Schoolboys Punished for Refusing to Pray to Allah

Two schoolboys were punished for not kneeling and praying to Allah. Guess where this happened.

Pakistan? Nope.

Saudi Arabia? Wrong.

It must be Iran, then, right?

No, it was the UK; more specifically, in the heart of England.

Now’s the time to take “FID. DEF.” off all of the coinage, because what little is left of the Christian faith in Britain is no longer being defended by Her Majesty or anyone else.

According to The Daily Mail:

Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and ‘pray to Allah’ during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.

They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent — which included wearing Muslim headgear — was a breach of their human rights.


One parent, Sharon Luinen, said: “This isn’t right, it’s taking things too far.

“I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn’t join in Muslim prayer.

“Making them pray to Allah, who isn’t who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.

“I don’t want this to look as if I have a problem with the school because I am generally very happy with it.”

This is the part I don’t understand. Is this cognitive dissonance, or what?

The school is OK, and we’re happy with it, except that it forces our children to pray to Allah??

Wot th’ — ?!

The article continues:
- - - - - - - - -

Another parent Karen Williams said: “I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don’t find it acceptable.

“I haven’t got a problem with them teaching my child other religions and a small amount of information doesn’t do any harm.

“But not only did they have to pray, the teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said ‘we are now going out to pray to Allah’.

“Then two boys got detention and all the other children missed their refreshment break because of the teacher.

“Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right.

“They’d never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language.”

These children were evidently made to pray in Arabic.

“My child has been forced to pray to Allah in a school lesson.” The grandfather of one of the pupils in the class said: “It’s absolutely disgusting, there’s no other way of putting it.

“My daughter and a lot of other mothers are furious about their children being made to kneel on the floor and pray to Islam. If they didn’t do it they were given detention.

“I am not racist, I’ve been friendly with an Indian for 30 years. I’ve also been to a Muslim wedding where it was explained to me that alcohol would not be served and I respected that.

The mandatory Multicultural disclaimers: I’m not racist. I support diversity in schools and the workplace. Some of my best friends are Muslims.

BUT…

“But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war.”

Too right. One of the characteristics of Multiculturalism in the West is that tolerance flows in only one direction.

Imagine if these children had been required to sing “Joy to the World” at Christmas, or proclaim “Alleluia, Christ is risen!” at Easter. The cries of outrage would have been heard from Land’s End to John o’ Groats.

And the school administration is mind-bogglingly clueless:

Parents said that their children were made to bend down on their knees on prayer mats which the RE teacher had got out of her cupboard and they were also told to wear Islamic headgear during the lesson on Tuesday afternoon.

Deputy headmaster Keith Plant said: “It’s difficult to know at the moment whether this was part of the curriculum or not. I am not an RE teacher, I am an English teacher.

“At the moment it is our enterprise week and many of our members of staff are away.

“The particular member of staff you need to speak to isn’t around. I think that it is a shame that so many parents have got in touch with the Press before coming to me.

“I have spoken to the teacher and she has articulately given me her version of events, but that is all I can give you at the moment.”

There’s more to this appalling article, but that’s all I can take for the moment. Read it and weep.


Hat tip: Heroyalwhyness.

Freeing the Slaves in Brussels

It is common knowledge that wherever Middle Eastern “royal” families travel, their retinue of slaves unpaid servants accompanies them. This is no secret to Western governments, who regularly tolerate such practices without the least demur.

Now, for some reason, the Brussels authorities have decided to crack down. It’s an intriguing story, more for what it doesn’t say than what it does.

First of all is the odd title of The Telegraph report:

“Women ‘enslaved’ by Arab royals”

Now why do you suppose the verb is in scare quotes? It’s obvious from the story that they are indeed enslaved. Perhaps this newspaper thinks there is not enough evidence to support the charge? Perhaps it would be a good idea to follow the money and ascertain who actually owns The Telegraph?

And on to the story itself:

Seventeen women have been taken by police from a luxury hotel in Brussels amid allegations that they had been enslaved by an Arab royal family.

Police officers and officials from Belgium’s Labour Audit Authority raided the Conrad Hotel, the city’s most prestigious and the preferred choice of many national leaders during European Union summits, on Tuesday evening.

The operation was triggered by the apparent escape of a maid who was among 20 servants working for the widow of a senior royal figure from the United Arab Emirates and her four daughters who have rented the entire fourth floor of the hotel for the last year.

Would you look at the weasel words here? “Apparent” and “allegations” previously and “allegedly” or “reportedly” further on in the story.

What gives? Is The Telegraph afraid of being sued? Most strange…
- - - - - - - - -

Officials took away 17 people, from countries including the Philippines, Morocco, India, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq and Syria, amid allegations they had been held captive for eight months.

Several members of the royal party have been questioned, police said yesterday. No charges have been brought but the investigation continues.

“We are convinced that these 17 girls are victims of people trafficking,” said an official.

The servants, dubbed “slaves” in the Belgian media, allegedly had to be at the service of the Arab royals 24 hours a day and had their passport taken away on arrival in Belgium. The women were reportedly not allowed to leave the hotel and their monthly salaries were as low as £80 a month.

“We were not allowed to leave the hotel and we had to be at their disposal 24 hours a day,” claimed one young woman of Middle Eastern origin.

“We were not allowed to complain or to ask any questions. We just had to be there at their beck and call.”

Last week four maids from the Philippines allegedly attempted to escape from the hotel. Three were detained by the royal family’s security staff but the fourth woman managed to alert the Belgian police.

There was no response last night from the Brussels embassy of the UAE when it was contacted to comment on the case.

Most Belgian newspapers have described the case as “slavery right in the heart of Brussels”.

If the story itself is a little sideways, what about the reality of the arrests themselves? What goes here? As I said, Western governments have known about these slaves for generations. I can’t believe someone in Brussels is growing a conscience…

…Anyone willing to guess on this one?

