Free Speech, UN Style

March 29, 2008

The UN, unsurprisingly, thinks free speech is bad if it offends murderers – presumably because about half of its member nations are run by murderers.

Benjamin Franklin observed that stopping inflammatory speech might sometimes be a good thing, but that unfortunately no human being could be trusted with this authority. Hence the Frirst amendment.

The publication of the Fitna movie provides a textbook example.

Here’s how Islamist censors reacted to Liveleak’s hosting the video:

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

The UN head, appropriately named Mr Ban stands shoulder to shoulder with the Islamists:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”…”Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility,” Ban said.

“We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict,” Ban said.

Of course there’s no Western “small minority” that saws captives heads off, flies planes into buildings, executes apostates, bombs trains, threatens critics with death, and brutalizes women.

There’s just one: Islamists.

Aided and abetted in their depravity by Mr Ban and his like.

Advertisements

The Lesson of Fitna

March 28, 2008

Fitna is at LGF here (censored) and here and here.

The short movie presents Muslims with unpleasant home truths.

Wilders shows, in horrible detail, how the Koran supports sociopathic behavior by its adherents – torture, murder, Antisemitism, and the oppression of women and non-Muslims.

He challenges Muslims to break the link between their religion and such barbarism.

If Muslim immigrants in western societies don’t reform, their hosts will turn on their tormentors.

Reform will be tough for Muslims, and we wish them well with their struggle.

There isn’t much time though.

UPDATE: March 29, 10 PM GMT. Proving Wilders’ point, the headhackers shut down the original site for the movie, I’ve added an alternative.


Proscribing Islam

February 19, 2008

Brits have huge problems with some of their Islamic immigrants – oppression of women, insurrection, violent suppression of Brits’ right to free speech, and hatred of the nation that feeds them.

Muslim immigrants were welcomed to the UK because, since the 18th century, that nation has supported religious freedom. But while many Muslims have integrated into the host nation, a large minority seek to seize control of it.

This situation was foreseen by John Locke, writing in 1689 (see here, p 56, Free Press edition):

Another more secret evil, but more dangerous to the commonwealth, is when men arrogate to themselves, and to those of their own sect, some peculiar prerogative, covered over with a specious show of deceitful words, but in effect opposite to the civil rights of the community.

For example: we cannot find any sect that teaches expressly and openly that men are not obliged to keep their promise; that princes may be dethroned that differ from them in religion; or that the domination of all things belongs only to themselves…But nevertheless, we find those that say the same things in other words…

These therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is in plain terms, unto themselves, any particular privilege or power over other mortals, in civil concernments; or who, upon pretence of religion, do challenge any manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in their ecclesiastical communion; I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrates; as neither those that will not own the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion.

For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may, and are ready upon any occasion to seize the government of the estates and fortunes of their fellow-subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrates so long, until they find themselves strong enough to effect it.

This neatly to describes the current situation in the UK, and polls suggest Locke’s suggestion that Islam should not be tolerated would be welcomed by most Brits.

That won’t happen now, since both government and opposition are pusillanimous.

But political and economic stresses will soon cause Brits to elect a harder breed of men and women, who will follow Locke’s advise.

That might mean the removal of mosques, denial of state funding and employment of Muslims, and mass incarceration and deportation.

Any peaceful adherents of Islam living in the UK can avert this catastrophe by clearly separating themselves from those who believe “that the domination of all things belongs only to themselves”.


Reciprocity

February 18, 2008

If the West used the principle of reciprocity, we’d find it easy to control hostile Muslim immigrants and nations without descending to their level of barbarism. Here are some suggested examples using today’s reports.

Mohamed Fayed:

Prince Phillip. Princess Diana’s sister Sarah McCorquodale, two former Scotland Yard Commissioners Lord Condon and Lord Stevens, two French pathologists, the French police and the French Establishment today claimed Mohamed Fayed is “an habitual liar with no respect for British institutions”. The Home Office announced deportation proceedings have been commenced against Fayed.

Iran:

“The cancerous growth Iran will soon disappear,” the commander of Israel’s Rocket Forces announced today.

Hamas:

Two David rockets fired from Sderot hit a town in the southern Gaza strip on Monday afternoon, one of them exploding near an EU soup kitchen.

The Boys Brigades, the Israeli teenagers military wing, claimed responsibility for firing the rockets. A spokesman said they hoped to improve improve range beyond the current 100 km, and deploy thermobaric warheads as soon as their allowances were paid next week.

The Palestinian government announced plans to evacuate essential personnel, notably themselves, to Egypt.

Fanatical British pensioner given community service:

A British pensioner who was on the verge of carrying out his plan to to kidnap and execute the chairman of his local Sharia Court “like a pig” when police caught up with him has been sentenced to pick up litter for two weeks…

The 77-year-old talked of kidnapping someone and then tying them up before getting a “DVD movie camera” and recording a statement to be released on the BBC. He said he would put his victim’s head on a stick and then burn the body.

Sentencing him, the judge lauded the defendant’s public spirit, but convicted him of planning to improperly dispose of waste.

The Rage Boys:

NATO denounced yesterday the reprinting of a blasphemous Muslim cartoons labeling Christians, Jews and women as “Slaves and Kuffars”, warning it could lead to confrontations between, on the one side, Christians, Jews, and women, and on the other Muslims males.

“By reprinting these cartoons we are heading toward a bigger conflict and that shows that both sides will be hostages of their radicals,”NATO Secretary-General Tebbit told AFP in Istanbul.

“It is not a way of improving your rights and exercising your freedoms when you use these rights for insulting the most sacred values and symbols of the civilized and heavily armed Free World, and inciting hatred,” he said. “This is a very wrong, provocative way — unacceptable. And suicidal.”

Bring it on.


And Now It’s OK To Discuss Cousin Marriage

February 11, 2008

Another positive result of the Sharia row is that pols can now mention the unmentionable – Muslim cousin marriage.

We’ve posited (here and here) this as one of the causes of Islamic violence, incompetence, and backwardness. But until this week the pols and MSM have stayed quiet.

Not now:

8 February 2008: A government minister has warned that inbreeding among immigrants is causing a surge in birth defects – comments likely to spark a new row over the place of Muslims in British society.

Phil Woolas, an environment minister, said the culture of arranged marriages between first cousins was the “elephant in the room”. Woolas, a former race relations minister, said: “If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there’ll be a genetic problem.”

The minister, whose views were supported by medical experts this weekend, said: “The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children].”

Woolas emphasised the practice did not extend to all Muslim communities but was confined mainly to families originating from rural Pakistan. However, up to half of all marriages within these communities are estimated to involve first cousins.

Medical research suggests that while British Pakistanis are responsible for 3% of all births, they account for one in three British children born with genetic illnesses…

Woolas was supported by Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, who called for the NHS to do more to warn parents of the dangers of inbreeding…

“I have encountered cases of blindness and deafness. There was one poor girl who had to have an oxygen tank on her back and breathe from a hole in the front of her neck.

“The parents were warned they should not have any more children. But when the husband returned again from Pakistan, within months they had another child with exactly the same condition.”

Expect more of this – it’s harsh , but eventually it’ll encourage Muslims to start outbreeding like the rest of us.

UPDATE Feb 12

There’s more today:

British Pakistanis are “in denial” about the increased risks of birth defects among the children of married cousins, a Labour MP has claimed…

Mrs Cryer raised the issue two years ago after research showed that British Pakistanis were 13 times more likely to have children with disorders than the general population.

…Mrs Cryer said: “The vast majority of marriages in the Muslim community in Bradford, 80 per cent, are trans-continental. The vast majority of those are to cousins. Many of those do result in either infant mortality or in recessive disorders.”

The only dissent is pretty weak:

Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, agreed that there was a higher risk of defects but drinking or smoking in pregnancy was “as bad if not worse”.

If the issue was an “elephant in the room”, it was a “small elephant” and in Bradford it involved just five out of 70 infant deaths, although the figure was still too high.

Prof Jones said: “Let’s bear in mind that families like the Rothschilds married their cousins frequently.”

Cousin marriages were quite common in Spain and in Muslim communities worldwide, he said.

Of course the existence of other damaging behavior doesn’t alter one jot the case against genetically damaging breeding customs in Islam. And it’s not infant deaths that concern us, sad though these are, but the ones who live and go on to harm society.


Seems The UK WILL Make It

February 11, 2008

Many people we know fear the UK will succumb to Islam. But the universal outrage of Brits at their Archbishop’s promotion of Sharia law says they won’t be submitting to Islam after all – here’s a sample of the reaction.

The Archbishop has run for cover, unsurprisingly using the hate preacher defense (my emphasis):

“The Archbishop has been clarifying and setting in a wider context the comments he has made and I’m sure he will continue to do so in the future.”

The remarks came as the Archbishop was bracing himself for a confrontation with senior Church members as he refuses to apologise over the sharia law row.

The MSM has lined up against him – here’s the London Times:

Although he is a holy and spiritual man, danger lies in the appearance of the kind of intellectual arrogance common to many of Britain’s liberal elite. It is an arrogance that affords no credibility or respect to the popular voice.

The London Telegraph:

The archbishop has discredited not just himself, and the über-tolerant multicultural lobby that he sought to support, but the position of the established Church.

The Daily Mail:

Three quarters of the worshippers at Canterbury Cathedral yesterday who were asked about the archbishop’s views on sharia said he should quit.

The Independent has an excellent piece on Sharia abuse of women in the UK:

If a man wants a divorce, he simply has to say to his wife, “I divorce you” three times over three months. The wife has no right of appeal, and no right to ask for a reason.

If a woman wants a divorce, by contrast, she has to humbly ask her husband. If he refuses, she must turn to a sharia court, and convince three Mullahs that her husband has behaved “unreasonably” – according to the rules laid out in a pre-modern text that recommends domestic violence if your wife gets uppity…

These are the courts that Rowan Williams would give the stamp of British law…

So as well as scorning the Archbishop, we should thank him. He has helped to deliver the funeral rites for multiculturalism.

Even the tabloid Sun’s Motoring Correspondent:

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the most annoying man in the world.

He seems to think that the Church of England is a soap box on to which he can clamber to deliver lectures that would disgrace even a sixth form debating society.

The only good news to come out of the man’s lunacy is that we can pretty much ignore his rubbish and nonsense because today, thanks to his idiocy, he leads a church with fewer members than the Padstow Tufty Club.

The Sun is sufficiently encouraged to report our spyplanes catching Brit Muslims fighting for the Taliban:

RAF experts eavesdropped on radio traffic in Afghanistan — and heard Taliban fighters speaking in Brummie and Yorkshire accents.

The voices were detected during top secret spy-in-the-sky surveillance missions over lawless Helmand province.

The revelation proves that growing numbers of British-born Muslims are moving to Afghanistan to fight along side the Taliban.

The tabloid Mirror (after some “tiny minority” waffling):

There is no place for Sharia law in the United Kingdom. There never will be.

Only the Guardian, last refuge of multiculti, attempts a defense. But it’s pathetic:

The laws and rights of sharia seem archaic to most people in British society.

The volume of media coverage following the archbishop’s speech suggests that there is not just misapprehension and bemusement, but outright hostility.

For many, there is an instinct to fight for the rights of the women that are perceived to be undermined or abused by Islamic law. That is an admirable instinct. But…

I’ll spare you the But.

Pols and religious leaders have piled in too – even Gordon Brown:

“The Prime Minister believes the Archbishop of Canterbury is a man of great integrity and dedication to public and community service and he understands the difficulty he is facing at the moment.”

I.E. “He’s Screwed”.

But the most fascinating reads are the disgusted comments of ordinary readers.

So the Archbishop has done the UK a great favor – it’s now OK to loudly criticize Muslims who step out of line.

That means a lot of bad things now won’t happen – there will be no calls to prayer in Oxford, the Sharia courts will run for cover, and the next Muslim demonstration in London will attract a barrage of rotten eggs (or worse).

But, more importantly, Muslim immigrants now face a clear line in the sand – shape up or the Brit people will come after you.


Pity And Islam

January 24, 2008

A poll reports Europeans, uniquely among Westerners, find Islam abhorrent. That’s probably because the pandering of European elites to Muslim immigrants has convincing the natives that Islam violates a core Western value – a sense of pity.

The survey was conducted by Gallup on behalf of the lefty World Economic Forum and its Saudi partners. The conclusions are the expected combination of transi-speak (” the role of decision-makers”, “the need for media leadership”), and propaganda (Islamic terrorism is the West’s fault!).

Brussels Journal has this link to the full report, and its odd finding:

Clear majorities in all European countries surveyed see greater interaction between the West and Muslim worlds as a threat. This is true of 79% of the population in Denmark, 67% in Italy, 67% in the Netherlands, 68% in Spain, 65% in Sweden and 59% in Belgium. This corresponds to a growing fear among Europeans of a perceived “Islamic threat” to their cultural identities, driven in part by rising immigration from predominantly Muslim regions. […]

Although some might expect the United States, Israel and the Middle East to be more likely than Europe to feel threatened by the “other,” the opposite is the case. In the United States (70%), Canada (72%) and Israel (56%) majorities say that greater interaction is a benefit.

The US (Muslim 1%) and Israel (Muslim 16%) are easy to explain – both require immigrants to integrate or ship out. Canada (Muslim 1.9%) has an elite that panders to Islam and yet the natives aren’t yet restless – probably just a timing issue, since the pandering is recent.

Europeans’ distaste distaste for Muslims isn’t related to numbers – Denmark’s (Muslim 2%) are not that different from the US and Canada.

The difference seems to be the European elites – here’s an example of why the Dutch (Muslim 5.5%) don’t like their guests:

Geert Wilders, 44, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, who compares the Muslim holy book to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, sparked government panic after saying the anti-Islam film would be released tomorrow.

As Dutch police prepared for a weekend of riots and Mr Wilders was told by the authorities that he would have to leave (the) country, he launched a new attack on “intolerant” Islam while announcing that his 10-minute film attacking the Muslim faith would be postponed for two weeks.

Still, European elites oppress their population in many other ways (currently by transferring power to the EU against their explicit wishes) without triggering a 70% backlash .

So it seems likely that’s occurring because Europeans consider a core value of their civilization is violated by Islam, and that’s probably the sense of of pity:

…a feeling of sorrow for the troubles and sufferings of others; compassion.

Pity has been a core of Western civilization for over 2,000 years – here’s how the Romans reacted to a circus act (Abacus paperback, page 284):

When 20 elephants…were attacked by spearmen, their trumpetings of distress so harrowed the spectators that everyone in the theatre began to weep…At the end of the games, rather than cheering…they rose to their feet, and, through their tears, called down curses upon (the sponsor’s) head.

These same Romans were quite happy to see lions, tigers, gladiators, and captive enemies put to death, but those could (in Roman terms) be considered threatening. They wept because the elephant threatens no man, and killing them was pitiless.

And that’s what the Europeans we know hate about Islam – its lack of pity. In particular its oppression of women.

Of course there a plenty of decent Muslims in Europe, but the abused women are a constant presence to Europeans.

Europeans won’t discard their core values, and Islam has 1700 years of hardwiring, so something has to give.

Again, there’s historical precedent. In WW2, the hyper-civilized Brits morphed from dropping leaflets on Germany to burning its cities – by then mostly full of women, kids, and old men. That was a selective withdrawal of pity against an enemy that itself showed no pity.

With 70% of Europeans now saying they’re withdrawing pity from Islam, this will get ugly.