Letter to Michael Fallon and Rory Stewart MPs – Iran Talks

Dear  Mr Fallon and Mr Stewart,

In your roles overseeing defence, please could you exert all the pressure you can to stop the Iran talks resulting in Iran being on the road to a nuclear weapon. It would be madness to allow a nuclear power in that region. Already Saudi Arabia is demonstrating it would not stand by and allow Iran to become more powerful – it would also attempt to manufacture such a weapon, the results of which would be catastrophic it is surely clear. There is also talk of Israel making a defensive strike on Iran if these talks fail to stop Iran completely, as they should.

It is clearly in the interest of our national security and the security of the entire Western world to ensure the volatile and conflicted region which includes Iran does not become nuclear. A nuclear weapon in that region would not act as a deterrent but a catastrophic agent in its destructive arsenal.

Please please listen to the people who do not want this, who in fact want to be protected from the threat posed to civilisation by Islam both at home and on an international scale.

Sincerely,

Examine Islam has a new Campaign Website!

Dear loyal readers. I will soon be migrating my blogs to the new Examine Islam website at:

examine-islam.org

Please please subscribe to that asap to make sure you get the latest developments in the campaign, which we hope to launch later this year.

There are lots of ways you can take part – just visit the Activism and Fundraising pages. Latest blog is http://examine-islam.org/2015/03/standing-up-for-muslim-women-and-called-islamophobic-for-her-pains/

Enjoy

We must ban Islam in the West in order to discredit it.

Since starting the Examine Islam petition I have felt the need to explain why I and so many others signing the petition believe Islam ought to be banned in the Western world.

Clearly laws in different countries vary, but I take Germany’s hate speech laws as my basis for an example which I believe we need to roll out in all Western nations where we value our independence and right to defend our culture against Islamisation.

German hate speech laws were laid down mostly with de-Nazification in mind, post war, but also with the experience with the failure of democracy in Weimar Germany (i.e., inter-war Germany). The common perception was that one reason for the failure of democracy in Germany at that time was the intense hatred, propaganda, and even street violence of the far right and far left. Essentially, the liberal German state gave anti-liberal groups the freedom to undermine it, and these groups ultimately succeeded.

In response to this, the laws and lawyers of post-war Germany acknowledged as an implicit principle that of “wehrhafte Demokratie” — “fortified/resisting democracy”. In other words, the law in a liberal state should have the capacities to limit forms of action, but also speech, that effectively set out to undermine or destroy the liberal/democratic state itself. What is meant by “liberal” or “democratic” is very narrow, and of course influenced by historical experiences — it means the rule of law, basic forms of democratic government, and a set of basic, “classical” rights. It is from that background that one can understand hate speech laws, but also a wider set of other laws, e.g., the role of the German supreme court in forbidding parties and societies which are against basic democratic principles. (The KKK, for example, would be forbidden in Germany.)

Every liberal and democratic state gives rights and liberties to its citizens, as both the German and American states do, together with the rest of the EU, Canada and others. In doing so, these states no longer stay “morally neutral”: they implicitly accept that these are prime and undeniable goods that have to be given to or prevented from being taken from, each and every individual. This implies a duty of the state to do the best to secure these liberties and rights to all individuals. Forbidding speech that ultimately aims to undermine them can be a part of that; it’s a way of defending the core values that underlie the society we live in.

Of utmost importance is the expressive (or symbolic) significance of anti-hate speech laws: they re-affirm and publicly express the values we in the West were shaped by and stand by – freedom, tolerance, equality before the law, democracy, human rights, the scientific method. Enlightenment values all, but also directly inspired by the Judeo-Christian model.

By forbidding the worst forms of hate speech, the state publicly pronounces and emphasises that it is not neutral with regard to a narrow and restricted set of fundamental values — such as freedom, democracy, the rule of law and equality before the law.

From a philosophical, social, political, or historical standpoint, the reasoning behind the law is as important as the law itself. In the US, laws which would ban hate speech are considered to be an affront on the basic pillars of society. In Europe, hate speech itself is considered to be an affront on the basic pillars of society.

I can’t think of a more significant distinction between US and Europe than the source of the thing we call “freedom”.

Suppressing Islam, which calls itself a ‘religion’, is morally acceptable when one examines the core texts of Islam – these amount to hate speech and run counter to core human rights. The Koran, Hadith and Sunnah make up a set of rules by which Muslims must life their life. These are enshrined in Sharia law. It is no coincidence that:

“The Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights ruled in February 2003 that Islamic Sharia law is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.” The court said that a legal system based on Sharia law “would diverge from the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly with regard to the rules on the status of women, and its intervention in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”  (Examine Islam Petition).

“Most Islamic countries have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, in 1948, Saudi Arabia abstained from the ratification vote on the Declaration, claiming that it violated Sharia law.^[29] Pakistan—which had signed the declaration—disagreed and critiqued the Saudi position.^[30] In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that the Declaration was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition” which could not be implemented by Muslims without conflict with Sharia.^{[31] (Wikipedia).}

Theocratic Islamic regimes such as Saudi and Iran’s consistent flaunting of Human Rights law (beheading, stoning and hanging gays and adulterers and imprisoning critics for example) show how Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Human Rights. These nations say so themselves! They are Islamic nations, theocratic regimes, telling the West that Human Rights laws are anti-Islamic – what more proof is needed?

