Thursday, April 21, 2011


By John Walker
Via Terry


by John Walker


Opponents or Enemies?

In any conflict, it is a deadly error to mistake or underestimate the adversary's capabilities, will to employ them, or ultimate goals.

Around the globe, what was once confidently deemed “Western civilisation” is in an end-stage battle with champions of a collectivist and statist ideology which, over the last century, has enacted programs of redistributive taxation, borrowing, and spending whose unsustainability has now become self-evident and which, unless the present course is altered, will collapse in at most ten years. Further, the second- and higher-order effects of these policies have led to demographic collapse in the societies which have adopted them, crippled capital formation and the creation of productive enterprises, and been used as a justification for mass immigration from regions hostile to the culture and values of the West which have been responsible for its prosperity.

Those who would destroy a society, destroy first its language. As Orwell observed, when the terms of discourse are corrupted, the corruption spreads into every domain the language is used to debate. So deep has this language rot penetrated, that it is difficult to write an essay like this without succumbing to it—that is the intent of those who spread the contagion. The present-day culprits identify themselves as “progressives” or “liberals”. Take a step back and ponder how manipulative this is: if you're a “progressive”, then you must obviously be on the side of progress, even though the outcome of the policies you advocate will ultimately roll back all of the advances in individual liberty and prosperity made since the Enlightenment; if you're a “liberal”, surely you must advocate liberty, notwithstanding that the consequences of your prescriptions will be descent of society into serfdom for the masses, deemed property of the state, ruled by an unelected, unaccountable élite.

These so-called “progressives” or “liberals” are not advocates of progress or liberty: they are enemies of them, and the sooner champions of liberty acknowledge what they are, the better our slim chances for defeating them will be. Libertarians and conservatives are inclined toward civil discourse and respect for the rule of law. They must come to terms with the fact that their enemies—not opponents—are implacable, bent on winning whatever the cost may be, willing to use any means whatsoever to prevail and, once triumphant, to deprive their opposition of the means to reverse or even impede the implementation of their agenda.

They are enemies.

What is to be done?

In the middle of World War II, would it have made sense for Roosevelt and Churchill to have arranged a secret meeting with Hirohito and Tojo to try to “work out their differences” and “find a middle ground” where, say, Imperial Japan would be allowed to keep half of its conquests in the Pacific? Of course not: Japan was the enemy, and only its definitive defeat could undo the damage its conquests had wrought.

Enemies of individual liberty control the high ground today in most of the institutions through which they have made their long march in the last half century, and they perceive themselves as winning: with every generation they educate, inform, entertain, and rule, they create more dependent subjects who acquiesce to their rule and groom a new self-perpetuating class of élite. They are not people who have a different vision of how to create a society in which the aspirations of the majority of the people for themselves and their families will be achieved, but rather aspiring rulers of infantilised subjects dependent upon the largesse of their betters.

How does one deal with enemies? To survive and prosper, one does not negotiate with them—one defeats them. There is no “reasonable, achievable compromise” between liberty and tyranny, freedom and slavery. One must vanquish the tyrants and slaveholders and ensure that their spawn cannot reinfect society.

We will never defeat them as long as we view them as “opponents” who play by the same rules and share the same goals as we. They are enemies, and must be completely defeated and removed from the political stage. That is how they view us—they have no desire to compromise but rather intend to destroy us. Until we take the battle to the enemy with an equal fierceness, we shall have no hope of success. Here are a few things we can do, starting immediately, once we come to terms with the fact we're confronted with an enemy, not a well-meaning opponent.

Reclaim the language from the enemy. We should have a “swear jar” for every time we utter the words “liberal” or “progressive” except in scornful irony. May I suggest “statist”, “collectivist”, “socialist”, or “communist” as alternatives?

Do not trade with the enemy. Do not patronise businesses which support enemy causes; by doing so you support them yourself. While an individual choosing not to be a customer of a mega-corporation has negligible impact, millions of like-minded people deciding to go elsewhere can. On the local scale, telling the owner of the pharmacy who's posted a petition supporting socialised medicine that he's just lost your business and why does have an impact—I did this two weeks ago myself.