The Push for the “Yes” Vote in Ireland

LS is an Irish who watched the video I posted this morning and noticed that one of the MEPs featured in it characterized the “No” campaign as being well-funded and massively promoted. She objects to this assertion, and sent me the following email with permission to publish it.

Hi Baron,

I am a bit shy about posting on your site, but wanted to let you know that the government here spent loads of the taxpayers’ money plastering the street lampposts with YES posters emblazoned with their not-very-photogenic faces.

It was the only time the Fianna Faíl and Fine Gael folks agreed on anything, and they stuffed our letterboxes with pamphlets that were very vague about details, but clear with the message that we must vote YES or else.

Very little cash was spent by the NO campaigners, and their pamphlets were clear about the negatives.

I have a friend who is a county counsellor who was required to campaign for the YES vote, though she could not say why she thought it was a good treaty.

- - - - - - - - -

The verbiage spouted in the EU parliament is breathtakingly newspeak. Not enough people are paying attention, but I suppose that will change soon as the effects of the bureaucrats’ plans come into play.

We have not been happy that the Irish schools are being charged for every flush of the toilet because of an EU directive, nor are we pleased that folks in Brussels are forbidding the Irish from cutting turf.

All the best from Wicklow, the Garden of Ireland,

— LS

I’m interested in this every-flush-of-the-toilet charge. Does anyone know how it works? Are there meters on all the cistern pipes?

It sounds vaguely like an Al Gore operation.

Future Scenarios for Europe

The Observer, who used to blog at the News From Norway (which is now in hibernation), saw my post the other day about Demographic Conquest and was prompted to write me an email with his views on the future of Europe. With his permission, I am posting the entire text below.


Future Scenarios for Europe
by The Observer

A scenario that has been widely debated over the last decades is a possible Muslim takeover of Europe within the next 30-40 years. It has become somewhat of an academic puzzle for the politically correct elites, a question that must be discussed, but not taken too literally. After all, according to this elite, the Muslims will eventually integrate into our societies, provided we treat them properly and give them enough time. They are simply Europeans with another color and cultural background. Nothing to really worry about.

For others with a more highly developed sense of survival instinct, this scenario is the cause of grave concern. It’s simply a problem that has to be dealt with, whether we like it or not, and the fact that we’re starting to shed light on it, is a sign that we’re willing to do so. The first step of solving a problem is to admit that we actually have one.


But there’s one scenario that hasn’t been debated to nearly the same extent, and that is how this eventual transformation from a Christian to an Islamic continent will manifest itself.

Will it be a violent clash between the two cultures that will leave the continent in ruins?

Will western Europe resemble war torn Chechnya after the final battles have been fought?

Or will it be a peaceful takeover, where the Europeans simply concede defeat and succumb to the stronger and much more aggressive tactics of the newcomers?

Or will the Europeans rise up to this challenge and resist the onslaught from the invading Muslims, and eventually win this fight?

I believe there are six possible outcomes to this crisis:
- - - - - - - - -

1.		The Muslims will win by sticking to democratic principles. Peaceful victory.
2.		The Muslims will win by undemocratic principles. Terror campaigns and intimidation.
3.		The native populations of Europe will revolt and defeat the Muslims. A revolt.
4.		Major terrorist attacks will cause the governments in Europe to reconsider their position on Muslim immigration, and start the deportations of Muslims on a grand scale.
5.		A coexistence between the two cultures, where both groups are given an equal status. Not a very likely scenario.
6.		An uneasy status quo, where immigration is curbed, and the Muslims will forever be a minority.

At the present time alternative #1 looks to be the most likely outcome, but of course things could change in a heartbeat. If there’s one thing that history has taught us, it is that rapid change is the norm rather than the exception.

There’s no question that the liberal laws of the present European governments work in the Muslims’ favor. All they have to do is sit back, act in accordance with the democratic principles in the societies they reside in, and high birthrates and the open border policies of the West will make them a majority within the next couple of generations.

All they need to do is blend in and seize control when they’re strong enough to do so.

But of course, there are several factors that need to be brought into the equation. Political views that are considered the norm today can easily be discarded for more radical and pragmatic ideas in the future. We’ve witnessed liberal European governments introduce very tough immigration and asylum laws, and others could follow suit.

So let’s assume that things stay the way they are for the next thirty years. Let’s assume that the European governments decide to introduce tougher anti-discrimination laws, and clamp down on what they view as anti-Muslim sentiments. Let’s also assume that they start persecuting people with opposing views on this issue. The immigration would then continue, and quite possibly accelerate, making it next to impossible to prevent Muslims from becoming a majority in Europe.

If this scenario were to take place, the question one would have to ask is: what kind of society would rise up from the ashes? Would we get a moderate form of Euro-Islam, like the proponents of the multicultural society hope for, where a relatively moderate Muslim population would accept and tolerate other religions and values? Or would they, with or without democratic means, decide to introduce an Islamic caliphate, where Sharia law takes superiority over existing criminal laws?

Like many other people, I see the term Euro-Islam simply as a smokescreen that the elites use as a means to try to pacify the native populations of Europe.

Let’s face it, Muslims believe in the writings of the Holy Koran, and not in any utopian illusions that some non-believing bureaucrats in Europe may hold. It is my opinion that the Muslims would use our undying belief in democracy against us if it came down to it, and simply point out the obvious, which would be, that they won the referendum fair and square and they’re going to introduce the Islamic caliphate whether we like it or not. And technically this would be within the boundaries of accepted democratic rules. What the majority decides, goes. The native Europeans would then have to decide whether to accept this new regime or not.

Alternative #2 is also a likely outcome. We’ve seen the emergence of radical Muslim elements in our societies that are advocating such a solution. We’ve had several devastating terrorist attacks within the last few years that has have made us reconsider our beliefs that we live in free and open democratic societies.

