spirit of hope and solidarity as they watch the awful events unfold.

This spirit will be particularly apparent during Ramadan. And every year, I am inspired by the generosity, the self-discipline and the attention to family shown by Muslims in the United Kingdom.

The important part that Muslims have played, and continue to play in British society cannot be exaggerated. I am proud of the rich and diverse tapestry that makes up our society, and I will continue to strive for ever closer ties between the communities that make our country great.

I would like to wish everyone a sincere, "Ramadan mubarak."

Salaam alaykum
Thursday, 19 July 2012
Prime Minister David Cameron said:

"As the holy Islamic month of Ramadan begins, I want to take this opportunity to send my warmest wishes to Muslims in Britain and across the world.

"During this hugely important time of prayer and fasting, we are reminded of the importance of charity and compassion. These are values and traditions at the heart of Islam but shared by those of all faiths in Britain.

"At a time of great change and uncertainty across the world, I am proud of the role Britain plays on the international stage to help those less fortunate through our aid budget and work with our allies and friends. Our thoughts must be with those that have suffered the most this past year – particularly the Syrian people.

"So let me wish everyone peace, happiness and unity during this special time and say Ramadan Mubarak."
Source: FCO

After relentless media propaganda portraying the dead Muslim thugs as authentic British heroes, finally a British jury has restored common sense. I made several posts about this incident (see here, here and here), citing evidence that it was the Muslims who attacked the negroes in the car and whatever the negroes did was in response to that. I cannot recall a single voice anywhere in the mainstream media landscape that dared to dissent from the official narrative of heroic Muslims who died defending their shops and then heroically forbearing Muslims who declined to go on a negro-killing spree afterwards to exact revenge. Let's see whether the Muslims accept the verdict or decide to go on a jihad spree now.
Haroon Jahan, 20, ShazadAli, 31, and Abdul Musavir, 30, were protecting local businesses when it was claimed they were deliberatly mown down in a modern-day equivalent of a "chariot charge" involving three cars in Winson Green, Birmingham.

But today eight men in the cars were cleared of three counts of murder each by a jury at Birmingham Crown Court today after just over four hours of deliberations.

Ryan Goodwin, Shaun Flynn, Juan Ruiz-Gaviria, Joshua Donald, Everton Graham, Adam King, Ian Beckford and Aaron Parkins all walked free.

After the verdicts, the trial judge, Mr Justice Flaux appealed for calm on the streets of Birmingham and urged people to respect the jury's findings.

The deaths came against a backdrop of clashes between the Asian and black communities, with gangs seen roaming around the streets looking for places to loot, whilst shopkeepers and members of the community tried to repel them by throwing objects at their cars.

CCTV footage showed three cars apparently lining up next to each other and following what the prosecution claimed was a deliberate hand signal, racing off. Beckford, 30, the driver of the Mazda, hit the crowd, but claimed in his evidence it wasn’t deliberate and that he was a friend of the three men who died.

He said his car had been attacked and he was worried about being blocked in by the crowd.
The jury decided the heroic Muslim story and its corollary, the evil negro conspiracy story, was a crock.
Much of the case rested on telephone evidence between the men and CCTV footage which the Crown claimed showed an orchestrated three-car "chariot charge" planned in the minutes leading up to the fatal impact.

The prosecution claimed two cars were used to deliberately lure the crowd into the street, while the Mazda then drive into it.

But the defendants described the claims of a murderous plan being hatched in a three-minute "window" prior to the deaths as implausible speculation which had put innocent men in the dock.

The three men driving the cars - Ian Beckford, Adam King and Joshua Donald - and their passengers variously described the prosecution's claim as "ridiculous" and "utter rubbish".

It was also argued by the defence that the three cars were under attack from a crowd, some masked and armed with sticks, bricks and, in one case, a sword.

Paul Lewis QC, who defended Beckford, said the fatal collision happened when the three cars involved were "under serious attack" from groups of men throwing bricks and missiles from both sides of the road.