Don't be taken in by enemy propaganda. The mainstream media are almost entirely in the hands of the enemy. Help to make them the legacy media by ignoring everything they say, not subscribing to their enemy propaganda. Rely instead on first-hand reporting on the Internet whose veracity you can judge based on a network of trusted sources who comment upon it.

Do not entrust your children to the enemy. So-called “public schools” (the correct term is “government schools”, since in recent decades the public—parents—have lost all control over them) have been entirely captured by the enemy and become institutions of indoctrination and moral corruption which fail at teaching even basic skills. It is parental malfeasance verging on child abuse to send one's offspring to these corrupt, corrupting, and nonperforming schools. If you cannot afford a well-run private or religious school (most have per-pupil costs well below that of government schools, but of course you have to pay that tuition on top of your taxes supporting the failed government schools), consider home-schooling your children, perhaps in conjunction with other like-minded parents. Even if you can afford it, don't assume a private or religious school supports your values; talk to parents of students enrolled there and teachers: if they show signs of being enemies, don't send your kids there.

Do not become indebted to the enemy. Higher education is overwhelmingly in the hands of the enemy. One of the greatest scams in recent decades has been the explosion in tuition and fees, which results in graduates of four-year and postgraduate programs burdened with six-figure debt they're forced to pay off in the key years they should be saving to accumulate capital for starting a family, buying a house, educating their children, and retirement. This is not accidental: by blocking capital formation in people's key earning years, they are rendered dependent upon the state for their retirement and health care in old age, which is precisely the intent.

What élite universities and professional schools provide for the exorbitant fee is a credential which offers entry into the ranks of the enemy, and the “education” they provide is indoctrination in the enemy's belief system. If you need a credential, shop around and get what you require at a price that doesn't sink you into debt throughout your peak earning years. Unless you've bought into the enemy's credential game, where you went to college will be irrelevant after you've had a few years of job experience.

Do not hire the enemy. Are you an employer? Why should you pay those who support the destruction of your livelihood? In our information-intense age, nothing could be easier than determining the political affiliations and contributions of applicants for employment, as well as their sentiments posted on public fora. If they are enemies, don't hire them. You wouldn't hire somebody without a police background check to make sure they weren't a crook, would you? So why should you employ an enemy who will use your paycheck to destroy the values you cherish and spread the enemy's perverted belief system among co-workers?

Roll back the enemy's gains. One of the enemy's key intellectual force multipliers is the concept of the “ratchet”: that any movement in their direction is irreversible and that consequently the debate is only about how rapidly one will arrive at their destination. Those who view the enemy as an “opposition” fall for this completely—in effect, their slogan becomes, “We'll deliver you unto serfdom, but later than the other guys”. This is not how one deals with an enemy: they must be definitively defeated, removed from all positions of influence, and their pathological beliefs cleansed from the society. Any politician who speaks about “reaching across the aisle” or intellectual who grants any legitimacy to the anti-human, liberty-destroying nostrums of the collectivists is a fool at best and a collaborator at worst. Failing to acknowledge that an enemy is an enemy is to preemptively surrender.

We do not compromise with enemy politicians; we defeat them, regardless of the political party from which they hail. If they're enemies of freedom and the other party's candidate is worse, challenge them in the primary.

We do not consent to enemy occupation of the media. These are businesses, and we will withdraw our support from them by letting subscriptions lapse and withdrawing advertising from them. This will provoke a “circulation collapse” death spiral for them. All public funding and subsidies for media must be defeated.

We choose not to fund enemy occupation of our educational institutions. All taxpayer-supported institutions must have their funding made contingent upon abolition of tenure (from kindergarten through university professorships) and retention based upon objective measures of merit by third parties outside the academic system.

In the U.S., many state judges are elected; Federal judges are not, and have lifetime tenure. But their courts are funded by the legislature, which can abolish them with the consent of the executive. Abolish abusive and misbehaving courts, and create new ones, and let that serve as a lesson to those who would legislate from the bench.