These attacks along with other forms of intimidation have already eroded some of our freedoms. We think twice about criticizing Islam in public, and we refrain from publishing any drawings that could be deemed offensive to the Muslim community. There is no question in my mind that the results of the scare tactics are viewed as small victories among radical Muslims, and only make them more determined to push forward with their plans for overthrowing our democratic societies.

It doesn’t take that much effort to subjugate the masses. And a small group of highly dedicated and trained individuals could easily wreak havoc in our societies if they so choose. If ordinary people feel that they’re putting their lives on the line just by venturing down to the local supermarket or by simply hopping on the tube to go to work, we’ve entered a very critical phase.

If we end up with a spiral of violence in Europe on a similar magnitude of, let’s say, South Africa, where crime is a very real part of everyday life, we’ve passed a point of no return. How long could we survive in such a violent environment? The next natural progression would be a situation similar to the one we have in parts of Iraq, a total breakdown of law and order. If the governments should prove unsuccessful in weeding out the insurgents in such an environment, which is the most likely scenario? Would it be that unheard of for them to try an negotiate a truce? European politicians have been keen advocates of “land for peace” deals in other parts of the world. Would they consider such an option in Europe if the result would be a cessation of hostilities?

The third possible scenario would be the creation of armed European resistance groups. This is very plausible option. We’ve seen such groups operate in Europe before, both during and after the Second World War. If people feel they’re being pushed too far, they’ll eventually start to push back. In the novel Hvitvasking (Money laundry) by Tom Kristiensen (Norwegian author), a clandestine group of Norwegian patriots plans to rid Norway of third-world immigrants. The methods they rely upon are similar to those the terrorists use in present-day Iraq, a war of intimidation and scare tactics. They try to create an environment so hostile and dangerous that the immigrants themselves choose to leave the country.

I believe this would be the tactic of choice adopted by such resistance groups. It has proven highly successful in other parts of the world, such as Iraq and Sudan, just to mention a few. It is very hard to fight such unconventional guerrilla groups, mostly because they can hide amongst the civilian population after they’ve carried out their attacks. It would also be very easy for them to identify members of the Muslim population, but equally difficult for the Muslims and the authorities to identify members of these resistance groups, simply because the members of these groups share the same ethnicity as the majority population in Europe. I am of the opinion that everyone sooner or later will succumb to these scare tactics. Just as the native European population are intimidated by radical Muslims at the present time, Muslims would be equally intimidated by Europeans if they were targeted in a similar way. It would be a totally new experience for them.

The fourth possible scenario is one where terrorist attacks just become too frequent and the loss of lives too hard to tolerate, or that the elite themselves are being targeted by the terrorists. If we get frequent terrorist attacks on the same scale as 9/11 or even bigger, say the partial or total destruction of some of our major cities, it would next to impossible for European governments not to introduce radical measures to rid themselves of this threat. If the number of terrorist attack victims reach into the tens of thousands, or possibly even hundreds of thousands, they would have to act. It is not unthinkable that mass deportation of Muslims then would take place, and that the creation of detention camps like the one at Guantanamo Bay would go ahead.

If, on the other hand, after incidents like these, some politicians still wouldn’t act, something that’s very unlikely, it would still create an ambiance where more radical and pragmatic politicians would win landslide elections, and the execution of these plans would go ahead. I think ordinary people’s survival instinct would override any other human instincts, including any utopian reference to human rights and religious freedom.

A fifth scenario is a peaceful or hostile coexistence between the two cultures. Where both are granted equal status, and where segregation, both cultural and demographic, only increases. It would be a continuation of today’s status quo. This is not a very plausible scenario, because both cultures have shown their unwillingness to live under such unnatural conditions. Sooner or later one of the cultures would resort to undemocratic methods to exert their will over the other.

The sixth scenario is one where the governments of Europe finally see the dangers of the influx of immigrants, and ban immigration from third world countries altogether, but allow the ones that are already here to stay. This could be the outcome if the people in Europe elect radical right-wing politicians to office. As described above, they introduce tough new measures to stop the rapid growth of immigrants in Europe. Maybe they would go as far as introducing a one-child policy for all third-world immigrants, or resort to other economic sanctions to achieve this goal. They could possibly even ban Islam altogether in Europe, or at least ban the radical approach to the religion that the Islamists follow.

This would then lead to a situation where Europe forever would have an ethnic minority within its borders, a continuation of the present day situation. The Muslims living in Europe could then of course choose to either sever all ties to their native countries and perhaps reform their religion, or still choose to cling on to their old culture and strive to change the system to their advantage.

No matter what happens to this continent, whether a full scale war breaks out or not, it’s going to get very nasty. I believe that a rapid deterioration will first occur in one nation, and then others will follow in its track, or chose to introduce countermeasures to prevent a similar fate. It is naïve to expect that an atmosphere of tranquil coexistence is going to last forever here in Europe.

War and hostilities have been the norm here, and not the exception. That’s probably also how it’s going to be in the future.

It’s Official: Sharia for Britain

Sharia has been ruled acceptable in England and Wales. The Archbishop of Canterbury was right.

Here’s what an AFP story in Al-Arabiya has to say:

Sharia could play part in England law: top judge

There are already about a dozen Sharia courts in Britain

The head of the judiciary in England and Wales said Thursday that Islamic sharia law could play a part in the legal system here.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Nicholas Phillips’s comments came after the head of the world’s Anglicans, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, sparked outrage in February by saying Britain would likely adopt parts of the Islamic code.

“There is no reason why Sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution,” Phillips said in a speech at the East London Muslim Centre.

“It must be recognized, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales.”

Why am I not reassured?

Perhaps it’s because the laws of England and Wales are already not stringently enforced on Muslims, even those who are ostensibly Her Majesty’s subjects.

The article continues:
- - - - - - - - -

There are already about a dozen Sharia courts in Britain which are mainly used to resolve family disputes but they have no formal legal status.

Phillips said there could be “no question” of physical punishments like flogging and stoning being handed down.