Please take the time to read the examples of violence and hate in Hadith and Koran. These are from the accepted sources used by Muslims worldwide. Perhaps all Muslims have not read them, or perhaps they don’t feel like acting on them. But it is clear – to be a good Muslim, Muhammad explicitly told Muslims that he was the perfect example who should be emulated. This is what Isis and Boko Haram and Al Quaeda are doing. This is what all the terrorists in the West over the decades have been doing, and this is precisely what Muslims want when they demand Sharia law, Muslim schools, Mosques and Islamic satellite TV channels which spread hatred of the West.

An example amongst too many from the Hadith –

“The Prophet ordered for some iron pieces to be made red hot, and their eyes were branded with them and their hands and feet were cut off and were not cauterized. Then they were put at a place called Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink they were not given till they died. (Abu Qilaba said, “Those people committed theft and murder and fought against Allah and His Apostle.”)” goo.gl/4wKdrQ

An example from amongst countless in the Koran:

“And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter”. 2:191

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not”. 2:216

“Of the Unbelievers: “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” 4:89

Please see more ways here of how Islam’s tenets breach specific Human Rights law.

Muslims outside of Muslim-majority nations (eg in the West) have now started demanding that their issues are resolved by Sharia courts – this is already happening in the UK. They have started demanding that their children receive Islamic education which effectively brainwashes children into the cult of Islam, creating a loyalty to Islam that overrides any patriotism they would have for the nation that nurtures them.

Islam is a lifestyle rather than a religion. It is also a cult – leaving Islam results in the death penalty, as does criticising or questioning it.

“Narrated By Abu Zur’a bin ‘Amr bin Jarir : The Prophet said during Hajjat-al-Wada’, “Let the people be quiet and listen to me. After me, do not become disbelievers, by striking (cutting) the necks of one another.” goo.gl/WoIFx2

‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’” – goo.gl/P9wuV7

Banning Islam is essential – whilst it will without a doubt amplify the extremes, at the same time it will lower the general acceptance of such ideas since it would now be goings against society’s norms. This would result in strengthening our accepted Western values, and remove the acceptance of the tenets which run counter to them. This is a worthy trade-off for society as a whole, as it will stop hate preachers from openly preaching violence and death to unbelievers. It will allow states to cut off transmissions of pro-Islamist propaganda TV such as Islam Channel. It will allow states to block access to Islamist web content and social media.

Does the idea of inferior and superior humans and that the inferior deserve to be eradicated help society/humanity in any way? There are some things that are simply not desirable. It’s historical a touchy subject, because it went too far. We had the debate in the past, we even acted on it, I don’t see that it enriched the world so much that it would be worth it.

Allowing them to speak their piece, expose their ideas, and appear in public only exposed their weakness and ignorance. This is a better approach.

Freedom of assembly was and is still legal in Germany. There are lot of nazi rallies everywhere around Germany on certain dates (historically significant dates) and you bet there are easily 100 times more anti-nazi protesters. Problem is: These require time and money. Spending so much of public money and a lot of peoples’ time is not really the ideal scenario. But as long there are people “stupid” enough to follow those ideologies, they are a necessity.

Once someone is enthralled in an ideologic belief system, it’s very hard to get them out of there. Therefore, lots of education and lowering exposure of/to dangerous biased ideologies seems to be a good way to go.

Let me finish this post with a more personal note: Pleasure discussing with you, have an upvote for such a good debate post:-)

I disagree with the premise that words cause harm in this sense. And even if I did agree that they caused harm, the harm prevented by censorship would have to be weighed against the harm done to the basic human right of free expression.

I know, this one’s hard to grasp as long we don’t have methods to empirically show the effects of psychological abuse the same way we can take a look at a wound and say “hey, this guy’s hurt”.
I extend the basic human right of life and “non-harm” (I don’t know, is there a similiar word for “Unverletzlichkeit” in English?) to psychological abuse and state clearly “Words can be weapons. To deny such a fact in the face of bullying and hate speech is like denying the fact that knifes can be weapons after being stabbed.” (I wish I could quote someone famous poet saying that, but it’s only something I came up with a minute ago.)

So, there we are. We came to the conflict of basic rights. Now we can start prioritizing. I, for one, would set the individual right to life without harm higher than the individual freedom of speech. I should have the right to say “Shut up!” when someone insults me. (Exaggeration! I meant simply asking him to stop, so any further act would be deliberate and a (albeit very small) crime).

I don’t plan on preventing anything. The idea of small scale prevention is blind idealism. They will pick up traces sooner or later. But if they learned that this ideology is wrong for that and that reasons, they will recognize those and be strenghten in their non-extreme believes. You don’t have to see it black/white as a complete ban from existence. They are still available, they have to, for history’s sake. If you want to read “Mein Kampf” in Germany, you still can. You will have to settle for a commented version though. It puts the biased bullcrap in context and shows you the flaws and errors where the original keeps silent.