Dealing with the enemy

Over the last century, much of the enemy's success has been due to the partisans of individual liberty being unwilling to acknowledge that their opponents are implacable and ready to resort to any tactic that advances their cause. “I won't stoop to their level” is simultaneously staking out the high ground and then preemptively surrendering it to the enemy. Now, I am not suggesting that we do “stoop to their level”, but rather acknowledge that the enemy's tactics have been working, and that they must be countered head-on, not around the margins. We must do this in a manner consistent with our morality and respect for the truth, but keeping in mind that the enemy operates under no such constraints.

With elected politicians, there must be no compromise whatsoever with the enemy, and enemies in elected offices must be forced, through strategic votes, to disclose their true beliefs and agendas, then defeated by candidates who call them out on the pernicious consequences of the enemy policies they advocate. As enemies are removed from elected office, policies can be adopted to identify and replace enemies in the judiciary, state-funded educational institutions, and taxpayer-supported cultural institutions. Complete deregulation of all media will allow the market to sort out the messages people choose to hear.

I am certain this paper will be denounced a “strident” and “divisive”. Bring it on—it is both, and that is precisely my intent! If I had changed the introduction and globally replaced a few words in the body of the document, this screed could seamlessly slot into what passes for polite discourse in the fever swamps of the collectivist slavers. You may find it distasteful to look upon them as “enemies”, but that's how they see you, and they have no difficulty whatsoever talking about silencing you, removing you from positions of influence, and shutting down the means by which you organise.

We believe in a multitude of voices speaking in a free arena, with the best argument winning. The enemy believes in an echo chamber where only their message is heard. This conveys upon them an asymmetric advantage, where we're inclined to let them speak in favour of shutting us up. Fine: we should not sacrifice our principles, but at the same time we must come to terms with the fact that they are the enemy, and must be defeated and dispersed in disarray, not accommodated, lest we forfeit everything in which we believe.

Enemies and allies

In identifying the enemy, it is crucial to distinguish the enemy: the collectivist/statist ruling class and its partisans in the media, academia, and rent-seeking crony capitalist industries and financial institutions, from the electorate who support enemy politicians. We should view those voters not as enemies, but allies we haven't yet recruited. Most voters pay little attention to politics and have little appreciation for the consequences, social and economic, of policy choices. This is not so much due to laziness, but rather rational ignorance: since a single vote has a negligible chance of influencing the outcome of an election, a rational voter will spend a negligible amount of time investigating the candidates and researching the consequences of the policies they advocate.

Consequently, elections often turn on the amount of money candidates can raise, the extent they can attack their opponents with negative advertising, their hair styles, and what party the parents of the voter preferred, as opposed to substantive issues. You may find this dismaying, but there is abundant evidence that this is the fact. In addition, enemy occupation of education and media ensures that the bias of voters who do not choose to independently inform themselves will be toward enemy candidates. This was the premise of an underappreciated 2008 book which breathlessly and approvingly forecast the calamity the recent enemy resurgence has brought upon us.

These uninformed and unengaged voters are not the enemy, but is it their votes which bring the enemy to power. So we must approach them as potential allies, to whom we must explain the ultimate consequences of the policies of the enemy to themselves and their families, and why it is in their own self-interest to defeat the enemy. The present situation is sufficiently dire that one need no longer appeal to long-term arguments such as Hayek's in The Road to Serfdom: the apocalypse so ardently desired by the enemy, as it will present the ultimate crisis to be exploited to secure their power, is now just a few years away, and this is evident to anybody acquainted with the numbers.

Our goal must be to defeat the enemy. In a democratic society, this means apprising those who vote the enemy into power of their true nature, breaking the hold of the enemy media on the populace, and reversing enemy infiltration of education. The enemy strategy depends upon an uninformed, unengaged, and passive electorate. We must turn this around by communicating, by all means possible, the true nature of the enemy and the cataclysmic near-term consequences of their triumph.


by John Walker

April 15th, 2011


Christians Begin To Flee Egypt

From Europe News:

Christians begin to flee Egypt

 14 April 2011

A growing number of Egypt’s 8-10 million Coptic Christians are looking for a way to get out as Islamists increasingly take advantage of the nationalist revolution that toppled long-standing dictator Hosni Mubarak in February.