Whew, that’s a relief!

How about forced marriages? Requiring the wearing of the hijab, hmm? What about those things?

We’ll find out.

He stressed: “So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts.”

Williams faced calls for his resignation after saying that the adoption of some parts of Sharia law alongside the existing legal system “seems unavoidable” in some circumstances.

Phillips defended Williams on the issue, insisting his comments were “not very radical” and saying that the current system “goes a long way towards accommodating the Archbishop’s suggestion.”

Finally! Someone acknowledged that there’s an elephant in the room!

But here’s the key sentence:

“It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law,” the Lord Chief Justice said.

People living in England, subjects of the English sovereign, are officially being allowed to live under laws that are not the laws of England.

Surely this is only a bad dream. Time to wake up…


Hat tip: TB.

Pactio Olisipiensis Censenda Est

The Irish have really put a spanner into the works of the EU. As Dymphna reported the other night, the presidents of Germany and Poland are now declining to sign the Treaty of Lisbon, due to the intransigence of those Gaelic upstarts.

The EU nomenklatura, under the leadership of the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, are determined to disregard the Irish vote and press on regardless with the implementation of Lisbon. In fact, the former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing says that all future referendums will be ignored:

Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.

The former President of France drafted the old Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago before being resurrected as the Lisbon EU Treaty, itself shunned by the Irish two weeks ago.

Mr Giscard d’Estaing told the Irish Times that Ireland’s referendum rejection would not kill the Treaty, despite a legal requirement of unanimity from all the EU’s 27 member states.

In other words: Legality be damned! We’ll realize our full union, even over the objections of every single European, if necessary!

But the revolt against the mandarins in Brussels isn’t going to die down any time soon. Watch this video of a debate in the EU Parliament, in which protesters demanding referendums are answered by the EU’s apologists:


And consider this statement from Margot Wallström, EU vice president and the commissioner in charge of EU communication:
- - - - - - - - -

Don’t forget: the European leaders have invested a lot of political capital into this whole procedure.

Yes, I think that about sums it up. Ms. Wallström has communicated the gist of things very effectively: there are a lot of fat oxen that stand to be gored if the treaty is not implemented, and they belong to powerful and influential people.

On the other hand, the opponents of the Lisbon Treaty are energetic and inspiring. There’s even a new slogan in Latin created for the occasion, part of a pithy quote from a British MEP named Daniel Hannon:

Mr. Cohn-Bendit [Danny the Red] said it would be quite wrong to have one million people deciding the fate of half a billion Europeans. Well, I’m happy to agree with that. Give the half-billion their referendums, too.

Pactio Olisipiensis Censenda Est.

The Lisbon Treaty must be put to the vote.


Hat tip: Henrik.

Civil War in Sweden?

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.


During an online poll at the national newspaper Aftonbladet, almost half of the readers voted “yes” to a question of whether a civil war is possible in Sweden.

I know online polls don’t always reflect the public opinion, but still… This is in a country where there is virtually zero debate about mass immigration, which continues at full speed.

My personal opinion is that Sweden is not the most likely candidate for the first civil war, simply because people need to fight back to create a civil war. It takes two to tango. The same for France, which is demographically speaking the worst country, and where a kind of war is waged by immigrants in the streets right now, but where nobody fights back. The Germans won’t go first, either; they are too tied down by their history.

My bet is still on Britain for the first full-blown Eurabian civil war, with the Netherlands as a close second, and possibly Denmark. Italians will fight back. I don’t know if the Spanish will.

In general, if you live in any Western European country, you should arm yourself very soon, one way or the other.
- - - - - - - - -
Sverige minner om Libanon

— Fjordman

PS: I’m still working on the essays for the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and France regarding Islamization, and will possibly write one for the former Communist countries in Eastern Europe regarding Multiculturalism and the EUSSR. If somebody has some suggestions for any of these texts, they can post them online at Gates of Vienna. If I like the text, it will be included in the book “Defeating Eurabia,” which will be made available online within the coming month. I may credit you as “blog reader X” if your contribution is used, but you must be willing to share it for free, as I do.

PPS: One of my texts from three years ago. Especially the final two paragraphs are still relevant: Is Swedish Democracy Collapsing?

It’s a Dog’s Life: Training to be a Dhimmi

Our European correspondent Lexington read the post about the photo of the puppy that offended Scottish Muslims, and our readers’ comments that accompanied it. Here’s what he had to say in response:

I think a crucial aspect of this story is missing: this is part of the necessary training process of the dhimmis.

I do not for a moment believe that the Moslem protesting about the advertisement picturing a black puppy was an individual response. Moslems act as a gang, and they have a very clear list of those aspects of kuffar life they want changed to accord with Sharia. (I have seen long lists of what changes they deem essential in schools, for example.)

Moslems are also employed in all government departments in Britain, at the lowest and highest levels, so such an advertisement would be known in advance. The idea is this: a Moslem makes a complaint or raises an issue which flouts Sharia, and then the dhimmis rush to extend apologies, remorse, and assurances that it will not be repeated. At this point a Moslem representative organization will come forward, tut-tutting, and explain that, of course, Moslems were not really offended and that this is an example of over-reaction on the part of non-Moslems.



This tactic has two benefits: firstly, it appears, to a disinterested dhimmi that Moslems aren’t really to blame for all this; it’s just that dratted old PC-loving lot again. Secondly, the disinterested dhimmi now has lodged, in his subconscious, the necessary lesson of what is not acceptable to Moslems for future reference. The dhimmi will not offend the Moslem in future, and the Moslem ‘community’ will sit back, smiling contentedly, happy that the puppy — er, sorry, the dhimmi — is coming along quite nicely and will soon be fully house-trained.

I have seen this scenario happen too many times; it is very well-thought out. Clearly, some folk do more at Friday mosque attendances than merely pound their foreheads on the ground. If we continue along this line, reacting rather than acting on our beliefs and making demands for accordance with our society, we will lose, and without Moslems even needing to use a rolled newspaper on our backsides.