The QC told jurors: "It occurred as the three unfortunate victims themselves stepped further into the road to attack the cars. It was a tragedy but it was an accident nonetheless."
Source: Telegraph

What of Tariq Jahan now, the "Pride of Britain", the "True Face of Britain", the career criminal, GBH specialist and former Hizb ut-Tahrir member? Will he be required to hand back his "Pride of Britain" award now that a jury has effectively decided his son was a criminal killed in the course of committing his crime, not some heroic Muslim dying to defend Britain? What does it say about modern Britain that the possibility of mass Muslim violence in response to the death of a Muslim criminal even exists and that the indigeneous people are expected to be pathetically grateful when then Muslims do not engage in this mass violence?

UPDATE: Tariq Jahan is at it again, doing his peacemaker act.
Speaking on behalf of both families outside after the verdict, Tariq Jahan, Harron's father said: 'I would like to appeal for peace and calm in our community in light of today's verdicts.
'The families do not wish to make any comment regarding the court case at this time and would ask the media to respect their privacy'
Source: Daily Mail

Maybe he's hoping to get off with his next crime too?

From the sketch in the Mail, it looks as if the defendants weren't all negroes either.

For the last two centuries, Europe has been the battlefield in a war of ideas. Our colonised cities, our raped children, our no-go areas filled with the smoking ruins of burnt cars, our bankrupt treasuries, our vanished freedoms and the grinning, aggressive aliens in our midst can all be numbered among the consequences of this war. Within the Counterjihad/nationalist movements, it is common to hear these changes attributed to Marxism. But the movement to transform our societies has deeper roots than that. It achieved its first fatefully coherent expression in the French revolution. Rather than Marxism, I would call it Jacobinism. Marxism is no more than a sub-movement within this larger transformational project. If you look for the first place where the motifs commonly associated with Marxism (claims that imperialist Europe had plundered the noble savages of the third world, that men oppressed women, that religion held the masses in thrall, etc.) you find them not in the works of Karl Marx but in the texts of the radical French Enlightenment. In particular, the book Histoire Philosophique des Deux Indes, the best-selling of all the Enlightenment texts even though it’s now mostly forgotten, instilled these themes into the minds of a generation almost 50 years before Marx was even born.

These radicals were able to impose their ideas on French society because they had carefully prepared them over the preceding decades. Of course, the ordinary French people who rose up against a society run on the principle of inherited privilege were not deep-thinking intellectuals. They were acting on an instinctive sense of right and wrong. But the radicals had worked out their ideas and were waiting to seize their chance when the moment of convulsive change arrived. Reading Benjamin Israel’s books about the intellectual ferment preceding the French revolution, I am struck by the parallels with the Counterjihad movement of our own time. There we see the same division between those who tried to play by the Establishment’s rules (like Voltaire), emphasising their respect for church and monarchy, trying not to rock the boat too much, thinking they could be more effective that way; and those who disdained to do so, preferring a course of open confrontation. In the Counterjihad/nationalist movements, we see similar tendencies with many of the most public actors emphasising their anti-racism, support for human rights and insistence that the problem is not Islam per se, but radical Islam. They think that by trying to play nice they will eventually win some pat on the head from the powers that be. This is a parallel that troubles me in part because while the French radicals had their ideas properly worked out when the moment of convulsion came, it strikes me that we do not. Most of us are stumbling blindly forward with little more than a sense that Islam isn’t very nice and no real understanding of how we got to be where we are. This is troubling because, thanks to the economic crisis, the moment of convulsive change may arrive sooner than we expect. Before we are ready for it.

Reflecting on the French revolution, and the reactions to it, is a good way to better understand how we got to be in this mess. After the revolutionaries had seized power in France, and articulated their transnational utopian vision, with its accompanying doctrine of the Rights of Man, the Anglo-Irish politician Edmund Burke published his response to it in the book Reflections on the Revolution in France. This became one of the classical texts of conservative political thought, emphasising the dichotomy between what is now called Left and Right (these terms themselves come from the French revolution with the most radical of the revolutionaries sitting on the left side of the National Assembly).

It is no coincidence that Christopher Caldwell’s book about the islamisation of Europe in modern times consciously alluded to Edmund Burke’s work in its title: Reflections on the Revolution in Europe. The islamisation of Europe is the ultimate consequence of the utopian transformational impulse unleashed by the French revolution. Communism is just one expression of this movement. And Fascism is just one reaction to it.