Egypt Daily News reported on Tuesday that "lawyers who specialize in working with Coptic Egyptians…say that in the past few weeks they have received hundreds of calls from Copts wanting to leave Egypt.” (...)

Posted April 14th, 2011 by pk

Have We Forgotten How To Define And Protect Freedom?

From Europe News:

Have we forgotten how to define and protect freedom?

Canada Free Press 14 April 2011

By Dr. Laurie Roth

The U.S. is a nation that blew onto the world’s playing field and stunned all. It was the story of spirited David standing against British Goliath and winning. We broke the rules and were rebellious regarding controlling and big Government. We dreamed about it, imagined it, prayed and fought it into existence and got our freedom. Our nation was founded on a real freedom, inspired by Judeo/Christian values.

As infant America grew, we finally had liberation to develop our own ideas and start businesses without the British Government stealing and controlling most of what we made. How did the Brits get away with their controls, taxation and oppression so long? It was a slow yet deliberate process which boiled the British subjects in submissive oil over years. It was protocol; You respect your leaders and the Queen; You never break the law, no matter how it looks. It is the law; God even says and reminds you in your Churches, ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s;’ The Government knows best and in with these troubling and challenging times, redistributes wealth according to the need.’ Heard any of this the last few years?

As with all tyrannical, Government control schemes, the struggling, and distracted masses are thrown enough dog bones, promises and entertaining diversions in between their hard work day schedules that they either are too tired to notice or don’t care enough to find their voice and fight. Most just give in. Tyrants know that and just wait the people out and keep hitting back. Did I say it yet? Anyone notice anything the last few years? (...)

Posted April 14th, 2011 by pk

U.S. Attorney: There Is So Much Ignorance And Fear Surrounding The Islamic Religion

From Jihad Watch:

U.S. Attorney: "There is so much ignorance and fear surrounding the Islamic religion"

Indeed there is. There is a great deal of ignorance about the ways in which Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and to make recruits among peaceful Muslims. There is a great deal of fear about innocent Muslims being victimized in the U.S., when in fact many "anti-Muslim hate crimes" have been faked by Muslims, and Jews are eight times more likely than Muslims to be the victims of hate attacks. But of course that is not what Barbara McQuade meant.

"At Dearborn forum, law enforcement leaders say all faiths must be protected," by Niraj Warikoo in the Detroit Free Press, April 12:

Speaking at a forum in Dearborn, the U.S. Attorney for eastern Michigan said that Muslims and Islam should not be stereotyped.

"Blaming all Muslims and Arabs for the acts of the hijackers of 9/11 is like blaming all Catholics for the acts of Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City," U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said Monday, referring to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the 1995 bombing of a federal building.

In the first place, no one is really "blaming all Muslims and Arabs" for 9/11. That is just a straw man. But there is also no equivalence between calling the Muslim community to account for jihad activity in its midst and blaming Catholics for the Oklahoma City bombing. Jihadists justify acts of violence by referring to the Qur'an and Muhammad; McVeigh did not justify the Oklahoma City bombing by referring to Catholic teaching. He wasn't even a Catholic at the time, in fact.

"There is so much ignorance and fear surrounding the Islamic religion. And so we've been trying ... to educate the public and to make sure that our Muslim and Arab residents here have the full protection of the law. And we are very strongly committed to doing that."

McQuade was one of several law enforcement officials and community advocates who spoke at the forum, which was sponsored by student groups at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and titled Know Your Rights. Also speaking were Andrew Arena, special agent in charge of the FBI Detroit office, and Brian Moskowitz, special agent in charge of ICE/HSI, which deals with immigration investigations with the Department of Homeland Security.

Imad Hamad, regional director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said at the forum that "it seems like our civil rights and liberties have been put on trial" in recent years.

In a sane world, Hamad would be anxious to demonstrate his community's loyalty to the United States, as German-Americans and Japanese-Americans were anxious to do during World War II. Instead, Hamad plays the same old tired victim card that we always see from Islamic supremacists. It is too bad that neither Arena nor Moskowitz apparently had the guts to answer his whining with a firm call to back up his victimhood posturing with genuine and wholehearted cooperation with law enforcement.