- - - - - - - - -

Hot on the tail of the original story comes the follow-up from The Courier (Tayside) as posted by Cosmosis. It conforms perfectly to my contentions.

A Moslem councillor raised the issue that it “could offend some Muslims” and that “some Muslims have been upset” followed by an explanation to the dhimmis of the Muslim view of dogs. These postcards were produced and distributed in late spring and it is now summer. They have been distributed to homes and businesses but no Moslem firms have put them up yet, it seems.

Along now comes the official Muslim representative (the head of the Islamic Centre of the town and the mosque therein, no less) to “appeal for calm” and to slightly distance the Muslim ‘community’ from the Muslim individual who has voiced concerns over the postcard and to further assure the dhimmis that there is nothing to stop them being displayed in shops. Some Muslim shopkeepers helpfully further explain that Muslims are afraid of dogs, but try not to make too much of this, thereby ensuring that the kuffar understand that any insistence upon a doggy environment is rather cruel on people who can’t help their fears.

Meanwhile, a selection of kuffar comments indicates a certain unfortunate stroppiness which will, with time, be disciplined out of them although one shows promise already with his remark “Should they (the Muslims) not wish for whatever reason to support an initiative by our local police, so be it.” (This ‘initiative’ simply listed the new telephone number for non-emergency calls to the Tayside Police Department, so why would all those reasonable Muslim shopkeepers have not put them up yet? Why, because they haven’t received them, so they say.)

But all’s well that ends well, with the assurance by the Police that “we already have an alternative design and are looking at the possibility of making these available for anyone who deems the current design to be unsuitable.” Perhaps the Muslim shopkeepers are simply waiting for the new, Sharia-compliant design? Yes, the Brits are barking mad, but we aren’t far behind.

— Lexington

Blessed are They Who Mourn? I Wonder...

Update: Honest Reporting was mistaken in its assertion that the BBC changed the headline on its article. The original BBC story is still posted here.

The same egregious headline remains in place in that article: “Israel bulldozer driver shot dead”. The other BBC stories were simply added as later articles on the same topic, and the original post was never revised.


Israel reports a new public attack which killed three or more, and injured at least forty people. There are lots of outlets for this story; I will link them at the end of the narrative.

The killer, a Palestinian from East Gaza apparently acting alone, climbed aboard a bulldozer where he was employed and drove the heavy equipment down the busy street, wreaking death and havoc along the street before he was shot down.

Here is an understandably emotional report from a frantic father whose thirteen year-old daughter was there to see it as it happened:

Today at noon, in front of the Central Bus Station in Jerusalem, a father of two from the non-nation, the vile nation, (the “Palestinians”) decided that his life, his job, raising his family, supporting his family and growing old, was worth much less than the opportunity to murder Jewish women and children. So, this official Arab resident of Jerusalem who had a skilled position as a construction heavy equipment operator, took his bulldozer and began to run over and crush everyone in sight.

By the intersection, he asked a lady to back her car up so he could move his tractor, actually asking her to position right behind him, and then crushed her and her car. He crushed several occupied cars as he drove down the street, leaving a mother dead but her baby surviving. He aimed for a bus, the driver screamed for her passengers to evacuated and tried to back up…she was decapitated by the bulldozer shovel.

He aimed for another bus, taking it down as well. He sped down the street, heading towards the new Jerusalem bridge inaugurated this week…

- - - - - - - - -

At that point, a policewoman ran up and started firing at the driver, but large bulldozers are armored against falling debris, enough to stop pistol bullets. Another policeman jumped onto the bulldozer, emptying his clip into the cab. The murderer was hit and momentarily stunned, but was able to re-engage. The officer entered the cab and began to grapple with the driver, the bulldozer now swerving from side to side. An off duty soldier borrowed another policeman’s weapon, jumped on the bulldozer and shot the driver in the head.

I found out about this as my 13 year old daughter called frantic. She was a short distance away as police vehicles came screaming in (even 4 policemen on horses) and people were running and crying going the other way. She didn’t know what was happening, or what do to. I didn’t either, I told her to go into the bus station, which sent her towards the middle of the attack. Fortunately, it had been ended by then.

Tonight, 4 families are dealing with the slaughter of their loved ones, the loss of their family members. Another 4-8 are dealing with heavily injured loved ones, probably permanently maimed for life. Another 25-50 are dealing with only “moderately” injured loved ones.

These are all just injuries to us, another atrocity. But like the 7/7 bombing in London, or the one earlier in Madrid, there are people left behind. These are people who open the door every day to silence, to the loud silence of someone who is no longer there. In the aftermath of these and many others (not to mention the USS Cole and the Lebanon barracks and the Twin Towers) souls have been maimed forever. Sometimes you wonder who are the fortunate ones - is it those who survived, maimed but alive and facing years of pain and disfigurement? Is it those left behind to mourn the absolute absence of a beloved child or those whose lives are suddenly gone, those who will never mourn again?

This eye-witness account (at one remove), as repeated by the father, is another world away from the Beeb’s chronicle (they could watch it unfold below from their office window), or the Reuters story, or the brief early version sent by a frequent tipster, Insubria87.

And then there is the Israel National News account, which calls the attack “unprecedented.” That’s true, but only in the sense that a propaganda-deluded terrorist found one more way to kill innocent people. No doubt other Arabs employed in Israel building roads will now be unemployed. I wonder who they will blame - Israel or their fellow “citizen”?

Unfortunately for their almost-zero credibility, the Beeb was caught changing its headline again. Here’s what Honest Reporting has to say:

While BBC Online currently covers the story “Bulldozer rampage hits Jerusalem,” this was not the original headline. Offering a glimpse into the BBC’s warped journalism, the initial headline read “Israel bulldozer driver shot dead“.