What are the key distinctions between Jacobinism and conservatism?

Jacobinism seeks to remake the institutions of society. Conservatism has an inherent bias in favour of retaining them. This, ultimately, is an expression of humility. It says both the world and human nature are overwhelming in their complexity and our understanding of that complexity is limited. Trying to remake the world from first principles according to your imperfect (“rational”) image of its workings is a project likely to end in disaster. There will be some factor you don’t understand that yields an outcome you didn’t expect. The best evidence that an idea will work is the fact that it already has worked in the past.
We know that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made, in morality,—nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born altogether as well as they will be after the grave has heaped its mould upon our presumption, and the silent tomb shall have imposed its law on our pert loquacity. In England we have not yet been completely embowelled of our natural entrails: we still feel within us, and we cherish and cultivate, those inbred sentiments which are the faithful guardians, the active monitors of our duty, the true supporters of all liberal and manly morals. We have not been drawn and trussed, in order that we may be filled, like stuffed birds in a museum, with chaff and rags, and paltry, blurred shreds of paper about the rights of man. We preserve the whole of our feelings still native and entire, unsophisticated by pedantry and infidelity. We have real hearts of flesh and blood beating in our bosoms.

Although his book was published in the early years of the revolution, before its bloody excesses had become apparent, Burke predicted that the whole thing would end badly. He was right. It ended with the terror of the guillotine, Europe-wide war and the dictatorship of Napoleon.

Justifying perfidy and murder for public benefit, public benefit would soon become the pretext, and perfidy and murder the end,—until rapacity, malice, revenge, and fear more dreadful than revenge, could satiate their insatiable appetites. Such must be the consequences of losing, in the splendor of these triumphs of the rights of men, all natural sense of wrong and right.
In our own time, we have seen our elites, enthralled with the intellectual conviction that people are all the same, invite the hordes of the third world to colonise our homes, in the foolish belief that their only significant difference from us would be in their physical appearance. Science has now established that the emotions of empathy (crucial to a healthy society) are, in part, regulated by genetic similarity between people. Indeed, through the principle of inclusive fitness, the favouritism shown to those who share more of our genes than others is now recognised as the principal driving force of evolution, laying the basis for altruism, cooperative behaviour and social organisation. None of this was known to the French revolutionaries or even the utopian ideologues of a few decades ago. But “rationality” told them that people were all the same. And now we are paying the price for their intellectual conceit.

Jacobinism is trans-national and universalist. Conservatism is rooted in the specificity of particular peoples, their historic homelands and the distinctive traditions of the societies they have built there. It emphasises pragmatism and disdains universalism, acknowledging that differences in the history and character of particular peoples may make a solution appropriate for one but not another. Comparing the English revolution to the French revolution, Edmund Burke affirmed that the freedoms he enjoyed as an Englishman were the result of a distinctive national tradition, not the fruits of some putative “Rights of Man”.

We wished at the period of the Revolution, and do now wish, to derive all we possess as an inheritance from our forefathers. Upon that body and stock of inheritance we have taken care not to inoculate any scion alien to the nature of the original plant. All the reformations we have hitherto made have proceeded upon the principle of reference to antiquity; and I hope, nay, I am persuaded, that all those which possibly may be made hereafter will be carefully formed upon analogical precedent, authority, and example.

Our oldest reformation is that of Magna Charta. You will see that Sir Edward Coke, that great oracle of our law, and indeed all the great men who follow him, to Blackstone, are industrious to prove the pedigree of our liberties. They endeavor to prove that the ancient charter, the Magna Charta of King John, was connected with another positive charter from Henry the First, and that both the one and the other were nothing more than a reaffirmance of the still more ancient standing law of the kingdom. In the matter of fact, for the greater part, these authors appear to be in the right; perhaps not always: but if the lawyers mistake in some particulars, it proves my position still the more strongly; because it demonstrates the powerful prepossession towards antiquity with which the minds of all our lawyers and legislators, and of all the people whom they wish to influence, have been always filled, and the stationary policy of this kingdom in considering their most sacred rights and franchises as an inheritance.