Arena said that FBI agents are sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

"I'm not allowed to have informants in mosques unless I have predication something bad is going on," Arena said. "If your imam ... preaches the true faith, we have no right to be there, and we're not. If we are, I'm going to lose my job and somebody (from law enforcement) is going to jail."

How did the Imam Arena determine what is the "true faith" of Islam? How does he deal with the fact that the jihadists present themselves among Muslims as the exponents of the "true faith"?

But if a religious leader is supporting terrorism, the FBI has a responsibility to investigate, Arena said.

"If a Catholic priest stands up in my church and says give money to the Irish Republican Army, which is a designated terrorist organization, to kill British soldiers and drive them out of Northern Ireland, I have a right, duty, and responsibility to be in that church to investigate it," Arena said.

Indeed. One wonders, however, how Arena proposes to know before he investigates whether or not the local imam is preaching hate, violence and supremacism. One also wonders whether he knows that it is much more likely that any given imam is indeed preaching those things than that a Catholic priest is preaching that anyone should kill anyone else.

Posted by Robert on April 13, 2011 6:48 AM

Wilders Sharia Trial Resumes In The Netherlands

From Jihad Watch:

Wilders Sharia trial resumes in the Netherlands

The Netherlands enforces Sharia provisions forbidding non-Muslims to speak critically of Islam. "Dutch anti-Islam politician's hate speech trial resumes, lawyer questions judge's independence," from The Associated Press, April 13:

AMSTERDAM — The hate speech trial of Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders has resumed, with defence lawyers seeking to discredit one of the judges that ordered the lawmaker to face trial for allegedly inciting hatred against Muslims.

Wilders, leader of the country's third-largest political party, says he has done nothing wrong by expressing his opinions that Islam is a violent ideology comparable with fascism, and the Qur’an should be banned.

Defence witness Hans Jansen testified Wednesday that appeals Judge Tom Schalken tried to talk to him at a dinner party shortly before the trial was to begin, which could be seen as improper contact....

Posted by Robert on April 13, 2011 7:26 AM

France: Muslim Woman Ticketed For Wearing Face Veil

From Jihad Watch:

France: Muslim woman ticketed for wearing face veil

Who do you think will blink first? The French authorities, or the Islamic supremacists? I wouldn't bet on the French, but maybe they will surprise us all. "Woman ticketed in France for wearing face veil," from CBS News, April 12:

(AP) PARIS (AP) — A woman has been ticketed in a suburban Paris shopping center for wearing a face veil, in the first reported sanction under a new ban on the garments, police said Tuesday.

Another woman in another Paris suburb was stopped for wearing a veil, but was let go with a warning.

The inconsistent response illustrates the challenge for towns with a large Muslim community in enforcing a law that some view as Islamophobic.

Though such veils are very rare in France, many of the country's at least 5 million Muslims see the ban as a stigma. Islam is France's second-largest religion after Catholicism.

The ban also has been criticized by Iran's government and activists in Jordan.

President Nicolas Sarkozy says such veils imprison women and wanted a ban to uphold French values of equality and secularism.

A 27-year-old was stopped by police in the mall parking lot in the town of Mureaux, regional police said. She was handed a ticket that requires her to pay a � ($216) fine or register for citizenship classes within a month.

Police said the exchange was brief and calm. The incident occurred Monday, the day France's ban on veils such as the niqab and burqa came into effect.

Another woman was stopped Tuesday for wearing a veil in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. The 35-year-old was brought to the police station and reminded of the law, police said.

While these were the first publicly reported incidents, it was unclear how many women have been stopped so far nationwide. The French government has estimated only about 2,000 women in France wear such veils, and a few vocal wearers have said they will defy the ban....

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Tuesday the ban is a "wrong method and it will not bear a good result."

"Any kind of bar on observance of the veil means a lack of freedom and rights of Muslim women," he said in his weekly news briefing....

And you know how keen the Iranian mullahs are on freedom and rights.

Posted by Robert on April 13, 2011 7:37 AM

Keith Ellison's Slurs

From AIFD:

Thu, April 14, 2011 12:04:02 AM[AIFD in the Media] "Keith Ellison's Slurs" by IPT News, Wed. April 13, 2011

From: "M. Zuhdi Jasser, MD" Add to Contacts



The following report by IPT News appeared online today and exposes the depths to which Cong. Keith Ellison will go when speaking to a Muslim audience in Dearborn in order to attack the work of anti-Islamist Muslims doing genuine counter-terrorism work. AIFD will also soon be releasing a full response to all of Mr. Ellison's mud-slinging fabrications and ad hominems he hurled against us at his Dearborn appearance before the Islamic Association of Greater Detroit in March after the hearings.-- AIFD


Keith Ellison's Slurs

IPT News

April 13, 2011

His emotional testimony, choking back tears as he discussed a Muslim-American first-responder killed on 9/11, garnered national headlines last month for U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison.

But two days after a House committee hearing on Muslim radicalization, the Minnesota Democrat had a far more hostile tone. In a speech in Rochester Hills, Mich., Ellison made a series of personal attacks against three other witnesses who were on the opposite side of the issue.

He seemed to blame Melvin Bledsoe for the actions of his son Carlos, who stands accused of shooting and killing an Army private after converting to Islam and becoming radicalized.

A Somali-American who complained about interference from organized Islamist groups while trying to learn about a score of missing young men who turned up with a terrorist group in Somalia was there simply to "diss" the Muslim community in Minneapolis.

Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix physician who challenges the Islamist narrative, simply is out to make a buck, Ellison said.

His tearful tribute to Mohammed Salman Hamdani came before the House Homeland Security Committee and the national media drawn to the controversial hearing called by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. Ellison's attacks on the other witnesses came before a friendlier and more partisan crowd, with sponsors that included the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.

The hearing generated controversy because of its focus on radicalization solely among Muslims in America. Committee Democrats criticized King and the hearing's premise, with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas saying the proceedings placed the U.S. Constitution "in pain." California Rep. Jackie Speier dismissed the witness testimony as anecdotal.

Ellison's speech echoed that criticism, and he told his Michigan audience that if King "really was trying to learn something about violent radicalization, why wouldn't he include [as a witness] somebody who actually had something to say of value?" Ellison asked. Instead, he called "one guy… named Mr. Bledsoe, whose son I guess became a Muslim, went to Yemen, came back and killed some police officers (sic)."

Bledsoe dropped out of college shortly after his conversion to Islam in 2004. Muslim leaders in Nashville urged him to go to Yemen, long a hotbed of jihadist activity. In 2007 he traveled there, apparently to study under a radical imam.

He is accused of opening fire outside an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark. in June 2009, killing one soldier, Pvt. William Long, and seriously wounding another, Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula.

In his testimony, Melvin Bledsoe recounted his son's descent into violence, saying the American people are largely unaware of the threat posed by Islamist radicalism. "There is a big elephant in the room, but our society continues not to see it," Bledsoe said.

After stating that he did not want to bring pain to a grieving parent, Ellison appeared to suggest that the bulk of the blame for Carlos Bledsoe's radicalization didn't lie with the jihadists who indoctrinated him, but with his father. Carlos "was in that man's house all his life. He's a Muslim for a few years. Enough said," Ellison said.

Melvin Bledsoe did not mince words when told about Ellison's comments during an interview with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. He dismissed Ellison's notion that radical Islam played no part in his son's actions. Carlos left the Bledsoe home in 2003, changed his name to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad when he converted to Islam a year later, and spent extensive time in Yemen.

"They stole my son," Bledsoe said. "They raped his mind. They changed his thought, his behavior. They changed him from Carlos to Abdulhakim. I asked God to give me my son back."

Ellison is a "fool" and "liar" when he tries to deny the insidious nature of jihadist recruiting that is occurring in this country, Bledsoe said.

In his speech, Ellison expressed similar disdain for Abdirizak Bihi, a Somali American from Minneapolis who also testified. Bihi's teenage nephew Burhan Hassan was shot to death in Somalia in June 2009. Burhan was one of at least 20 Somali men and teenage boys from the Twin Cities area who have traveled to Somalia since 2007 to fight for the terrorist group al-Shabaab. The "only reason" Bihi was invited to testify was "because he's willing to diss the Somali and Muslim community in Minneapolis," Ellison said.