Most Islamic countries have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, in 1948, Saudi Arabia abstained from the ratification vote on the Declaration, claiming that it violated Sharia law.^[29] Pakistan—which had signed the declaration—disagreed and critiqued the Saudi position.^[30] In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that the Declaration was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition” which could not be implemented by Muslims without conflict with Sharia.^[31]

http://www.uri.edu/mind/VALUES2.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

Gatestone Institute – Islam in Norway is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Here I re-publish an article by Bjorn Jansen from the Gatestone Institute which makes some very important points not solely applicable to Norway’s experience with Islam but to all Western countries as they reel from the numbers of their Muslim populations preaching hate on social media and in Mosques, going to fight with Isis or actually killing people on Western soil. Jansen makes the important point that the Koran is literally FULL of a narrative which separates the world into believers (good) and non-believers (bad – and needing to be killed, these are termed ‘Kuffar‘). The fact that Muslim children are encouraged to learn the Koran by heart as children or at least recite it daily gives one pause, when one considers there are literally hundreds of verses such as these;

• Here Kuffars are to be terrorised – “[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”” [8: 12]
• Here Koran urges Kuffars to be crucified – “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.” [5: 33]
• Here Koran calls Kuffars ‘evil’ –  “Say thou: ‘Yea, and ye shall then be humiliated (on account of your evil).” [37: 18]

“While Western politicians and others are now presumably aware of the texts that encourage the killing of non-believers, possibly more important is the pervasive, divisive focus on non-believers — the insistence on disparaging them and killing them — and how this might well condition the minds of many Muslims around the world, especially children.” (Bjorn Jansen)

Norway: The Land of Pre-Chosen “Truth”

by Bjorn Jansen
March 19, 2015 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5414/norway-islam-truth

The last few weeks have seen serious signs of interest in the Muslim world for the reform of Islam. They started with the heroic and honorable initiative at the end of 2014 by Egypt’s President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, criticizing the ideology of Islam. He comments on h

Islamic Human Rights Council – a Joke that’s hard to swallow

I reprint this article by Douglas Murray because of the ire it has provoked in me – the though that Rowan Williams supports this ridiculous group and that more than that the Charity Commission grants it Charitable Status is intolerable. Read on –

A new low: Charlie Hebdo’s murdered staff receive an ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award

485 comments 10 March 2015 10:22 Douglas Murray Follow @douglaskmurray

The IHRC gave their international ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award to the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo (Photo: Damien Meyer/AFP/Getty)

I have always treated the ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ event with the scorn it deserves. Not least because each year this fantasy prize for a fantasy concept is run by a British Khomeinist organisation laughably named the ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission.’  The nominees include anybody opposed to the agenda of Islamic extremists, including Muslims.  Of course each year, whilst laughing at it, those of us who are regular nominees also regard it as being to our great good fortune that the IHRC is a British charity operating in the United Kingdom rather than an Islamic charity operating in an Islamic country.  If the latter were the case then rather than laughing at the IHRC every year, those of us who it annually attacks would be hanging from cranes.

However, readers will perhaps excuse me if the laughter is slightly quieter this year.  The first reason is that the ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award seems to be gaining ‘mainstream’ ground.  This year the awards were not only endorsed by Islamic extremists on the one hand and pseudo-academics like Arun Kundnani on the other, but also by a number of more prominent public figures including the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and former Telegraph journalist Peter Oborne.

Once again I made the shortlist but missed out on the main award.  However the UK award for ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ did go to Maajid Nawaz.  It would be hard to invent a better display of the agenda of the IHRC and the people involved with it.  Because of course Maajid has devoted his life to, and risks his life by, attacking the extremists within the Islamic faith – his faith.  The IHRC and their supporters seem to have much in common with fundamentalist and extremist Muslims, in that both are deeply irritated by the few brave Muslims like Nawaz.  Indeed they hate him even more than they hate people like me.  Readers will have to guess what variety of Islamic group might choose to attack liberal Muslims, what this says about their agenda and what it tells us about the intelligence of the people who support them.

But there is another reason why my laughter is lessened this year. Although I am assured that the laughter at the IHRC’s ‘ceremony’ in London on Saturday was as raucous as ever, this weekend the IHRC gave their international ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award to the left-wing French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.  This might be thought laughable in any other circumstances.  The IHRC, one should remember, is a registered British charity.  But of course it is not very funny, because only two months ago another group of people who thought Charlie Hebdo is ‘Islamophobic’ went into the magazine’s offices and gunned down their journalists and cartoonists.  This is the way the pattern works now – the Islamic terrorists break through the front door with Kalashnikovs and then a whole network of fellow travellers try to sneak in through the back door and explain why the cartoonists and journalists might have had it coming.

Of course the IHRC and their supporters like to pretend that Muslims in Europe are being ‘otherised’ in the manner of Jews in Nazi Germany.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  Not just because it was concentration camps rather than ‘othering’ which was the main issue in Germany in the middle of the last century.  But also because Muslims in Europe enjoy full equal rights – far more so than in any Islamic country in the world today or ever.  If there are any negative feelings towards elements of the Muslim community it is towards the extremists.  And why shouldn’t people hate those who blow up trains and buses, crash planes into buildings, shoot at free speech seminars and synagogues and target Christians, Hindus, Jews and liberal Muslims around the world?  If that ire does end up being more widely and less discerningly directed then it will be precisely because a growing number of non-Muslims begin to notice that Muslim communities seem capable not only of producing the sort of people willing to slaughter journalists and cartoonists but also of then providing a multitude of pseudo-moderate organisations which compare the victims of Islamist violence – rather than the perpetrators – to Nazis.

I hope the IHRC and their supporters had an amusing time at their awards ceremony at the weekend, laughing as they smeared and mocked dead journalists.  To my mind it provides a good reminder of what the civilised world is up against, abroad and at home.

Reprinted from The Spectator – http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/

Trevor Phillips sees the light on political correctness

“…the modern secular sin of being a racist (or an anti-Semite or an Islamophobe, its religious cousins) is by far the worst crime of which you can be accused.”

Trevor Phillips, ex-proponent of multiculturalism in New Labour’s Britain.

Trevor Phillips was New Labour’s multiculturalism tsar as Chairman for the Commission for Racial Equality from 2003. In 2005 he came to the realisation that the ‘dream’ of multiculturalism (encouraging immigrants to keep their own cultures from ‘back home’) was backfiring, and rather than helping integration it was creating segregation. This would have been obvious to anyone on the right of politics from inception, one would think, and yet evidently Phillips was censured by Theresa May for this statement at the time. Ten years on, and surely only the most obdurate of the loony Left can maintain that multiculturalism has worked.

“The perverse and unintended consequences of our drive to instil respect for diversity is that our political and media classes have become terrified of discussing racial or religious differences.

Our desperation to avoid offence is itself beginning to stand in the way of progress. And all too often the losers are minority Britons.

These ‘brave’ comments by Phillips are welcome – though as he says himself he was for a time the apogee of political correctness. It is good he has come around, and that his comments are finally bringing this most important of issues into the media. But it is remarkable, and indicative of the media’s continuing fear of ‘bigotry’ that ONLY a black man can say these things today and be listened to. ONLY a black man can tell the truth and be listened to by those in authority- that is racist in itself – inverse-racism yes, but racism nevertheless – it is the colour of Phillips’ skin which makes his MESSAGE palatable to the media.

“We all know why these things cannot be said. The long shadow of slavery and the Holocaust rightly makes us anxious about the kind of slack thinking that led to the dehumanising of entire populations.

Yet should history prevent us from understanding the differences between us — especially if those insights might improve life for everyone?”

Phillips rightly puts his finger on the button above in stating the Holocaust and slavery are shadows which cast darkness to this day – and stop media and politicians from speaking or hearing the truth for fear of unleashing a pogrom of racist aggression. Yet surely again, this is doing everyone a disservice – for it is not WE who shine a light on the violence and intolerance of others who are to be feared – it is those that will close their minds, stop public debate and allow evils to be perpetrated for fear of sounding ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’;

“Ann Cryer, the first MP to blow the whistle on the street grooming scandal, in her Keighley constituency, now says she discovered that others in her local party had been aware of it for years, but neither the police nor social services would take her complaints seriously.

She says she found it difficult to raise the issue without being called a racist. In the end she went public, because ‘if you pretend it’s not happening, as many people in Rotherham did, then you go down the road of condoning it.”

Local councils and social workers are NOTORIOUSLY politically correct – and this is what has allowed the biggest evil to be done on our shores against girls by grown men WITH IMPUNITY for years. The fact is that even today, the media are focusing on the ‘Jihadi brides’ unduly, when there are yet more revelations of Muslim rape gangs emerging from new cities. Muslim rape gangs have been and probably still are affecting far more girls, girls who didn’t set out to plan and organise their own abuse, and who didn’t know what kind of men they were getting involved with. In the case of the ‘jihadi brides’ these girls would have had countless opportunities to see the true evil of Isis in the media, and countless chances to choose a different path. Yet they willingly went, stealing money to fund their journey to what they knew was a mass murdering cult of evil. WHY the media and police choose to focus on these girls as ‘victims’ completely in contrast to the way the thousands of girls ABUSED BY MUSLIM MEN IN THE UK have been treated – is sickening.

Phillips is only just touching the heart of the matter in his article, which is likely due to the persistence of his PC/Left mentality, for in truth MUCH more action is needed to remove the obstacles to telling the TRUTH of those in authority. Yet it is still good to hear, at last, someone saying this and being respected for it – unlike Nigel Farage who is made to seem like an oddball for his honesty.

That means we’re all going to have to become more ready to offend each other. If we do, we might — in time — begin to see each other in our true colours. And surely that’s what the aim of changing Britain’s attitudes to race was all about.

Of course, Phillips is also confusing race and religion and origins – for in fact of course Poles are not a different race to white Britons, but a different culture and nationality. I think the entire conversation centring on race has run its course in fact. It is the CULTURE of different groups which means they do or do not fit in, which either dooms them to failure in the West or aids their progress. Phillips touches on this where he points out that Jewish households tend to be wealthier on average, and that what he terms ‘Asian’ kids fare better at school than white kids from a working class background. It is the culture of these children which helps them achieve, or stems their successes. So if an Indian family integrates well into a community and teaches their children to fit in and to love education, that will set up their children for success.

Successive studies have shown that children from Muslim backgrounds fare the worst of any group of children in the UK in terms of GCSE performance:

Similarly, as Phillips points out;

“.. while many clever young Muslim women head for the top medical schools, a handful are boarding planes to become the brides of Isis fighters. We learn from his former headteacher that Jihadi John had attended a school where more than 70 per cent of the pupils were, like him, Muslims.”

Phillips skirts around the issue – but Islam is known for preparing children to become adults who can expect less prosperity and success. This is shown in Muslim majority nations which form the top portion of the list of most illiterate and poorest nations (especially if we remove the prosperity from oil which was happenstance rather than a product of labour or invention).

“The planet’s poorest countries include Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Mozambique. At least six of the poorest of the poor are countries with a Muslim majority.

Fact: Of the 1.4 billion Muslims 800 million are illiterate (6 out of 10 Muslims cannot read). In Christendom, adult literacy rate stands at 78 percent.”

(Dr Farruk Saleem)

 It is not too difficult to presuppose from the evidence of their failure in their ‘home’ nations, that the pattern of failure and lack of prosperity will be repeated when Muslims emigrate to the West, and so it has been. The clear reason is that Islam has for centuries oppressed believers and forced them to prioritise prayer, observance, ritual and reward in the afterlife over education, betterment, invention, modernity and progress. It is no good blaming the ‘evil West’ for this problem – these are sovereign nations, which run their own affairs (and even benefit disproportionately from Western aid money). Western ‘oppression’ has not caused this – rather Sharia theocratic regimes and observance to a backwards belief system has.

None of this would be much of a problem really, if it didn’t mean two things:

1 – We in the West fund these dissolute nations and peoples disproportionately (over 50% of Muslim men in the UK do not work and are in receipt of benefits for all their needs).

2 – Muslims are disproportionately perpetrators of terror attacks against us in the West as well as violence against their own people.

So we are effectively paying for the privilege of hosting and supporting potential terrorists. For, isn’t it much easier to plot terror attacks when one lives entirely on the benevolence of the welfare state? This is the real issue we must tackle – and though Phillips has touched upon it, much more needs to be done before the truth is finally stated by those in authority over us – the media and politicians so in thrall to the fraud of ‘Islamophobia’.

Read the article by Trevor Phillips here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2996235/At-man-dares-tell-truth-race-Ex-race-tsar-says-silencing-debate-devastating-harm-Britain.html#ixzz3UY9fGUYQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
A fascinating and HONEST take on the poverty and dependence of the Arab Muslim world – http://marthavanderpol.com/2015/02/02/wonderful-arab-man-tells-it-like-it-is/

Is the UN fit for Purpose – Anne Marie Waters

I’m re-blogging this excellent article from annemariewaters.org – an excellent source of considered and honest opinion on all aspects of Islam.

UN Watch, a Geneva-based NGO which monitors the activities of the United Nations, reported at the end of 2013 what it felt were the ten worst decisions of the UN throughout that year. All ten are worth a look, but what stands out like a sore thumb is the aggressive promotion of Islamist states (and the resulting sanitisation and legitimisation of sharia), along with the not un-related harassment of Israel.
Of particular interest are the activities of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). UN Watch mentions Mr Richard Falk, a UNHRC investigator, who it said had blamed the Boston Marathon bombing on “the American global domination project” and “Tel Aviv”, and was later praised for doing so by council members.
Also in 2013, the UN’s human rights body elected Mauritania as its vice-president. In a statement from UN Watch in September, Karoline Ronning stated that “nowhere is slavery so systematically practiced as in Mauritania, a country that is an elected member of this Human Rights Council.” She added “According to Abidine Merzough, a man born in Mauritania as a slave, and who is now the European coordinator of an anti-slavery NGO, sharia is used to justify this system.”
Other countries elected to the UNHRC in 2013 include China and Russia, but perhaps the most controversial election winner of the year was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is well known that Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s most oppressive states, particularly for women, and is a nation where apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, and homosexuality all carry the death penalty. You can read Amnesty International’s most recent report on Saudi Arabia’s human rights record here.

In 1948, the UN’s General Assembly (the main deliberative body of the organisation) adopted the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This document was initiated to represent the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are entitled. Though not enjoying the legal status of a treaty in its own right, the Declaration was partly intended to define the words “fundamental freedoms” and “human rights” in the UN Charter, which was legally binding on all signatories. Of utmost significance in the UN Declaration was the notion of the universality of human rights – for how else could we recognise and protect our common humanity?
Needless to say, some Islamists took issue with such a notion. Saudi Arabia refused to ratify the Declaration at the time, claiming that it violated sharia law. Criticisms continued over subsequent decades and in 1982 (not long after the Islamic Revolution) an Iranian representative Said Rajaie-Khorassani described the Declaration as “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition” which could not be implemented by Muslims without transgressing sharia.

A notable criticism of the Declaration from within the West came from Faisal Kutty, who founded the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association in 1994. Kutty’s remarkable comment got right to the heart of the matter – he said “A strong argument can be made that the current formulation of international human rights constitutes a cultural structure in which western society finds itself easily at home … It is important to acknowledge and appreciate that other societies may have equally valid alternative conceptions of human rights.”
Kutty argues, and the UN seems to concur, that societies such as those of Iran or Saudi Arabia, where citizens face execution for pursuing religious or philosophical freedom (apostasy carries the death penalty in both countries), are of equal validity in terms of human rights, as states that guarantee religious freedom for their citizens.
The problem of course is that the UN has fallen victim to the dangerous and deeply racist ideology of relativism. Relativism purports that concepts such as rights and freedoms vary in character across societies and cultures. They do not. Freedom for example has only one meaning. How one chooses to utilise freedom can of course differ, but that fact does not change its simple definition. Freedom refers to the right of a human being to organise their lives as they wish, with limits only to protect others. It has the same meaning everywhere in the world, and it is desired everywhere in world; freedom is human, it is not cultural.
In depicting freedom as a Western concept, as Islamists demand and the UN appears to sanction, fighters for freedom within Islamic countries are increasingly disempowered. Islamists routinely accuse human rights campaigners in Islamic states of pushing a Western agenda, and the UN is providing a buttress.
While relativising universal concepts and aiding the passage of blasphemy laws (proposed by countries that punish it with death), the United Nations is simultaneously engaged in a relentless quest to punish any potential breach of human rights laws by the tiny state of Israel. The United Nations passed 21 resolutions critical of Israel in 2013, compared to only 4 for the rest of the world combined.

Now, since the start of the recent Middle East conflict, the UN (as well as the Western media) has focussed its criticisms almost exclusively on Israel. In late July, the UNHRC passed a resolution to set up a new Commission of Inquiry on Israeli “war crimes”. UN Watch argued that the inquiry “encourages Hamas to continue killing Israelis with deadly rockets and terror tunnels”. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, agreed with UN Watch and said that the decision “sends a message to Hamas that the use of human shields is an effective strategy”.
Whether Israel’s response to the rocket attacks of Hamas is proportionate or justified is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion however is what Israel is actually facing; religious genocide. The Jewish state is confronting an enemy that quite openly calls for the death of all Jews. The UN, and the Western media, do not appear to consider this point relevant, and you certainly won’t hear it referred to on the BBC.
The Hamas Charter, its founding document, is a festival of Jew-hatred and it is hard not to conclude therefore that Israel is under attack simply because it is a place of safety for Jews – and because Jews top the jihadi hitlist. Just last month, Hamas confirmed again that their “doctrine in fighting you (Jews) is that we will totally exterminate you” and will “not leave a single one alive”.
Given its tendency to promote some of the world’s worst human rights abusers, and its relentless pursuit of the only democracy in the Middle East, it is clear to me, as it must be to many, that the UN is not only unfit to uphold global human rights, but instead represents a serious and growing threat to those rights, and their retention.

By Anne Marie Waters, 2015

Handy tips for making Muslims like us Kuffars a bit more

Hopefully, if we start introducing just a little sharia into our lives, they won’t kill us! Sounds good. Thanks to Sunny.tv for this worthwhile introduction to stopping Muslims from murdering more of us:

Enjoy!

 

 

Too afraid to sound like a ‘bigot’ to name the true threat

This fascinating take on Islam and the Western fear of sounding like ‘bigots’ by naming the problem of Islam, rather choosing to ascribe it to lone wolf attacks or spurious ‘Islamism’ – despite what all the Jihadis tell us – they are doing it for Islam!

 

This article is horrific – but when the West is considering what to do about Isis – it is essential reading (unfortunately) – not one for kids.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dawn-perlmutter/isis-meth-heads-tweeking-in-the-name-of-islam/

 

 

We cannot continue to ignore the threat of Islam

Since the global recession started in 2008, we have all had to make do, accept cuts to pay cheques and to public services just so as not to go bust. In the UK we hear our government is considering cutting our armed forces to under 50,000 in the next Parliament, and is struggling to keep defence spending to 2% of GDP.

Our health service is stretched beyond what is reasonable, and the poorest are surviving on food from food banks. Yet despite all this belt-tightening, we heard yesterday that Jihadi John’s family is now receiving police protection at a cost to the UK tax-payer of £5000 per week. I would say it is entirely debatable whether they really are in danger here anyway – for the British people are not prone to lynching people for the sins of their children.

We have put up with Muslim rape gangs all over the UK – not one lynching of any Muslims. We have put up with the horrific slaying of one of our soldiers in our streets – not one lynching followed. In fact – there is simply NO basis for the fanciful premise that somehow there is a rampant Islamophobic threat to Muslims in this country. Frankly – Muslims are safer in the UK than they would be back in Muslim nations where Muslims are routinely killed by other Muslims. It is us non-Muslims who are increasingly at risk from Muslims in our own countries – yet this is not dealt with adequately by our leaders. Rather, valuable money is spent protecting Muslims from OUR non-existent hatred!

The fact that we are not lynching anybody is a great testament to our civilised nature – but it is not to say that the people of Britain are overjoyed at their hospitality and tax money being squandered on people who are so ungrateful as to throw it back in our faces in the most vicious ways. Clearly, had the Emwazis not brought up a son who now specialises in the public beheading of innocents from the UK and elsewhere, there would be no need (even imaginary) for such expensive protection.

In fact this family was so ungrateful that Britain had fed, housed and educated them since taking them in as asylum seekers in 1992 that they never bothered to work for their living – relying on the state to pay for absolutely everything. We’ll never know what they taught their children precisely, but it can’t have been a love of Britain, Western values, a sense of fair play, patriotism to the land which gave them a safe home away from the ‘danger’ they claimed back in Kuwait (even though daddy Emwazi seems to have no problem residing back there today), or a sense of gratitude to the British people for having done so much for them for so long.

So instead of despatching this ungrateful family back to Kuwait where they could clearly live in safety again, we are spending £5000 per week protecting them from imaginary threats.

Similarly, we spent at least £2.75 million on funding hook hand Abu Hamza during his stay in the UK where he and his family lived solely off the tax payer, and he engaged in open treason and sedition on the streets of London, preaching hate and violent Jihad against us. Yet the state did nothing for decades of this – until finally Theresa May managed to deport him in this Parliament.

Around all mosques in the country today, you will see men in traditional dress milling around during the day – whilst everyone else in the country is hard at work at their desks. Not all of these people can be their own boss, business owners who can work the hours they please. Surely it is not too difficult to imagine many are indeed living off the state? And yet nothing is done. And at the same time we KNOW that there is blatant hate preaching going on in these Mosques, whilst we work to pay welfare for the attendees so they may be free from the hassle of work, to listen to it.

Baroness Flather, who was Britain’s first female Asian peer said in September 2011 that Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities were failing to adopt the values of British society and said they should have their benefits slashed.

In a speech the House of Lords during the second reading of the Welfare Reform Bill, she said: “The minority communities in this country, particularly the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis, have a very large number of children and the attraction is the large number of benefits that follow the child.

“Nobody likes to accept that, nobody likes to talk about it because it is supposed to be very politically incorrect.”

Baroness Flather has been accused of stirring up hatred for this comment – yet it is backed up with facts:

“…compared with the UK average of 22% of the working age population being economically inactive, Somali, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Iranian immigrants are likely to be 81%, 56%, 55% and 48% economically inactive respectively” – (Migration Watch report)

This is a problem of false concern for the ‘rights’ of these immigrant populations to continue to live here without learning English, to continue to have large families and even to have more than one wife. This is a clear example of both Labour and Coalition governments putting the ‘rights’ of immigrants over those of the existing population. The same Migration Watch report shows that the cost in terms of benefits for a family on low incomes is huge, over a lifetime:

“There is a high concentration of immigrants in London. For example it is estimated that 70% of illegal immigrants live in London.[1] As rents are considerably higher in London, the total lifetime costs for a two child family resident in London is £1.1million, of which £505,000 is Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.”

Pamela Geller, noted Islam critic, states this blunt summation of why so many Muslims are living off British welfare:

“53% of Muslim men are depending upon the kuffar. It’s the jiyza. It’s the duty of non-Muslim to pay for the upkeep of the non-Muslim”. – (See more at: Pamela Geller.com)

Yet still our governments pretend that we are a cohesive society where Muslims are contributing just as much as anyone else. Clearly, this is a complete lie – and it is the British people who suffer for this unfair situation in 2 ways – our national income is depleted in paying for these people who make every effort NOT to work, and our national security is jeopardised as they bring up children whose sole aims are to replace our Western democracy with a hateful Sharia Islamic theocracy. This is what terrorists want, and this is why they do not work – to have more time to plot terror and simultaneously drain our public purse.

This is why our government is letting us down. Rather than dealing with this clear abuse of our tolerance and generosity, it merely pretends there is a risk to Muslims from US, decent upstanding citizens! It claims there is rampant ‘Islamophobia’ when rather there is rampant hatred of non-Muslims BY Muslims alone – the ongoing revelations of the extent of ‘rape jihad’ (rape of young white girls by Muslim men) is proof if proof were needed – whilst there are clearly some Muslims who contribute and love this nation – there are far, far TOO MANY who hate us and abuse our tolerance to further their intolerance.

To the shame of the Crown Prosecution Service, who decided NOT to prosecute him when they could have, another would-be terrorist has just been sentenced to a long prison stay in New York state for plotting to blow up Manchester’s Arndale Centre. Incredibly, the police had seized this Pakistani on a fake student visa, found that he had been in regular contact with Al-Quaeda back in Pakistan and that he and his gang were plotting a Mumbai-style attack on the UK. Despite all the evidence the CPS decided not to prosecute him and let him back onto the UK streets where, had the US not demanded his extradition and successfully prosecuted him, he would no doubt by now have savagely taken the lives from a number of innocents.

There are daily examples of Muslims who were born and brought up in the UK and Europe who ‘out of the blue’ decide to become Jihadis, leave for Syria or kill people on home soil. At least this is how it is presented in the media and by our politicians. As if, without Islam, without having been brought up in a Muslim home or ‘radicalised’ by ‘hate preachers’ (preaching Islam) this would still have happened? Well, sure – there are nutters who ‘go postal’ and engage in mass killings without Islam. But the glaringly obvious fact is that these were unavoidable – with Jihad however, it is avoidable. How? Well simply by banning Islam, banning these vile ‘hate preachers’, banning all Jihadi intoned media (satellite and online) and engaging in a concerted campaign of civil education to remove Islam as an option for people.

Isn’t this too extreme a reaction? Well, it would be if it were based on a single solitary event. But Islam has been the cause of so much violence and death since 1980 (full list of atrocities here), and this is simply growing since the eruption of Isis and their claiming to have set up an Islamic caliphate (religious state) last year. It is now becoming insane not to address the core reasons for Islam’s seeming inexorable need for death and destruction.

The prophet said, “I have been awarded victory by terror; so the treasures of the earth are mine.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari/ Vol 9:127)

“….The prophet had their men killed, their children and women taken captive. The captives divided among the Muslims. Then the Messenger began taking the homes and property that were closest to him.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari/ Vol 5:512)

These quotes from Muhammad’s biography the Hadith are accepted as truth in the Sunni Muslim world (large majority of Muslims worldwide are Sunni) and Muslims are told to emulate and love this prophet despite this love of murder and looting. Yet I say ‘despite’ inadvertently – for in Islam there is absolutely no moral basis against murder or looting so long as it is done to infidels. Anything is allowed so long as Islam is spread globally until Islamic sharia law is the only law and Islam the only religion.

“Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’ That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah.” (Koran – Sura 8.12-13)

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Koran 009.029)

The quotes above from Koran are merely two of at least 160 verses of hate towards non-believers. It has to be accepted – unless one is a Muslim (and the right kind of Muslim at that for Sunni hate Shia and vice versa) – one is the enemy of Islam and thus Muslims (those who can be bothered to) have the right, given to them by their ‘god’, to destroy us. It doesn’t matter whether Muslims are living in the West or anywhere else – it is their religious duty to spread Islam until we infidel are subdued. That is what is meant by ‘Islam is a religion of Peace’ – it means that in Muslim eyes there will be peace on earth ONLY once Islam is spread to every corner of the globe and Sharia law is the only law. This is what ALL jihadis believe – and we in the West had better start believing this too – before we end up like Indonesia, which was once a Hindu/Buddhist nation, which has been turned into a Muslim state first by immigration then violent take-over. The same can be said for India and Afghanistan which were Hindu/Buddhist until Muslims came and took over by force – hence Pakistan. It is estimated at least 80 million Hindus were killed during the Muslim rule of parts of India. M.A. Khan who wrote about Islam in India in ‘Islamic Jihad’ says this about Islam:

“After 9/11, Khan began reading the scriptures of Islam and realized that Islam is actually a manifesto of open-ended war against non-Muslims for converting them or for subjugating them into horribly degraded dhimmi subjects.”

The problem we have in the UK is that any criticism of Islam or the actions of Muslims is immediately decried to be ‘racist’, ‘intolerant’, ‘far-right’ or even ‘fascism’. Yet it is the precise opposite of all these – we who oppose Islam are opposed to the racism, intolerance and fascism of Islam! We would have lived happily with Muslims had they not started to abuse our tolerance and freedom and generosity – had they not started to wage war against us by preaching hatred against us and attacking us. The huge number of ex-Muslims working today to bring the truth about Islam to light is testimony to this – after all, they ought to know. (Read more here, here and here).

How can we have gotten to the state where now Jews have to have armed guards protecting their places of worship? How is it possible that today Soldiers are advised not to wear uniform outside for fear of attack? Anyone is at risk from Islam – we know of the Arndale bomber (above) who was planning a Mumbai style attack on us – the question is simply – Who and Where will the next Islamic attack destroy? Why are our politicians not doing anything about this? Why are they all still pretending that Islam is a peaceful religion when it has shown it cannot coexist anywhere without eventually beginning to demand special treatment, followed by abusing the system and them violent attacks. Why are our leaders not protecting US, the innocent public? Why are they instead spending our money looking after those who would destroy us?

There has been news of new measures being prepared by the government to tackle extremism – but I would argue that these are still far wide of the mark:

“A leaked draft of the Home Office’s new counter-extremism strategy, seen by The Telegraph, targets Sharia courts and calls for a ban on radicals working unsupervised with children over fears the young could be brainwashed.

Other measures include a requirement that staff at job centres identify vulnerable claimants who may become targets for radicalisation, after public outrage at people who hate Britain being able to live off the state.

There will also be an introduction of penalties in the benefits system to make people learn English to improve their integration into British society.

The rules on granting citizenship will also be tightened to ensure new residents embrace “British values”. (From The Telegraph).

Clearly – all of these should have been in place from the first immigration by Muslims into this country. Certainly since 7/7 our state should have been tough on immigrants who live off the state and spread hatred. Sharia should never have been allowed and English should be a basic requirement before immigration – as otherwise we are simply cooking up a mess where hundreds of thousands (millions?) simply move here and never work! When we are facing cuts to all our services, when pensioners who have worked hard all their lives are having to live off charity in their old age, there is simply no excuse to continue ignoring the threat of Islam – not only to our national security but also to our national finances.

We cannot keep funding a growing population of people who won’t work and who raise children who want to kill us. This simple fact is behind the popularity of UKIP – because none of the mainstream parties are honest enough to publicly acknowledge the fact that Muslim immigration has not been working for this country and something must be done about it sooner rather than later. If we do nothing – we are simply waiting for the next terrorist horror to be perpetrated against us by Muslims whom we pay too heavily for the ‘privilege’ of hosting.

This should be a Conservative issue – even a Labour one – the people of this country of whatever colour and creed who work hard and pay their taxes honestly are being robbed of their jobs, services and even their lives by immigrants who do not play by the same rules. The poorest workers are seeing their jobs going to those who will work for little – but ALL of us are paying too heavy a toll for Muslim immigrants who simply feed off the system and give nothing back but terror and hatred. All our political parties SHOULD be doing and saying more about this to make this behaviour publicly derided as unacceptable.

As a friend of mine who is a lawyer has said, anyone engaged in activities that are counter our national interests should quite rightly be prosecuted under existing Treason law –

“Treason… is a suitably flexible term that applies to most of the vast range of activities that UK Jihadis get up to without the necessity to ban everyone else from doing everything else. Moreover it also has the entirely appropriate stigma that is important for crime prevention and draws a clear moral opprobrium against traitors to the country.”

It is the moral opprobirum and social stigma that is missing today – and our politicians and our media are guilty of colluding with Islamists to remove this from Muslim criminals by pretending it has ‘nothing to do with Islam’. There is therefore a huge gap in understanding with the public about the reality of Islam and the false image of Islam portrayed by media and politicians – this is why we are blindly walking into a state of dhimmitude or subserviency to Islam. This is why we MUST demand our leaders stop the lying and start acting in the interests of people who only want peace and tolerance to reign in this land once again.

Please sign and share the petition to examine Islam widely – https://www.change.org/p/president-dean-spielmann-examine-whether-islam-is-antithetical-to-human-rights

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/154

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037172/Baroness-Shreela-Flather-Migrants-having-big-families-claim-benefits.html

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://www.islam-watch.org/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5f6_1425165936

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/the_great_532_canard.html