In the famous law of the 3rd of Charles the First, called the Petition of Right, the Parliament says to the king, "Your subjects have inherited this freedom": claiming their franchises, not on abstract principles, "as the rights of men," but as the rights of Englishmen, and as a patrimony derived from their forefathers. Selden, and the other profoundly learned men who drew this Petition of Right, were as well acquainted, at least, with all the general theories concerning the "rights of men" as any of the discoursers in our pulpits or on your tribune: full as well as Dr. Price, or as the Abbé Sièyes. But, for reasons worthy of that practical wisdom which superseded their theoretic science, they preferred this positive, recorded, hereditary title to all which can be dear to the man and the citizen to that vague, speculative right which exposed their sure inheritance to be scrambled for and torn to pieces by every wild, litigious spirit.

The same policy pervades all the laws which have since been made for the preservation of our liberties. In the 1st of William and Mary, in the famous statute called the Declaration of Right, the two Houses utter not a syllable of "a right to frame a government for themselves." You will see that their whole care was to secure the religion, laws, and liberties that had been long possessed, and had been lately endangered. "Taking into their most serious consideration the best means for making such an establishment that their religion, laws, and liberties might not be in danger of being again subverted," they auspicate all their proceedings by stating as some of those best means, "in the first place," to do "as their ancestors in like cases have usually done for vindicating their ancient rights and liberties, to declare";—and then they pray the king and queen "that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and declared are the true ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom."

Conservatism accepts human nature as it is, with all its imperfections. Jacobinism believes human nature can be remade. In order for it to be remade society must be regimented by the government. Perceptions must be sculpted through the selective presentation or denial of information. Education must become indoctrination. Dissident thought must be punished through an ongoing and never-ending inquisition.

It was the French revolution that first vigorously promoted the idea of citizenship in the modern sense. There is something inherently sinister in the concept of citizenship, perhaps because it hints at an overarching governmental power. Before that people had simply been members of organic communities rooted in particular places. Although in most places monarchs had nominally ruled over them, for the most part the impact of governmental power on their lives was minimal. After the revolution, people became wards of a bureaucracy that would allocate citizenship status to them. Government intruded into the lives of everyone. And once organic peoplehood had been transformed into citizenship, governments were free to redefine this administrative status and allocate it to whomever they pleased on whatever criteria they chose. This is the breach in the wall through which, in modern times, the alien hordes have come pouring into Europe.

Reviewing the list of characteristics and distinctions, two things should be clear. First, the islamisation of Europe is the consequence of Jacobin ideas. Second, trans-nationalism, universalism and the tangible embodiment of these ideas, the modern doctrine of human rights, all belong on the Jacobin side of the spectrum. Why, then, are those who are reacting politically to the consequences of Jacobinism embracing some of its key tenets?

Jacobinism                                             Conservatism

Reason                                                    Instinct, common sense
Bias in favour of change                         Bias against change
Citizenship                                              Peoplehood
Universalism                                           Particularity
Trans-nationalism                                   Patriotism
Regimentation of thought and speech     Freedom of thought and speech
Rule-following                                        Use of Judgement
Utopianism                                             Pragmatism
Revolution                                              Tradition

Muslims flee the poverty and misery of their own countries without any comprehension that this poverty and misery has been caused by Islam. Because they fail to make this connection, they continue to subscribe to the ideas that are the prime cause of their predicament. They even delude themselves into believing that the solution is more Islam, not less. Similarly, Counterjihadists flee in spirit from the consequences of the Muslim presence in their countries without any comprehension that this presence is the consequence of Jacobinism. Because they fail to make this connection, they continue to subscribe to the ideas that are the prime cause of their predicament. They even delude themselves into believing that the solution is more Jacobinism, not less.

It’s said that when Nixon and Kissinger visited China in the 1970s, they asked the Chinese premier what impact he thought the French revolution had had on western civilisation. “It’s too early to tell,” was the reply. Well, we’re a bit further along now, so perhaps it’s time to hazard a preliminary judgement. One of the consequences of the French revolution is the islamisation of Europe. It’s no coincidence that France is the part of Europe where the Muslim infestation is at its most intense. Those of us resisting the islamisation of Europe should be challenging the ideas of the French revolution, not re-affirming them. What we need is a counter-revolution to the French revolution, 200 years on.

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews