There is a direct link between the 'Rushdie Affair' and the Wilders ban.
Original article
By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL | From today's Wall Street Journal Europe.
This time, no fatwa was necessary. Two decades after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called for Salman Rushdie's murder, U.K. authorities no longer need instructions in Shariah law. In pre-emptive submission to Islamist sensibilities, Britain barred Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders last Thursday from entering the country and speaking at the House of Lords.
His short anti-Islam video "Fitna," which juxtaposes Quranic verses calling for jihad with footage of Islamic terror, threatened "public security in the U.K," according to the Home Office. Since Mr. Wilder has never called for violence -- in his home country, the only life threatened as a result of his work is his own -- the imagined security threat could come only from people opposed to him, i.e. Muslim radicals. Britain is punishing Mr. Wilders not for his own actions but for the hypothetical actions of his adversaries.
What makes this surrender of free speech and fairness -- the most noble of British traditions -- particularly depressing is its totality. All main British parties support the Labour government's ban against Mr. Wilders -- the so-called Liberal Democrats just as eagerly as the Tories. Contrast this with the reaction in the Netherlands. All main Dutch parties -- although they too reject Mr. Wilders's unbalanced assault on Islam -- condemned the British decision.
It's a fitting coincidence that this suppression of free speech in the motherland of parliamentary democracy happened just two days before the 20th anniversary of the fatwa against Mr. Rushdie for penning "The Satanic Verses." Khomeini reportedly never read the book that so insulted him; rumors of its alleged offensiveness were enough for the leader of the Islamic Revolution. In an eerie parallel, rumors are also enough for the leaders of Britain. Foreign Minister David Miliband admitted on Friday to the BBC that he had not seen the film that he nevertheless found to be "hateful." It seems Britain has not only adopted Islamist standards of free speech but also Islamist standards of proof.
There is a direct line between Khomeini's 1989 death sentence against the British author and last week's detention of Mr. Wilders at Heathrow Airport. The "Rushdie Affair" was the first illustration of the West's conflict with Islamists who believe that the Quran is superior to any man-made law.
The protests in Britain sparked by "The Satanic Verses" contained all the elements of Islamist intimidation and Western appeasement with which we are now so familiar. British Muslims burned the book in the streets of Britain and called for Mr. Rushdie's murder, while the police looked on passively. Leftists began their defense of Muslim fanatics -- perfected today -- as the "real" victims who should not have been provoked. And radical Muslims and their apologists for the first time claimed to represent the British Muslim community, a questionable claim that the state made official by choosing them as their dialogue partners.
"Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him (Mr. Rushdie)," Iqbal Sacranie, founding secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said at the time. "His mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah." It is now "Sir Iqbal" as this "moderate" received a knighthood in 2005 "for services to the Muslim community, to charities and to community relations."
The Rushdie Affair was the first time Islamists not just ignored national and international law but acted, successfully, to supersede it. They didn't manage to stop the book's publication or to kill Mr. Rushdie -- although the Norwegian publisher and Italian translator were seriously wounded in separate attacks and the Japanese translator murdered.
But they managed to force Mr. Rushdie into hiding, foreshadowing the fate of later Islam critics -- including that of Mr. Wilders, who has been living for more than four years under 24-hour police protection. Because Khomeini's death sentence could have been carried out by any radical Muslim around the world, there was no escape for Mr. Rushdie, just as there is no escape for those on today's Islamic death lists. For Mr. Rushdie there was only the exile of "safe houses" and body guards.
His ordeal, and that of others, serve as a warning to any potential critic of Islam. This has led to what is euphemistically called "self-censorship" in the media, arts and politics, supposedly a sign of respect for Muslims' "religious feelings." But in truth such self-censorship is no act of courtesy but the result of intimidation and fear.
Islamists are relying not just on threats and violence, though. The 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference is pushing for changes to international law and national law in Western countries to make them conform with Shariah law. One of the main goals of the United Nations' "antiracism" conference in April in Geneva will be to commit member states to implement laws to stop the "defamation" of Islam.
No other major Western country seems to have internalized this Islamist mindset to the degree that Britain has. Radical Muslims -- homegrown and from abroad -- can freely preach hatred, but one of their critics has just been banned.
Britain's capital earned its "Londonistan" sobriquet -- supposedly coined by French counterterrorism agents in the mid-1990s -- when it became a center for Islamic radicals fleeing persecution in their Muslim home countries. These Islamists flocked to Britain precisely because of its tradition of tolerance. It's a cruel twist of history that radical Muslims have been allowed to use the freedom they found there to limit freedom for everybody else.
In October 2007, shortly after becoming prime minister, Gordon Brown gave a powerful speech on a central element of British identity: "From the time of Magna Carta," he said, " . . . there has been a British tradition of liberty -- what one writer has called our 'gift to the world.'" Mr. Brown's ill-advised tolerance of the intolerant is now threatening this treasured tradition.
_________________________________________
Mr. Schwammenthal edits the State of the Union column.
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Free Speech, Real Jews, Under Jihadic Siege in England, India, America, and Canada.
Original article
February 13th, 2009 12:15 pm
Jihad is fully upon the West, both by stealth and by more and more open displays of Islamic aggression, hatred, and violence. Free speech (which includes truth-telling and the right to self-defense), is under the most profound siege. The United Nations has long been lost, Europe, (at least England, Holland, and possibly France), have rapidly become dhimmi states. North America is–and has been–in the cross-hairs of jihadic desire.
The recent demonstrations, ostensibly about Gaza, turned into dangerous hatefests all across the country. University campuses have become increasingly dangerous for Jewish and other pro-Israel or anti-fascist, pro-democracy students. Just the other day in Toronto, a student wearing a kippah set off a huge riot among the highly Palestinianized student body which even the Toronto police could not put down.
India has also had to live with countless Muslim terrorist attacks before the Mumbai atrocity and with attacks against authors, such as Bangladeshi Taslima Nasrin, who had been granted asylum in an Indian city. (She is now, once again, living in Europe). A friend of mine who lives in another Indian city has been writing to me about the situation but feels she cannot afford to go public with her views or her information. I am saddened, appalled by her silence, but I do understand it. I am grateful that she immediately called my attention to the incredible fuss that a recent article written by Johann Hari in the English language Statesman has caused. Hari asks why religion cannot be criticized or rather why only some religions cannot be criticized. Unbelievably, by February 12th, the editors of the Statesmen who published Hari’s piece were arrested for “offending Islam.”
Shame on England for deporting Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders on February 12th of this year. Wilders had been invited by British Parliamentarians to show his film Fitna, and shame on Holland for putting Wilders on trial for having made this brief film which merely cobbles together some previously televised and video-ed clips of bloodthirsty jihadic (Muslim) mobs and jihadic acts of terrorism (9/11, 3/11, 7/7 etc.) coupled with statements from the Qu’ran. (See here for a link which will allow you to burn your own dvd of this brief film). You may also watch the entire film live at Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch HERE.
Unlike Palestinian “faux-tography,” which shows us fake massacres and fake civilian injuries, Wilders has not fictionalized anything. He is showing us true events which we have seen many times before but this time he couples them with true and accurate statements of what Muslims are religiously commanded to do to infidels. Yes, I know, most Muslims are not this religious but they, the “moderate” Muslims, the “good” Muslims, do not challenge or stop the Muslims who are committing such barbaric deeds in the name of Islam. C’mon: Western liberals and leftists do not stop them either. In fact, they glorify and romanticize their “cleansing” deeds.
As I’ve said a thousand times since 2001: Telling such truths is not “racist.” Refusing to tell such truths is fake anti-racism, cheap atonement for past acts of racism, real racism—because refusing to tell the truth about Islam is usually accompanied by statements of hatred towards Jews and the Jewish state. Describing the truth as “racist” and then silencing and punishing those who tell it is always an act of appeasement by people who are terrified that the Muslim mobs might get them.
In these times, it is crucial to stand up and speak the truth. I applaud Rachel Ehrenfeld’s bold and brilliant stand on behalf of free speech for American authors; Daniel Pipes’s creation of a Legal Project for those who are legally threatened because they have told the truth and in so doing, have criticized Islam; and David Horowitz’s recent appeal on behalf of Joe Kaufman.
I challenge all the many True Believers in the First Amendment to stand up and be counted now. Tomorrow may be too late.
February 13th, 2009 12:15 pm
Jihad is fully upon the West, both by stealth and by more and more open displays of Islamic aggression, hatred, and violence. Free speech (which includes truth-telling and the right to self-defense), is under the most profound siege. The United Nations has long been lost, Europe, (at least England, Holland, and possibly France), have rapidly become dhimmi states. North America is–and has been–in the cross-hairs of jihadic desire.
The recent demonstrations, ostensibly about Gaza, turned into dangerous hatefests all across the country. University campuses have become increasingly dangerous for Jewish and other pro-Israel or anti-fascist, pro-democracy students. Just the other day in Toronto, a student wearing a kippah set off a huge riot among the highly Palestinianized student body which even the Toronto police could not put down.
India has also had to live with countless Muslim terrorist attacks before the Mumbai atrocity and with attacks against authors, such as Bangladeshi Taslima Nasrin, who had been granted asylum in an Indian city. (She is now, once again, living in Europe). A friend of mine who lives in another Indian city has been writing to me about the situation but feels she cannot afford to go public with her views or her information. I am saddened, appalled by her silence, but I do understand it. I am grateful that she immediately called my attention to the incredible fuss that a recent article written by Johann Hari in the English language Statesman has caused. Hari asks why religion cannot be criticized or rather why only some religions cannot be criticized. Unbelievably, by February 12th, the editors of the Statesmen who published Hari’s piece were arrested for “offending Islam.”
Shame on England for deporting Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders on February 12th of this year. Wilders had been invited by British Parliamentarians to show his film Fitna, and shame on Holland for putting Wilders on trial for having made this brief film which merely cobbles together some previously televised and video-ed clips of bloodthirsty jihadic (Muslim) mobs and jihadic acts of terrorism (9/11, 3/11, 7/7 etc.) coupled with statements from the Qu’ran. (See here for a link which will allow you to burn your own dvd of this brief film). You may also watch the entire film live at Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch HERE.
Unlike Palestinian “faux-tography,” which shows us fake massacres and fake civilian injuries, Wilders has not fictionalized anything. He is showing us true events which we have seen many times before but this time he couples them with true and accurate statements of what Muslims are religiously commanded to do to infidels. Yes, I know, most Muslims are not this religious but they, the “moderate” Muslims, the “good” Muslims, do not challenge or stop the Muslims who are committing such barbaric deeds in the name of Islam. C’mon: Western liberals and leftists do not stop them either. In fact, they glorify and romanticize their “cleansing” deeds.
As I’ve said a thousand times since 2001: Telling such truths is not “racist.” Refusing to tell such truths is fake anti-racism, cheap atonement for past acts of racism, real racism—because refusing to tell the truth about Islam is usually accompanied by statements of hatred towards Jews and the Jewish state. Describing the truth as “racist” and then silencing and punishing those who tell it is always an act of appeasement by people who are terrified that the Muslim mobs might get them.
In these times, it is crucial to stand up and speak the truth. I applaud Rachel Ehrenfeld’s bold and brilliant stand on behalf of free speech for American authors; Daniel Pipes’s creation of a Legal Project for those who are legally threatened because they have told the truth and in so doing, have criticized Islam; and David Horowitz’s recent appeal on behalf of Joe Kaufman.
I challenge all the many True Believers in the First Amendment to stand up and be counted now. Tomorrow may be too late.
Why Britain Should Never Have Banned Geert Wilders
No one even pretends that a person expressing views similar to Wilders' with regard to Christianity or Judaism would be banned from entering the UK. (Also read Phyllis Chesler: Free Speech Under Siege in Britain, Canada, America, and India.)
Original article
February 14, 2009 - by Mike McNally
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
For the last couple of years I’ve been holding out against those who claim the spread of Islamic extremism in Britain, the reluctance of the government to combat it forcefully for fear of offending Muslims, and the reluctance of the media, legal, and political establishments to even discuss the issue spell doom for the country. My argument was that while such appeasement and cultural self-loathing make it difficult for us to win the war against the extremists, we could never lose it.
Unfortunately, it looks like we just lost. Following the government’s decision to ban the anti-Islamist Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering the country on the grounds that his presence might endanger “public security,” it now only remains to be seen what form the post-war settlement will take. The Islamists, I’d reasoned, could never defeat us with terrorism. But defeat us they have. Not by destroying buildings and subjugating the British people — but by destroying our values and subjugating our freedoms. Not since Munich and Hitler has a British government caved in so completely to the demands of extremists.
Our long and proud tradition of tolerance and free speech is in tatters. It’s doubtful that many of the ministers and officials involved in the decision to ban Wilders have even seen Fitna, the Internet film that shot him to notoriety. Foreign Secretary David Miliband, wheeling out the trope that “the right to free speech doesn’t include the right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater,” claimed the film contained “extreme anti-Muslim hate.” If Miliband has seen the film, then he’s lying; if he hasn’t seen it, he’s guessing. There’s extreme hate, for sure, but it’s all coming from Muslims. Fitna uses the words of Muslims themselves, in the form of verses from the Koran and video clips of extremist preachers, juxtaposed with footage of terrorist attacks.
One person who certainly hasn’t seen the film is Labour MP Keith Vaz, who appeared on the BBC’s Thursday night edition of Newsnight to condemn the film, but then rather foolishly admitted that he hadn’t got round to watching it — even though, as the presenter reminded him, it’s only 17 minutes long. Undeterred, Vaz insisted that he didn’t need to see it in order to condemn it, and from the government’s point of view he’s quite right, because the ban has nothing to do with anything Wilders has said.
Although they won’t admit as much, government ministers banned Wilders not because they thought he would incite violence, but because they feared that Muslims enraged by Wilders’ views on Islam might react violently to his presence. And like the jittery saloon owner in countless Westerns, they don’t want no trouble, mister.
The government had reason to be worried after Muslim leaders made veiled (no pun intended) threats if Wilders was allowed to attend a screening of Fitna at the House of Lords. The Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed, reportedly claimed he would mobilize 10,000 of his co-religionists in protest. And, as we saw with the recent demonstrations against Israel, “peaceful” protests involving large numbers of young Muslim men, invariably supported by their hard-left allies, have an unfortunate tendency to end in violence and the destruction of property.
The proper response to these threats would have been for the government to put measures in place to ensure Wilders’ safety, and to deal firmly with anyone who attempted to cause trouble. However, as this government has proved time and again, faced with the prospect of lawlessness, it prefers to take the easy way out by eliminating all risk of an offense being committed rather than dealing with criminals. So, for example, in response to growing alcohol-related violence on Britain’s streets, the government proposes not to deal more forcefully with the troublemakers, but to ban “happy hours” and other drinks promotions. Everyone is to be punished for the behavior of an unruly minority, because the government has calculated that this is cheaper and easier than enforcing the existing laws of the land: why pay for all those policemen, courts, and prisons when you can simply proscribe any activity which carries with it the potential for trouble?
Because a few young people can’t handle their drink everyone has to suffer, and because Muslims can’t stomach a free discussion about the way in which their beliefs are used to justify mass murder, others must lose their right to free speech and freedom of association. And so Wilders — the presumed target of the violence — is punished rather than those threatening the violence. It’s the ultimate manifestation of the nanny state: we’ll all live happier and healthier lives if you just keep your mouth shut.
No one even pretends that a person expressing views similar to Wilders’ with regard to Christianity or Judaism would be banned from entering the UK. That’s because the people who might take issue with such sentiments tend to write angry letters, rather than blowing themselves up on buses. While the government has banned some of the more outrageous purveyors of Islamist ideology, others, such as Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi, have been allowed to enter Britain. And Lord Ahmed himself has, in the past, had no problem with inviting extremists to speak at the House of Lords — just so long as they’re his kind of extremist.
Meanwhile, on the streets of London and elsewhere, radical Muslims routinely call for Jews and British soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan to be murdered, while the once respected British bobby stands there twiddling his thumbs. The double standard is clear and the implications for free speech and other liberties are chilling: If you threaten violence, you will be appeased. If you call attention to extremism, you will be silenced. If you practice tolerance, you will be trampled on. As Mark Steyn writes, two decades on, Britain seems to have learned nothing from the Salman Rushdie affair.
The country that exported democracy to much of the world has given up the fight to preserve its own freedoms, and the manner of its capitulation should serve as a warning to American and other civilized nations. And anyone who thinks Britain’s demise is not their problem should bear in mind that the UK remains a base from which Muslim terrorists continue to plot attacks on the U.S. and other countries.
No amount of feigned outrage by Muslim leaders will change the fact that Islam is the only religion in the name of which hundreds of people are murdered, jailed, and tortured every day in dozens of countries around the world. Pretending otherwise undermines the moderate Muslims who are the West’s best hope for combating the extremists, and kicks the problem down the road for the next generation to deal with.
There’s nothing wrong with shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater if rows A through F are already ablaze.
___________________________________________________
Mike McNally blogs at Monkey Tennis Centre.
Original article
February 14, 2009 - by Mike McNally
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
For the last couple of years I’ve been holding out against those who claim the spread of Islamic extremism in Britain, the reluctance of the government to combat it forcefully for fear of offending Muslims, and the reluctance of the media, legal, and political establishments to even discuss the issue spell doom for the country. My argument was that while such appeasement and cultural self-loathing make it difficult for us to win the war against the extremists, we could never lose it.
Unfortunately, it looks like we just lost. Following the government’s decision to ban the anti-Islamist Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering the country on the grounds that his presence might endanger “public security,” it now only remains to be seen what form the post-war settlement will take. The Islamists, I’d reasoned, could never defeat us with terrorism. But defeat us they have. Not by destroying buildings and subjugating the British people — but by destroying our values and subjugating our freedoms. Not since Munich and Hitler has a British government caved in so completely to the demands of extremists.
Our long and proud tradition of tolerance and free speech is in tatters. It’s doubtful that many of the ministers and officials involved in the decision to ban Wilders have even seen Fitna, the Internet film that shot him to notoriety. Foreign Secretary David Miliband, wheeling out the trope that “the right to free speech doesn’t include the right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater,” claimed the film contained “extreme anti-Muslim hate.” If Miliband has seen the film, then he’s lying; if he hasn’t seen it, he’s guessing. There’s extreme hate, for sure, but it’s all coming from Muslims. Fitna uses the words of Muslims themselves, in the form of verses from the Koran and video clips of extremist preachers, juxtaposed with footage of terrorist attacks.
One person who certainly hasn’t seen the film is Labour MP Keith Vaz, who appeared on the BBC’s Thursday night edition of Newsnight to condemn the film, but then rather foolishly admitted that he hadn’t got round to watching it — even though, as the presenter reminded him, it’s only 17 minutes long. Undeterred, Vaz insisted that he didn’t need to see it in order to condemn it, and from the government’s point of view he’s quite right, because the ban has nothing to do with anything Wilders has said.
Although they won’t admit as much, government ministers banned Wilders not because they thought he would incite violence, but because they feared that Muslims enraged by Wilders’ views on Islam might react violently to his presence. And like the jittery saloon owner in countless Westerns, they don’t want no trouble, mister.
The government had reason to be worried after Muslim leaders made veiled (no pun intended) threats if Wilders was allowed to attend a screening of Fitna at the House of Lords. The Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed, reportedly claimed he would mobilize 10,000 of his co-religionists in protest. And, as we saw with the recent demonstrations against Israel, “peaceful” protests involving large numbers of young Muslim men, invariably supported by their hard-left allies, have an unfortunate tendency to end in violence and the destruction of property.
The proper response to these threats would have been for the government to put measures in place to ensure Wilders’ safety, and to deal firmly with anyone who attempted to cause trouble. However, as this government has proved time and again, faced with the prospect of lawlessness, it prefers to take the easy way out by eliminating all risk of an offense being committed rather than dealing with criminals. So, for example, in response to growing alcohol-related violence on Britain’s streets, the government proposes not to deal more forcefully with the troublemakers, but to ban “happy hours” and other drinks promotions. Everyone is to be punished for the behavior of an unruly minority, because the government has calculated that this is cheaper and easier than enforcing the existing laws of the land: why pay for all those policemen, courts, and prisons when you can simply proscribe any activity which carries with it the potential for trouble?
Because a few young people can’t handle their drink everyone has to suffer, and because Muslims can’t stomach a free discussion about the way in which their beliefs are used to justify mass murder, others must lose their right to free speech and freedom of association. And so Wilders — the presumed target of the violence — is punished rather than those threatening the violence. It’s the ultimate manifestation of the nanny state: we’ll all live happier and healthier lives if you just keep your mouth shut.
No one even pretends that a person expressing views similar to Wilders’ with regard to Christianity or Judaism would be banned from entering the UK. That’s because the people who might take issue with such sentiments tend to write angry letters, rather than blowing themselves up on buses. While the government has banned some of the more outrageous purveyors of Islamist ideology, others, such as Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi, have been allowed to enter Britain. And Lord Ahmed himself has, in the past, had no problem with inviting extremists to speak at the House of Lords — just so long as they’re his kind of extremist.
Meanwhile, on the streets of London and elsewhere, radical Muslims routinely call for Jews and British soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan to be murdered, while the once respected British bobby stands there twiddling his thumbs. The double standard is clear and the implications for free speech and other liberties are chilling: If you threaten violence, you will be appeased. If you call attention to extremism, you will be silenced. If you practice tolerance, you will be trampled on. As Mark Steyn writes, two decades on, Britain seems to have learned nothing from the Salman Rushdie affair.
The country that exported democracy to much of the world has given up the fight to preserve its own freedoms, and the manner of its capitulation should serve as a warning to American and other civilized nations. And anyone who thinks Britain’s demise is not their problem should bear in mind that the UK remains a base from which Muslim terrorists continue to plot attacks on the U.S. and other countries.
No amount of feigned outrage by Muslim leaders will change the fact that Islam is the only religion in the name of which hundreds of people are murdered, jailed, and tortured every day in dozens of countries around the world. Pretending otherwise undermines the moderate Muslims who are the West’s best hope for combating the extremists, and kicks the problem down the road for the next generation to deal with.
There’s nothing wrong with shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater if rows A through F are already ablaze.
___________________________________________________
Mike McNally blogs at Monkey Tennis Centre.
Friday, February 13, 2009
A Chamberlain Moment
Original article
By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, February 13, 2009
It was a watershed moment of capitulation.
On Thursday, February 12, visiting Dutch politician Geert Wilders was humiliatingly bundled back on to a plane to his native Holland shortly after arriving in London. Wilders had been invited to show his controversial, 17-minute documentary film, Fitna, in Britain’s House of Lords but was warned in a letter from the British Home Office last Tuesday he would be denied entry to the country. As reasons for his being declared persona non grata, Wilders was told in the letter he would “threaten community harmony and therefore public security.” The directive never stated, however, that the statements Wilders made in Fitna are false or misleading in any way.
A Muslim lord, Nazir Ahmed, and other Muslim leaders had vigorously protested Wilders’ visit, causing an initial invitation to be rescinded. It was reported that Ahmed had even threatened to mobilize 10,000 fellow Muslims to block Wilders from entering Westminster, a report Ahmed now denies. A cooler-headed peer, Lord Pearson, appalled at this attack on free speech, reissued the invitation to Wilders.
Daring the British government to put him in handcuffs, Wilders defiantly flew to Heathrow airport with the new invitation in his pocket. During the flight, Wilders expressed his opinion of Britain’s Labour government and its attempt to block his entry, telling the TimesOnline that it was now “more Chamberlain than Churchill.”
“I am a democrat, I am serving free speech,” said Wilders. “They are not only being nasty to me, they are being nasty to freedom of speech.”
But even Chamberlain would have been dismayed to see an elected democrat like Wilders, the leader of Holland’s liberal Freedom Party and the first European Union politician ever denied access to Great Britain, escorted by two plain-clothed guards across the tarmac to the border agency office. According to the Times story, the British security men were holding Wilders so tightly, one of Wilders’ personal bodyguards asked them to relax their grips. Wilders was subsequently put into a detention center for two hours before being unceremoniously deported back to Holland.
Many people in Britain, among them those who disagree with Fitna, are outraged that a democratically elected member of European parliament was refused admittance to their country after having been invited by the House of Lords. If free speech does not exist there, in Britain’s highest democratic institution, some have asked, then where does it exist in Great Britain?
Those opposing the Labour government’s decision to ban Wilders also believe it is not the Dutch politician who represents a threat to “community harmony” and “public safety” in Great Britain. Wilders, after all, is a peaceful man who never has broken any laws but instead must have 24-hour protection himself due to death threats from Muslim radicals. Rather, the danger to “public safety” exists in the crowd(s) that would take to the streets in response to Wilders’ presence. As a result, the Dutch politician’s supporters regard his banning as rewarding the thugs and aggressors like Lord Ahmed and others of his ilk and punishing those who would stand up for free speech and democracy.
What disturbs Wilders supporters even more is the hypocrisy surrounding the Dutch filmmaker’s expulsion. In the past, Great Britain has allowed in true preachers of hate like Muslim Brotherhood personage Yusuf al-Qaradawi, invited by London mayor Ken Livingstone in 2004. Al-Qaradawi has justified suicide bombings and condoned the killing of Israeli women and children because they are “militarised.” A more recent example is Ibrahim Moussawi, who was allowed to enter England last November despite his describing suicide bombers as martyrs and his having broadcast a 30-part series on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on the television station he heads.
British columnist Melanie Phillips also points out the British government also allows huge, pro-Hamas demonstrations and does not prevent Hizb ut Tahrir from recruiting on British campuses for the jihad against the West.
Many in Britain are disheartened and angry at their government’s unwillingness to stand up to the Muslim extremists who threaten mass, anti-democratic intimidation. Rather than stare down that threat, the Labour government has tried to appease it, causing one British observer to comment he now knows what it was like in the mid-1930s when Nazism was on the rise.
One reason for such disgraceful appeasement is that London is regarded as the headquarters for Europe’s jihadists. The Labour Party’s Home Secretary, whose department issued Wilders the persona non grata letter last Tuesday, said there are so many Islamist terrorist plots in preparation in Great Britain, the security services are having difficulties in keeping tabs on them all. It is feared a Wilders visit would have provoked the extremists at a time the Labour government is trying to “reach out” to Muslims to the point where it is even running television ads in Pakistan, essentially asking young Muslims not to hate Britain and the West.
Another is that Muslim voters now form large constituencies in Labour ridings. Few politicians, as everyone knows, are willing to take tough stands when votes are at stake. And besides losing votes, it is believed the British government is also afraid of losing Muslim money. Great Britain now has five “sharia-compliant” banks that contain $18 billion in assets, more than Muslim states like Pakistan. Prime Minister Gordon Brown once said his goal was to make London the center of world Islamic banking. Allowing Wilders into the country would not have helped in this respect.
By banning Wilders from England, the Labour government has sent a clear message that Islam cannot be criticized. But by stifling free speech, the cornerstone of freedom and democracy, in this manner and appeasing a thuggish minority, it has set itself up for far worse consequences. But hopefully by then, the British people will have decided to take action themselves, reverse this trend towards humiliation and disaster, and re-establish the great legacy of their ancestors.
___________________________________________________
Stephen Brown is a contributing editor at Frontpagemag.com. He has a graduate degree in Russian and Eastern European history. Email him at alsolzh@hotmail.com.
By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, February 13, 2009
It was a watershed moment of capitulation.
On Thursday, February 12, visiting Dutch politician Geert Wilders was humiliatingly bundled back on to a plane to his native Holland shortly after arriving in London. Wilders had been invited to show his controversial, 17-minute documentary film, Fitna, in Britain’s House of Lords but was warned in a letter from the British Home Office last Tuesday he would be denied entry to the country. As reasons for his being declared persona non grata, Wilders was told in the letter he would “threaten community harmony and therefore public security.” The directive never stated, however, that the statements Wilders made in Fitna are false or misleading in any way.
A Muslim lord, Nazir Ahmed, and other Muslim leaders had vigorously protested Wilders’ visit, causing an initial invitation to be rescinded. It was reported that Ahmed had even threatened to mobilize 10,000 fellow Muslims to block Wilders from entering Westminster, a report Ahmed now denies. A cooler-headed peer, Lord Pearson, appalled at this attack on free speech, reissued the invitation to Wilders.
Daring the British government to put him in handcuffs, Wilders defiantly flew to Heathrow airport with the new invitation in his pocket. During the flight, Wilders expressed his opinion of Britain’s Labour government and its attempt to block his entry, telling the TimesOnline that it was now “more Chamberlain than Churchill.”
“I am a democrat, I am serving free speech,” said Wilders. “They are not only being nasty to me, they are being nasty to freedom of speech.”
But even Chamberlain would have been dismayed to see an elected democrat like Wilders, the leader of Holland’s liberal Freedom Party and the first European Union politician ever denied access to Great Britain, escorted by two plain-clothed guards across the tarmac to the border agency office. According to the Times story, the British security men were holding Wilders so tightly, one of Wilders’ personal bodyguards asked them to relax their grips. Wilders was subsequently put into a detention center for two hours before being unceremoniously deported back to Holland.
Many people in Britain, among them those who disagree with Fitna, are outraged that a democratically elected member of European parliament was refused admittance to their country after having been invited by the House of Lords. If free speech does not exist there, in Britain’s highest democratic institution, some have asked, then where does it exist in Great Britain?
Those opposing the Labour government’s decision to ban Wilders also believe it is not the Dutch politician who represents a threat to “community harmony” and “public safety” in Great Britain. Wilders, after all, is a peaceful man who never has broken any laws but instead must have 24-hour protection himself due to death threats from Muslim radicals. Rather, the danger to “public safety” exists in the crowd(s) that would take to the streets in response to Wilders’ presence. As a result, the Dutch politician’s supporters regard his banning as rewarding the thugs and aggressors like Lord Ahmed and others of his ilk and punishing those who would stand up for free speech and democracy.
What disturbs Wilders supporters even more is the hypocrisy surrounding the Dutch filmmaker’s expulsion. In the past, Great Britain has allowed in true preachers of hate like Muslim Brotherhood personage Yusuf al-Qaradawi, invited by London mayor Ken Livingstone in 2004. Al-Qaradawi has justified suicide bombings and condoned the killing of Israeli women and children because they are “militarised.” A more recent example is Ibrahim Moussawi, who was allowed to enter England last November despite his describing suicide bombers as martyrs and his having broadcast a 30-part series on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on the television station he heads.
British columnist Melanie Phillips also points out the British government also allows huge, pro-Hamas demonstrations and does not prevent Hizb ut Tahrir from recruiting on British campuses for the jihad against the West.
Many in Britain are disheartened and angry at their government’s unwillingness to stand up to the Muslim extremists who threaten mass, anti-democratic intimidation. Rather than stare down that threat, the Labour government has tried to appease it, causing one British observer to comment he now knows what it was like in the mid-1930s when Nazism was on the rise.
One reason for such disgraceful appeasement is that London is regarded as the headquarters for Europe’s jihadists. The Labour Party’s Home Secretary, whose department issued Wilders the persona non grata letter last Tuesday, said there are so many Islamist terrorist plots in preparation in Great Britain, the security services are having difficulties in keeping tabs on them all. It is feared a Wilders visit would have provoked the extremists at a time the Labour government is trying to “reach out” to Muslims to the point where it is even running television ads in Pakistan, essentially asking young Muslims not to hate Britain and the West.
Another is that Muslim voters now form large constituencies in Labour ridings. Few politicians, as everyone knows, are willing to take tough stands when votes are at stake. And besides losing votes, it is believed the British government is also afraid of losing Muslim money. Great Britain now has five “sharia-compliant” banks that contain $18 billion in assets, more than Muslim states like Pakistan. Prime Minister Gordon Brown once said his goal was to make London the center of world Islamic banking. Allowing Wilders into the country would not have helped in this respect.
By banning Wilders from England, the Labour government has sent a clear message that Islam cannot be criticized. But by stifling free speech, the cornerstone of freedom and democracy, in this manner and appeasing a thuggish minority, it has set itself up for far worse consequences. But hopefully by then, the British people will have decided to take action themselves, reverse this trend towards humiliation and disaster, and re-establish the great legacy of their ancestors.
___________________________________________________
Stephen Brown is a contributing editor at Frontpagemag.com. He has a graduate degree in Russian and Eastern European history. Email him at alsolzh@hotmail.com.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
High-ranking Foreign Office diplomat arrested over anti-Semitic gym tirade
Original article
By EMILY ANDREWS and TAMARA COHEN
Last updated at 9:41 AM on 09th February 2009
A high-ranking diplomat at the Foreign Office has been arrested after allegations that he launched a foul-mouthed anti-Semitic tirade.
Middle East expert Rowan Laxton, 47, was watching TV reports of the Israeli attack on Gaza as he used an exercise bike in a gym.
Stunned staff and gym members allegedly heard him shout: 'F**king Israelis, f**king Jews'. It is alleged he also said Israeli soldiers should be 'wiped off the face of the earth'.
His rant reportedly continued even after he was approached by other gym users.
After a complaint was made to police, Mr Laxton was arrested for inciting religious hatred through threatening words and behaviour and bailed until late next month.
The maximum penalty for inciting religious hatred is a seven-year prison term or a fine or both.
Mr Laxton, who is still working normally, is head of the South Asia Group at the Foreign Office, on a salary of around £70,000.
He is responsible for all the UK's diplomacy in that area and for briefing Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who is Jewish.
Mr Laxton has worked extensively in the Middle East - he married a Muslim woman in 2000 - and has been deputy ambassador to Afghanistan.
The case could not have come at a worse time for the Foreign Office. Next week, Britain is hosting an international summit on combating anti-Semitism, with politicians from 35 countries.
Mr Laxton had gone to the London Business School's gym in Regent's Park after work on January 27.
An onlooker said: 'I was in the gym around 9pm and I heard this guy shouting something about "f**king Israelis".
'This bald guy was cycling away on his machine in the middle of the exercise room. When another guy approached him he shouted "f**king Jews, f**king Israelis".
'The gym was pretty full and everyone looked totally shocked.
' That sort of racist language is totally unacceptable. The gym staff called security and I think the guy was asked to leave.'
Mark Gardner, deputy director of the Community Security Trust which monitors anti-Semitism, said: 'There were an unprecedented number of anti-Semitic incidents during the Gaza conflict.
'This alleged case is particularly shocking, given the position held by the civil servant in question.
'We must not allow an overseas conflict to cause racism here in Britain and especially not among civil servants.
'The Jewish community will be rightly appalled to hear of these allegations against such a senior figure.
'We hope that the appropriate disciplinary actions will be taken forthwith, as they would be if these comments had been made against any other section of society.'
A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It is too early to comment in detail on a matter that is currently the subject of police enquiries. But we take extremely seriously any allegation of inappropriate conduct on the part of our staff and continue to follow developments closely.'
When contacted by the Daily Mail, Mr Laxton denied his comments were anti-Jewish but refused to answer when asked if they were anti-Israeli.
The Oxford graduate joined the diplomatic service in 1993 and rose rapidly through the ranks.
He ran the British High Commission in Pakistan for three years before moving to Afghanistan in 2001. He stayed in Kabul for two years, then returned to London. He was appointed head of his section last year.
Mr Laxton is believed to be separated from his wife, a banker who is working in the United Arab Emirates.
The Israel page of the Foreign Office website says: 'The Government has a shared responsibility to tackle anti-Semitism and all other forms of racism and prejudice'.
By EMILY ANDREWS and TAMARA COHEN
Last updated at 9:41 AM on 09th February 2009
A high-ranking diplomat at the Foreign Office has been arrested after allegations that he launched a foul-mouthed anti-Semitic tirade.
Middle East expert Rowan Laxton, 47, was watching TV reports of the Israeli attack on Gaza as he used an exercise bike in a gym.
Stunned staff and gym members allegedly heard him shout: 'F**king Israelis, f**king Jews'. It is alleged he also said Israeli soldiers should be 'wiped off the face of the earth'.
His rant reportedly continued even after he was approached by other gym users.
After a complaint was made to police, Mr Laxton was arrested for inciting religious hatred through threatening words and behaviour and bailed until late next month.
The maximum penalty for inciting religious hatred is a seven-year prison term or a fine or both.
Mr Laxton, who is still working normally, is head of the South Asia Group at the Foreign Office, on a salary of around £70,000.
He is responsible for all the UK's diplomacy in that area and for briefing Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who is Jewish.
Mr Laxton has worked extensively in the Middle East - he married a Muslim woman in 2000 - and has been deputy ambassador to Afghanistan.
The case could not have come at a worse time for the Foreign Office. Next week, Britain is hosting an international summit on combating anti-Semitism, with politicians from 35 countries.
Mr Laxton had gone to the London Business School's gym in Regent's Park after work on January 27.
An onlooker said: 'I was in the gym around 9pm and I heard this guy shouting something about "f**king Israelis".
'This bald guy was cycling away on his machine in the middle of the exercise room. When another guy approached him he shouted "f**king Jews, f**king Israelis".
'The gym was pretty full and everyone looked totally shocked.
' That sort of racist language is totally unacceptable. The gym staff called security and I think the guy was asked to leave.'
Mark Gardner, deputy director of the Community Security Trust which monitors anti-Semitism, said: 'There were an unprecedented number of anti-Semitic incidents during the Gaza conflict.
'This alleged case is particularly shocking, given the position held by the civil servant in question.
'We must not allow an overseas conflict to cause racism here in Britain and especially not among civil servants.
'The Jewish community will be rightly appalled to hear of these allegations against such a senior figure.
'We hope that the appropriate disciplinary actions will be taken forthwith, as they would be if these comments had been made against any other section of society.'
A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It is too early to comment in detail on a matter that is currently the subject of police enquiries. But we take extremely seriously any allegation of inappropriate conduct on the part of our staff and continue to follow developments closely.'
When contacted by the Daily Mail, Mr Laxton denied his comments were anti-Jewish but refused to answer when asked if they were anti-Israeli.
The Oxford graduate joined the diplomatic service in 1993 and rose rapidly through the ranks.
He ran the British High Commission in Pakistan for three years before moving to Afghanistan in 2001. He stayed in Kabul for two years, then returned to London. He was appointed head of his section last year.
Mr Laxton is believed to be separated from his wife, a banker who is working in the United Arab Emirates.
The Israel page of the Foreign Office website says: 'The Government has a shared responsibility to tackle anti-Semitism and all other forms of racism and prejudice'.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
"Sharia banking in the UK, do any of them have the slightest understanding of what they are doing?"
Melanie Phillips: "As Britain’s government and banks congratulate themselves on the stunning growth of sharia banking in the UK, do any of them have the slightest understanding of what they are doing?"
Original article
"Cheer up – we’re about to be bought up by the Islamic world."
"Britain's a world-leader in sharia banking - but we haven't grasped the sinister and dangerous implications," by Melanie Phillips for the Mail Online, February 10:
Original article
"Cheer up – we’re about to be bought up by the Islamic world."
"Britain's a world-leader in sharia banking - but we haven't grasped the sinister and dangerous implications," by Melanie Phillips for the Mail Online, February 10:
Worried that Britain is going bankrupt? Cheer up – we’re about to be bought up by the Islamic world.
A report by International Financial Services London reveals that Britain’s Islamic banking sector is now bigger than that of Pakistan.
The study says that the UK has by far the largest number of banks for Muslims of any western country.
The UK now has five fully ‘sharia-compliant’ banks – providing products which prohibit interest payments and investment in alcohol or gambling firms in accordance with Islamic sharia law – while another 17 leading institutions including Barclays, RBS and Lloyds Banking Group have set up special branches or subsidiary firms for Muslim clients.
The $18billion (£12bn) in assets of Britain’s Islamic banks are said to dwarf those of Muslim states such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey and Egypt. And there are also 55 colleges and professional institutions offering education in Islamic finance in Britain – more than anywhere else in the world.
This development has been actively pushed by the government. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown declared that he wanted London to become the global centre of Islamic banking. You can obviously see the attraction, especially in these straightened times. But the only thing our politicians and bankers appear to see is the seductive prospect of trillions of pound and dollar signs dancing before their bedazzled eyes.
What they refuse to acknowledge is the real price that is to be paid for this. They don’t understand that the spread of sharia banking in Britain and America is a significant part of the attempt to Islamise Britain and America. Acceptance of sharia finance furthers the Islamist objective of gradually legitimising Islamic sharia law more generally in the west.
The point which is being missed is that all who use it must conform to the dictates of sharia law. Sharia financial institutions may not be making this clear now – they don’t want to frighten people away – but at some point that IOU of sharia-compliance will be called in. This is how sharia-compliance will be spread to both the Muslim and non-Muslim population.
Any Western institution that endorses sharia-compliant products therefore effectively endorses the extremist ideology behind it of conquering the west for Islam, whether it knows it or not.
The most important point to grasp is that Islam recognises no authority superior to sharia. Sharia banks will therefore not recognise the superior authority of the law of the land. When trillions of pounds and dollars are locked into them, who will argue with them?
Even more troubling is the potential cover provided by sharia finance for the financing of terrorism. Sharia requires Muslims to tithe a percentage of their money to charity, called ‘zakat’.
But charity in Islam is more like solidarity. So some of this money donated to Islamic charities may well find its way to organisations promoting jihad and supporting suicide bombing including Hamas, Hezbollah, the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and Islamist madrassas in places like Pakistan. [...]
As Britain’s government and banks congratulate themselves on the stunning growth of sharia banking in the UK, do any of them have the slightest understanding of what they are doing?
UK: "marvelous" head teacher forced to resign after being accused of "racism" by Muslims
Original article
Defying the the UK's institutionalized dhimmitude, she dared encourage a sense of homogeneity. "Muslim parents should accept the law of the land," from the Telegraph, February 10:
Probably because no other school has such a high concentration of Muslims. But when Muslims make a whopping 20%, such as in this school, you can be sure they are going to feel strong enough to insist for special treatment; just like when Muslims make up, say, 80% of a population -- that is, in the Islamic world -- conquered non-Muslim populations living among them , far from receiving special or even equal treatment, live in subjugation and humiliation, according to Allah's words (Koran 9:29). As you can see, there is a pattern here.
Defying the the UK's institutionalized dhimmitude, she dared encourage a sense of homogeneity. "Muslim parents should accept the law of the land," from the Telegraph, February 10:
Spurious charges of racism have forced out a "marvellous" head teacher.
The website of Sheffield's Meersbrook Bank School carries a mission statement that says "we celebrate the diversity of our pupils and the community. We strive for full participation and high levels of achievement in all areas of school life." It also quotes from its last Ofsted report:
"The caring and inclusive atmosphere of the school means that pupils feel safe, develop strong relationships with adults and one another, and have positive attitude to learning".
It is clearly a proud and successful school that serves its local community well and takes pains not only to provide for but to celebrate the diverse nature of its local population. Yet its head teacher, Julia Robinson, has resigned after being accused by some parents of racism. Her offence? She wanted to scrap separate assemblies for Muslim children at the school.
Mrs Robinson – who has acted throughout in close consultation with the local education authority – was simply observing the law of the land which says that children in state schools in England and Wales "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship" which should be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character".
Yet a decade ago Muslim parents – whose children make up a fifth of the school's 240 pupils – withdrew their children from the assemblies, allegedly after a teacher tried to "force" a Muslim pupil to sing a Christian hymn. A compromise was reached whereby Muslim children would attend four of the five assemblies each week but on a Tuesday, when a more traditional Christian assembly was held, they would have a separate gathering led by one of the parents.
Mrs Robinson, acknowledged by teachers and parents to be a "marvellous" head, wanted to revert to a situation where the whole school population gathered for assembly every day. There is nothing exceptional about this. According to the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), no other school in the country holds separate assemblies for different faiths.
Probably because no other school has such a high concentration of Muslims. But when Muslims make a whopping 20%, such as in this school, you can be sure they are going to feel strong enough to insist for special treatment; just like when Muslims make up, say, 80% of a population -- that is, in the Islamic world -- conquered non-Muslim populations living among them , far from receiving special or even equal treatment, live in subjugation and humiliation, according to Allah's words (Koran 9:29). As you can see, there is a pattern here.
An NAHT spokesman said: "Segregating children is not good practice. The whole point is to gather people together to share their views and to learn from other people's viewpoints".
In seeking to achieve just that, Mrs Robinson has – shamefully - been branded a racist by some Muslim parents. If there is racism at play here, it is not on the part of the head teacher.
Geert Wilders Barred from Entering Britain
The Dutch lawmaker is banned from entering the country to show his controversial film Fitna.
Original article
February 10, 2009 - by Andrew Ian Dodge
Whether or not you have heard of Fitna or the man who made it, Geert Wilders, you will probably be shocked about the latest developments in efforts to muzzle the man and his film.
The Dutch filmmaker faces constant death threats in his native land for daring to examine the contents of the Koran and point out that it’s not always the caring document it is made out to be. His film has been banned and wildly condemned by Muslims all over the world for its portrayal of the words in the Koran.
Much like the murders of Pim Fortuin and Theo van Gogh, Wilders’ case has been a cause célèbre for those who wish to preserve freedom of speech for all. Wilders is on the very front line in the battle for free expression all over Europe.
In his home country he is being prosecuted (many say persecuted) by the authorities for expressing his views on Islam and its rise in Europe.
In Britain he was asked to speak by a member of the House of Lords, Lord Pearson, only to have Lord Ahmed threaten the body with civil unrest if Wilders did indeed speak. As part of this speaking engagement, there was also going to be a viewing of an English version of Fitna. Melanie Phillips reports what happened next:
Wilders has been banned from Britain and threatened with arrest if he tries to come into the country. So much for free travel thanks to EU membership, right? MEP (Member of the European Parliament) Dan Hannan had this to say on the matter:
Lord Pearson’s press release has this to say on the potential arrest of Wilders if he tries to enter the UK:
The entire event has become a tug of war between members of the House of Lords who believe in freedom of speech and those who don’t. Lord Pearson has called the bluff of the British establishment, which seeks to avoid controversy and any possible offense to the Islamic minority.
The following is from the letter banning Wilders:
This incident not only demonstrates the depth to which Muslims will go to quell any criticism of their faith. It also reveals the farcical nature of the free society that once was Britain. We have been reading reports of the subsuming of majority rights all over the continent, and we now see that the UK is under the same grip of fear of offending Islam.
Needless to say, Wilders, not afraid of arrest, will fly to Heathrow as planned, daring them to detain him when he lands in the UK.
Do yourself a favor and view Fitna. Then judge for yourself if its such a great threat that the man behind it needs to have his freedom of expression curtailed and his life threatened.
_________________________________
Andrew Ian Dodge blogs at Dodgeblogium.
Original article
February 10, 2009 - by Andrew Ian Dodge
Whether or not you have heard of Fitna or the man who made it, Geert Wilders, you will probably be shocked about the latest developments in efforts to muzzle the man and his film.
The Dutch filmmaker faces constant death threats in his native land for daring to examine the contents of the Koran and point out that it’s not always the caring document it is made out to be. His film has been banned and wildly condemned by Muslims all over the world for its portrayal of the words in the Koran.
Much like the murders of Pim Fortuin and Theo van Gogh, Wilders’ case has been a cause célèbre for those who wish to preserve freedom of speech for all. Wilders is on the very front line in the battle for free expression all over Europe.
In his home country he is being prosecuted (many say persecuted) by the authorities for expressing his views on Islam and its rise in Europe.
In Britain he was asked to speak by a member of the House of Lords, Lord Pearson, only to have Lord Ahmed threaten the body with civil unrest if Wilders did indeed speak. As part of this speaking engagement, there was also going to be a viewing of an English version of Fitna. Melanie Phillips reports what happened next:
But various representatives of the British Muslim community protested; and Lord Ahmed issued a threat that he would personally mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering the Upper House and would take the peer organizing the event to court. In the face of such threats, the meeting was canceled.
Wilders has been banned from Britain and threatened with arrest if he tries to come into the country. So much for free travel thanks to EU membership, right? MEP (Member of the European Parliament) Dan Hannan had this to say on the matter:
But what I think of him is neither here nor there. Freedom means the freedom to express any opinion, however eccentric, however offensive. The Dutch foreign minister, a political opponent of Mr. Wilders, has complained to David Miliband. Good for him. Whether our government is actuated by cowardice or authoritarianism, it’s equally ugly. We are a meaner country than we were this morning.
Lord Pearson’s press release has this to say on the potential arrest of Wilders if he tries to enter the UK:
Despite threats of demonstration from a British Peer and Muslim community leaders, the meeting will go ahead. Wilders’ film Fitna features verses from the Quran alongside images of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on September 11, 2001, Madrid in March 2004 and London in July 2005. The film equates Islam’s holy text with violence and ends with a call to Muslims to remove “hate preaching” verses from the Quran. It provoked protests in Muslim-majority countries including Indonesia and Pakistan.
The entire event has become a tug of war between members of the House of Lords who believe in freedom of speech and those who don’t. Lord Pearson has called the bluff of the British establishment, which seeks to avoid controversy and any possible offense to the Islamic minority.
The following is from the letter banning Wilders:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.
This incident not only demonstrates the depth to which Muslims will go to quell any criticism of their faith. It also reveals the farcical nature of the free society that once was Britain. We have been reading reports of the subsuming of majority rights all over the continent, and we now see that the UK is under the same grip of fear of offending Islam.
Needless to say, Wilders, not afraid of arrest, will fly to Heathrow as planned, daring them to detain him when he lands in the UK.
Do yourself a favor and view Fitna. Then judge for yourself if its such a great threat that the man behind it needs to have his freedom of expression curtailed and his life threatened.
_________________________________
Andrew Ian Dodge blogs at Dodgeblogium.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Should British Jews GET OUT BEFORE ITS Too Late?
Original article
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2009
England's Scotland Yard estimates that security costs for anti-Israel protests during the Gaza war exceeded $1.4 million. In one protest alone, more than 12,000 angry Palestinian sympathizers in London smashed windows, destroyed a car, and set Israeli flags ablaze.
Douglas Davis reports on the reaction to the resulting anti-Semitism at his Shabbos dinner table:
Mark Steyn tell this story:
Barry Rubin forwarded this to me
Things in Britain are at the crisis point. Is it time for British Jews to get out of Great Britain before its too late?
Rise in antisemitic attacks 'the worst recorded in Britain in decades' British Jews' safety fears grow after Gaza invasion
Mark Townsend
Police patrols have been stepped up in Jewish neighbourhoods following the most intense period of antisemitic incidents to have been recorded in Britain in decades.
Safety fears are so acute that reports have emerged of members of Britain's Jewish community fleeing the UK with antisemitic incidents running at around seven a day this year.
Around 270 cases have been reported in 2009, according to figures compiled by the Community Security Trust (CST), the body that monitors anti-Jewish racism, with most blamed on anti-Israeli sentiment in reaction to hostilities in Gaza. Attacks recorded during the first Palestinian intifida of the late 1980s averaged 16 a month.
Scotland Yard is understood to have placed prominent Jewish communities on heightened alert, while the Association of Chief Police Officers' national community tension team is responding to intelligence by issuing weekly patrol directives to chief constables instructing them of threats to Jewish communities in their areas.
Incidents recorded by the CST include violent assaults in the street, hate emails and graffiti threatening "jihad" against British Jews. One disturbing aspect involves the targeting of Jewish children. A Birmingham school is investigating reports that 20 children chased a 12-year-old girl, its only Jewish pupil, chanting "Kill all Jews" and "Death to Jews". In another incident a Jewish schoolgirl reported being bullied at a non-Jewish school because of the Gaza conflict.
CST spokesman Mark Gardner said the current fear of persecution was so profound that some members of the Jewish community were seeking to emigrate to countries where they felt more secure, such as Israel, the United States or Australia. "I know two families, one of which has already moved and the other which is in the process of moving, who don't see the point of putting up with this," he added.
This week the CST will publish its annual report on antisemitic incidents for 2008, which will reveal that around 550 were recorded in the UK last year, slightly less than the record of 594 in 2006, when Israel and Lebanon waged a brief but bloody war.
Veteran director and actor Steven Berkoff recently explained the anti-Israeli reaction over Gaza by saying: "England is not a great lover of its Jews. Never has been".
Some within Britain's 350,000-strong Jewish community accuse the government of not doing enough to condemn the increase in antisemitism. However, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said it had recently received a letter from the communities minister, Hazel Blears, stating that she was "deeply concerned about the dramatic rise in antisemitic attacks in the UK".
Mark Frazer, spokesman for the Board of Deputies, said: "We are seeing an unprecedented level of attacks directed at the Jewish community, both physical and verbal. It is incumbent upon us all to isolate and marginalise those who would derail the legitimate political debate with an extremist and hateful ideology." Recorded attacks have centred on the Jewish communities of Golders Green and Hampstead Garden Suburb in north London.
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2009
England's Scotland Yard estimates that security costs for anti-Israel protests during the Gaza war exceeded $1.4 million. In one protest alone, more than 12,000 angry Palestinian sympathizers in London smashed windows, destroyed a car, and set Israeli flags ablaze.
Douglas Davis reports on the reaction to the resulting anti-Semitism at his Shabbos dinner table:
At my dinner table on Friday night, a holocaust survivor admits that she is trying to persuade her son to take his family out of Europe to America, Canada, Australia, Canada, Australia, Israel...’They say they can’t leave me, but I tell them: “Go, get out. My parents left my grandparents behind in Berlin and brought me to safety in England. Now I want you to leave so that my grandchildren will be safe.”’ There is an unbearable desperation in her plea. But she has a point. Source:The terrible warning of a Holocaust survivor
Mark Steyn tell this story:
An elderly Jewish friend from London was at a gathering recently, and said someone asked: “Politically speaking, who are our friends?” Nobody had an answer, and the consensus was that Britain’s Jewish community felt lonelier than within living memory.
Barry Rubin forwarded this to me
- A student who I know--and is not an extremist or alarmist--just wrote me this from London: "It is bad here I was in a school a week ago at a meeting, after which the following comment was heard from 17 year old school students [Muslims] : "kill the Jews" , "slaughter to the Jews"
- From an economist in the UK ....points out that Aliyah always rises in recessions. In the early phase of this recession there is already an usually high degree of antisemitism (that always rises in a recession too). He thinks the Israeli government’s forecasts of Aliyah might be much too low.
- Another friend says, In the past eight months four colleagues from the UK have made Aliya, they were defiantly influenced by the conditions in the UK
Things in Britain are at the crisis point. Is it time for British Jews to get out of Great Britain before its too late?
Rise in antisemitic attacks 'the worst recorded in Britain in decades' British Jews' safety fears grow after Gaza invasion
Mark Townsend
Police patrols have been stepped up in Jewish neighbourhoods following the most intense period of antisemitic incidents to have been recorded in Britain in decades.
Safety fears are so acute that reports have emerged of members of Britain's Jewish community fleeing the UK with antisemitic incidents running at around seven a day this year.
Around 270 cases have been reported in 2009, according to figures compiled by the Community Security Trust (CST), the body that monitors anti-Jewish racism, with most blamed on anti-Israeli sentiment in reaction to hostilities in Gaza. Attacks recorded during the first Palestinian intifida of the late 1980s averaged 16 a month.
Scotland Yard is understood to have placed prominent Jewish communities on heightened alert, while the Association of Chief Police Officers' national community tension team is responding to intelligence by issuing weekly patrol directives to chief constables instructing them of threats to Jewish communities in their areas.
Incidents recorded by the CST include violent assaults in the street, hate emails and graffiti threatening "jihad" against British Jews. One disturbing aspect involves the targeting of Jewish children. A Birmingham school is investigating reports that 20 children chased a 12-year-old girl, its only Jewish pupil, chanting "Kill all Jews" and "Death to Jews". In another incident a Jewish schoolgirl reported being bullied at a non-Jewish school because of the Gaza conflict.
CST spokesman Mark Gardner said the current fear of persecution was so profound that some members of the Jewish community were seeking to emigrate to countries where they felt more secure, such as Israel, the United States or Australia. "I know two families, one of which has already moved and the other which is in the process of moving, who don't see the point of putting up with this," he added.
This week the CST will publish its annual report on antisemitic incidents for 2008, which will reveal that around 550 were recorded in the UK last year, slightly less than the record of 594 in 2006, when Israel and Lebanon waged a brief but bloody war.
Veteran director and actor Steven Berkoff recently explained the anti-Israeli reaction over Gaza by saying: "England is not a great lover of its Jews. Never has been".
Some within Britain's 350,000-strong Jewish community accuse the government of not doing enough to condemn the increase in antisemitism. However, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said it had recently received a letter from the communities minister, Hazel Blears, stating that she was "deeply concerned about the dramatic rise in antisemitic attacks in the UK".
Mark Frazer, spokesman for the Board of Deputies, said: "We are seeing an unprecedented level of attacks directed at the Jewish community, both physical and verbal. It is incumbent upon us all to isolate and marginalise those who would derail the legitimate political debate with an extremist and hateful ideology." Recorded attacks have centred on the Jewish communities of Golders Green and Hampstead Garden Suburb in north London.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