Of course the BBC will claim it didn’t know the details, but who believes them anymore except the people they look at in the mirror?

From Israel National News:

The terrorist is a 30-year-old father of two from the Arab neighborhood of Tzur Baher in eastern Jerusalem - the same neighborhood in which the perpetrator of the Merkaz HaRav slaughter lived.

If you remember, Libya blocked any UN condemnation of that attack after it happened. How long will we have to continue to affiliate with the murderers, tyrants, and corrupt bagmen who infest the halls of the UN? How long will we let them live rent-free in our country?

How long, oh Lord, how long?

Be sure to visit Atlas Shrugs on this story. She will have lots of updates as the day and evening wears on…and as you watch the videos, note that men run toward the berserk driver, not away and out of harm’s way. One can only admire such courage.

By the way, Pamela has a link to a BBC place where you can complain about the evil complicity of the BBC.

I leave you with the ruminations of the father whose story began this post:

The culture of death rolls on, funded by the US and the EU, encouraged weekly by the US State Department and Condoleezza Rice, counting on prisoner trades arranged and approved by Prime Minster Olmert, fed by food released under fire by Defense Minister Barak, supported by rulings from the Israeli Supreme Court (which has outlawed any form of Avodat Ivrit, exclusive Jewish Labor companies which would provide only Jewish workers to a project).

This man had a good job, full rights, and a family. But MY death and the death of EVERY JEW was of more value to him than his life.

Tonight, his family is probably erecting a party tent, where they will CELEBRATE his murder spree. They will teach his children that mass murder is better than life, they will be honored for not having a father. Their family will revel and party on our blood this week. And the Israeli government will stand by and do NOTHING.

Tonight, Kadima is responsible, Labor is responsible, Shas is responsible. Make sure they know it, let them hear you. There is NO PEACE and NO PEACE PROCESS with a Culture of Death. That MUST change first.

I agree with his sentiments, but to get any of them to accept responsibility for this is like hitting your head against the wall of indifference the elites have erected against common sense and survival.

The Long Arm of the Jordanian Law

Jordan’s Prosecutor General, Dr. Hassan Al A’bdallat, “demands” that the Netherlands turn over Geert Wilders to the Jordanian judicial system so that he might receive his just punishment for crimes committed in his production of Fitna.

According to The Jordanian news site Fact International:

Amman Prosecutor General issues 5 charges against Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, in lawsuit for releasing anti-Islam film

Amman’s Prosecutor General has issued five charges against the Dutch MP Geert Wilders in the lawsuit brought for releasing the anti-Islam film “Fitna”. A summons warrant has been released too.

The “Messenger of Allah Unites Us” Campaign has stressed the decision taken by Amman Prosecutor General, Dr. Hassan Al A’bdallat, today, Tuesday July 1, 2008, considering the Dutch right-wing radical MP Geert Wilders, the producer of the Fitna film which criticizes Islam and the holy Quran campaign, as a defendant in the lawsuit filed by the campaign.

The lawyers for the campaign, Osama Al Bitar and Tareq Hawamdeh, said the prosecutor general issued, this morning, a summons warrant against Wilders, who will be informed through diplomatic channels as he is not a resident of Jordan.

The campaign will proceed in confronting all the anti-Islam campaigns with all available legal, economic, media and diplomatic means-without the use of ‘violence.’

Last month the Campaign laid a charge through Abdallat against the Dutch lawmaker demanding to punish him according to the Jordanian Penal Code and paying compensation for the damage he caused. [emphasis added]

If this absurd effrontery has its intended effect, we in the West will have only ourselves to blame.

We have established precedent after precedent that allowed for the prosecution in other countries of foreign nationals for crimes committed neither within, nor against the citizens of the countries charging them. The effort to extradite General Pinochet was the defining moment of this trend, and Belgium has made a parlor game out of indicting virtually any American military or political figure who violates the PC European sense of moral rectitude.

The process began with the hunt for war criminals and has devolved to the inane and trivial process that we know today. Now it’s time for the post-modern children of Europe to be hoist with their own politically correct petard.
- - - - - - - - -
After all, how can the authorities fail to turn over Geert Wilders? He has violated the human rights of Muslims, as laid out in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which has been officially recognized by the United Nations. The Netherlands has the choice of repudiating the pernicious multicultural doctrine which it has so lovingly constructed over the last four decades, or giving up Geert Wilders to the tender mercies of Jordanian jurisprudence.

What do you think the Dutch authorities will decide to do? Discard multicultural orthodoxy, or rid themselves of this troublesome blond?

Anyone want to take bets on that?

The article continues:

According to the campaign the decision by the Prosecutor General to file a case against the Danish cartoon publishers and Wilders last month set a precedent in the history of the Jordanian judicial system, a move that has gained international attention that an Arab country is keeping pace with global legal trends.

He was charged with the following:

• Slandering prophets, thereby violating article 273 of Jordan’s Penalty Code.
  
• Publishing materials, sketches and drawings that offend the feelings of Muslims, in violation of Article 278/1 of the Penal Code.
  
• Insulting and demeaning Islam and insulting Prophet Mohammad (s) thereby threatening sectarian and racist discord and conflict, in violation of Article 38 B & C of the Press and Publication Law No. 8 for 1998 and its amendments.
  
• Violating Article 38 of the Electronic Transactions No. 85 for 2001 which penalizes anyone who perpetrates an action that amounts to a crime under the enforced laws and legislation.
  
• Vilification and defamation in violation of Article 189/4 on the Penal Code.

“As the defendant is not present in Jordan and have no addresses in this country I decide under Articles 111/1, 115 and 146 of the criminal court rules to issue a warrant for the defendants to be notified through the Danish Embassy that they must present themselves in Jordan. A letter to that effect will be sent to the embassy of Netherlands through His Excellency, the Minister of Justice,” said the Prosecutor General in his decision. [emphasis added]

This action by Jordan is a local skirmish in the larger war declared by the OIC against Islamophobia in the West. “Publishing materials, sketches and drawings that offend the feelings of Muslims” is already against the law in Jordan, and the OIC has publicly declared its intention to induce Western countries to change their laws in accordance with the Jordanian model.

All of this is plausible — instead of laughable — because of resolutions issued in the United Nations and the UN Human Rights Council that say exactly the same thing. Every country that fails to revise its laws accordingly is guilty of neglecting its treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter.

It’s obvious that the Netherlands is obligated under the circumstances to comply with the Jordanian prosecutor’s demand. But will it actually do so?

The determination of Jordan to force other countries to change their laws and constitutions is made abundantly clear:

Sheikh: We are going on our way to pass an international law criminalizing offenders of Islam

The head of the Messenger Of Allah Unites Us Campaign, Dr. Zakaria Al-Sheikh confirmed that the court verdict is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed (s) “We need a law that protects humanity from an extremist plan aimed at destroying the world for the interests of a particular group that has enormous influence in the world”, he said.

Sheikh added that the decision of the Prosecutor-General confirms the effectiveness of the legal, media, economic and diplomatic campaign to confront the anti-Islam agendas.

The campaign was careful not to fall into the trap that instigators of these attacks on Islam have set. They want Muslims to become enraged and act violently and thus they (Muslims) themselves will be responsible for creating an image of Islam as being mindlessly destructive. Once Islam and Muslims are demonized in this way it will be easy for our enemies to act against us with no guilty conscience, he emphasized.

For strategic reasons, Dr. Sheikh is calling on the world’s Muslims to exercise an uncharacteristic self-restraint when faced with the unbearable provocation of cartoons and movies that insult them.

We are fortunate that skinless Muslims worldwide are unable to help themselves in this regard; otherwise we would all still be snoozing through the Islamization of our culture, unaware of the long march of Jihad through our institutions. By the behavior of its adherents, Islam has woken up enough Westerners to put at least a few speed bumps in the road to its ascendancy.

Attorneys Al Beetar and Al Hawamdeh explained how the case proceeded including the testimony of the complainants and the expert witnesses and then how the four stages advanced until a decision was finally reached.

They said that in case the defendant did not come to Jordan of their own free will, then warrants will be issued via local and international security agencies.

Geert Wilders is obviously not going to hop the first plane to Jordan. So what comes next? An Interpol warrant? The ICC?

How is this novel legal drama going to play itself out?


Hat tip: TB.

Once More With Fatwas

Now that Geert Wilders is free from the threat of prosecution (at least in the Netherlands) for making Fitna, he has decided to rest on his laurels and not do anything else controversial…

NOT.

Today’s NIS has the story. My favorite quote: “I do not have to keep to the laws of banana republics like Jordan and Saudi Arabia.”

Wilders Weighs Fitna Sequel

Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders is considering making a sequel to his anti-Islam film Fitna.

After investigating dozens of complaints against the politician, the public prosecutor’s office (OM) decided on Monday that none of these indicate punishable offences. “The decision of the OM is a good overture to a book of Fitna 2,” Wilders said yesterday.

Wilders yesterday also asked Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen to summon the Jordanian ambassador in The Hague. A prosecutor in that country is preparing a case against Wilders for insulting Islam.

- - - - - - - - -

“I do not have to keep to the laws of banana republics like Jordan and Saudi Arabia,” Wilders explained. The Dutch OM’s decision not to prosecute him “should be presented in golden gift-wrapping to those lunatics in Amman.”

The threat of a possible international arrest from Jordan worries Wilders. In the Netherlands as well, Muslim organisations still continue to feel that Wilders’ criticism of Islam is an offence; they are going to ask judges to force the OM to prosecute after all.

Hat tip: TB.

Those Doggone Cops!

How much is that doggie in the hat?

More than the Tayside Police will want to pay, now that Muslims are offended.

From today’s Daily Mail:

Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman’s hat

A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman’s hat advertising a Scottish police force’s new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims.


Tayside Police’s new non-emergency phone number has prompted complaints from members of the Islamic community.

The choice of image on the Tayside Police cards — a black dog sitting in a police officer’s hat — has now been raised with Chief Constable John Vine.

The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.

Dundee councillor Mohammed Asif said: ‘My concern was that it’s not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards.

‘It was probably a waste of resources going to these communities.

‘They (the police) should have understood. Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they’d seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn’t have done it.’

OK, we all know that Muslims consider dogs unclean. But is a photo of an unclean thing itself unclean?
- - - - - - - - -
What if the offensive part of it were blurred out, like the private parts of naked people in TV videos? Would that mitigate the haram nature of the vile creature’s image?

Councillor Asif, who is a member of the Tayside Joint Police Board, said that the force had a diversity adviser and was generally very aware of such issues.

He raised the matter with Mr Vine at a meeting of the board.

The chief constable said he was unaware of the concerns and that the force had not sought to cause any upset but added he would look into the matter.

Oh-oh. Sounds like someone’s in big trouble now. Perhaps the head of the Police Community Relations Division, or whatever they call the people responsible for designing and printing things like this.

Councillor Asif said: ‘People who have shops just won’t put up the postcard. But the police have said to me that it was simply an oversight and they did not seek to offend or upset.’

The implication, now that they know that they have offended the skinless ones, is that the police in Tayside will never, ever do such a bad thing again. They have learned their lesson.

When I was living in the UK forty years ago, the last thing a copper or a noddy worried about was whether he’d managed to offend a member of the public. But times must have changed since then.

And here’s where today’s sensitive and inclusive police force made their fatal mistake:

‘We did not seek advice from the force’s diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused.’

They failed to follow proper diversity procedures!

It’s time for some additional diversity training, and maybe stint in a re-education camp.

It’s time to get their minds right…


Hat tip: just about everybody.

Geert Wilders Gets Off Scot-Free… For Now

Below is a translation by H. Numan of an article from yesterday’s De Telegraaf, followed by a brief comment from the translator:

Public prosecutor: No prosecutable offenses in Wilders’ movie Fitna

Amsterdam — Geert Wilders didn’t make discriminatory remarks or incite hatred in his movie Fitna. The Prosecutor General’s Office [Openbaar Ministerie or “OM” — translator] came to this conclusion after investigation, announced Leo de Wit, Chief Prosecutor on Monday.

De Wit said a number of Wilders’ statements “are insulting to Muslims”, but they were made within the context of a debate. “That strips his statements of any prosecutable character.” Therefore, there is no question as to discrimination or inciting hatred.

The OM investigated statements of Wilders in October 2006 and August 2007 made in the Volkskrant and a column on the Internet. The OM received over 40 complaints regarding these. Against the movie Fitna several dozens of complaints were filed. The OM informed the complainants about its decision.

Chief Prosecutor De Wit said on Monday he took the fact that Wilders talks about Islam as a religion and not about individual Muslims in his judgment. De Wit: “We find that Wilders’ statements and remarks were limited to Islam as a religious organization.”

- - - - - - - - -

The movie Fitna was posted on 27 March on the Internet. Wilders made his production “to show the dangers of the Koran and Islam”. The OM decided that possible infringements of the law in the movie would be investigated. The PVV member of parliament also stated that the Koran should be forbidden as it might be seen as a fascist book.

The Dutch government heavily criticized the movie. Shortly after its release the prime minister publicly regretted the making of the movie. He also found that the movie was made purely to insult others.

Wilders himself spoke of a polite movie, within the framework of the law. “My movie isn’t meant to incite trouble,” said Wilders after releasing his movie.

The investigation of the justice department took several months. This was due to the fact the OM used national and European regulations against discrimination to come to its conclusion. It also asked for external advice and the highest level of the college of Prosecutors General was involved in the investigation.

H. Numan’s comment:

So, Wilders is of the hook. The Dutch hook, that is. The fishermen used practically all techniques possible, with the exception of dynamite fishing. The use of bait, dragnets, in-season fishing, out-of-season fishing — everything has been tried.

And he gets away clean. Almost like ‘Old Fighter’ from the Brigadier Dawg cartoon. Now we have to see what will happen to the Jordanian hook. It’s pretty quiet on that side for now.

No Dancing on the Table Tops Yet

In 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was intended to confer upon the citizens of all member states the same rights that were customarily observed in the Western democracies.

Needless to say, the UDHR has not been honored even in the breach. Only within the existing liberal democracies, and those which have since joined their ranks, has there been any observance or enforcement of these declared universal human rights.

Islamic countries, as represented by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), have proposed as an alternative to the UDHR a document known as the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which they deem appropriate to the tenets and traditions of the Islamic religion. At the UN the OIC has, with partial success, repeatedly called for implementation of the Cairo Declaration, and aims to have the United Nations codify the CDHR as an official and parallel alternative to the UDHR, recognized internationally instead of the UDHR as valid within Islamic countries.

Since the OIC now commands a majority in the UN General Assembly, the eventual full official recognition of the Cairo Declaration is all but inevitable.

However, even a cursory glance at the two documents shows that they are neither equivalent to nor compatible with one another. Take, for example, these two articles from the UN declaration:

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

And compare them with these sections of the Cairo Declaration:

Article 10

Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.

Article 22

(a)		Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
(b)		Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
(c)		Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
(d)		It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination.

A European reader named Lexington emailed us this morning in response to Dymphna’s post about the decision of the German and Polish presidents not to sign the Lisbon Treaty. He points out that the EU and the Mediterranean Union are the likely vehicles for the application of the Cairo Declaration to Europe as the Islamization of the continent proceeds:
- - - - - - - - -

Dear Baron,

No dancing on table tops yet over European countries’ resistance to the Lisbon Treaty.

Sarkozy is due to meet on 13 July with 40 leaders of EU countries and Moslem countries (Syria, Morocco, et al) with the stated intention of discussing the formation of a ‘Mediterranean Union’ which is intended to facilitate ‘emigration’ from North Africa (predominantly African Moslems) and the Middle East into Europe. I am certain that any such Mediterranean Union would have a mutually-agreed set of terms (constitution? treaty?) and, cynic that I am, I see this as the means by which the frustrated totalitarians of the EU will seek to implement their presently in-limbo Lisbon Treaty, which amounts to a surrender document of the sovereignties of all countries participating in the EU.

Any MU would also be the means by which Sharia Law would be acknowledged as a parallel jurisprudence in the EU. Moslem countries (54 of them) signed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam in 1990; in 1997 the UN accepted the CDHR as a ‘regional variation’ or ‘complementary’ to the UN-sponsored Declaration of Universal Human Rights.

The two documents are entirely antithetical: the CDHR states that Sharia is the only basis for determining both crimes and punishment and that Sharia is superior to all other jurisprudence; the International Humanist and Ethical Union and Faith Freedom have extensively contrasted the Cairo Declaration and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Note especially, in the Cairo Declaration, Articles 19, 24 and 25. They are the core:

Article 19 (d):		There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.
Article 24:		All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.
Article 25:		The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

Once there is a ‘Mediterranean Union’ in place, it will prove the conduit for this Cairo Declaration to eventually dominate in Europe due, in no small part, to the fact that a Mediterranean Union, by increasing Moslem populations into Europe, will turn Europe into that very ‘region’ in which the Cairo Declaration is the only statement of ‘human rights’.

It, and not the Lisbon Treaty, is the ultimate danger and is, in fact, the dream of Eurabia exposed by Bat Ye’or.

So what do you think? Are we being alarmists when we assert that the Mediterranean Union and the Cairo Declaration will be the vehicle for the suppression of freedom in Europe?

Will these monstrosities manage to undo the fundamental values that have held sway in West since the Enlightenment?