As part of his testimony, Bihi described how Islamist leaders discouraged people from cooperating with the investigation into the missing men. Talking to the FBI could get you sent to Guantanamo Bay, they said. And, there are consequences in the afterlife by being damned with "eternal fire and hell."

Ellison's harshest remarks were reserved for Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy - and like Bihi, a non-Islamist Muslim. Jasser was invited to testify "because he fits the narrative of people who want to defame you," Ellison told his Michigan audience.

Jasser's real goal, he suggested, was to criticize Muslims in order to enrich himself. Ellison said that "if you want to make some money talking about Muslims," follow the example of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Hirsi Ali renounced her faith and has been highly critical of it in her writing. A good portion of her money goes to 24-hour-protection since her life was threatened in 2004. When filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered on an Amsterdam street, the killer tacked a note on him saying Hirsi Ali would be next. The two collaborated on "Submission," a short film protesting the treatment of women in Islam.

Ellison said: "You know, I think Zuhdi Jasser just said, 'Why should Ayaan Hirsi Ali make all the money'" criticizing Islam?

In a statement to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jasser, a devout Muslim, said he was shocked by the carelessness of Ellison's statements. Ellison engaged in "fabrication and character assassination rather than" debate the issues put forward, Jasser wrote.

"Perhaps it is naïve of me to assume that a sitting member of Congress would maintain a degree of honesty and forthrightness commensurate with his office. Congressman Ellison's false and malignant attacks on my character and integrity speak volumes to the tactics used by leading Islamists in their efforts to marginalize dissent within our Muslim communities," Jasser wrote. "Mr. Ellison's behavior also demonstrates the mudslinging directed toward reform minded Muslims by some leading Muslims threatened by our ideas."

Another Ellison claim about Jasser "is a complete fabrication," said a Des Moines man who was involved in the incident. In October, Drake University hosted a forum on Islam. Ellison claimed that Jasser approached the congressman's son, who was president of the MSA at Drake, and "demanded" to be included in the "What it means to be an American Muslim" event.

Stanley Richards, a philanthropist and sponsor of the event, said that was not true. Jasser was the first person he contacted about attending the forum. Jasser's organization then invited the Drake Muslim Student Association to participate. Ellison's son "informed me that his board had voted not to participate" by sponsoring the forum or serving as a panelist, Richards said.

Ellison's son Isaiah did attend the forum, making statements and asking questions. "Ellison's son spoke with Jasser after the forum and had a respectful conversation," Richards wrote. Rep. Ellison was also invited to be a panelist but declined due to a scheduling conflict.

In his Michigan speech, Ellison claimed he had "gotten to know" Jasser and had had "debate[d]" him in the past. During an October 2009 Capitol Hill briefing on political Islam, the Minnesota congressman slandered Jasser as a bigot seeking to censor Islamists.

Jasser criticized groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for trying to discredit reports noting the connection between radical Salafism and support for jihad. He said that if Muslims want equal respect and credibility they must "stand for reform within our faith of laws that are still in the 15th and 16th centuries."

Ellison responded to Jasser's call for reform with an angry personal attack in which he virtually called him an Islamic "Uncle Tom."

"I think you give people license for bigotry," Ellison told Jasser. "I think people who want to engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot because you give them freedom to do that."

In Michigan, Ellison continued to mischaracterize Jasser's views and motives. Jasser advocates a "separation between mosque and state" and fights against "political Islam," the application of religious tenets into government and society as espoused by violent jihadists like al-Qaida to political movements like the Muslim Brotherhood.

"By the way, I don't believe that my faith as a Muslim should be politicized," Ellison said. "My faith is way bigger than politics, right? So I don't agree with, but I don't even know what he's even talking about quite frankly. I don't know what he means."

That's surprising, given that groups Ellison works closely with, including the Muslim American Society (MAS) was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. MAS even paid for Ellison to travel to Mecca for the hajj in 2008.

Brotherhood bylaws show its adherence to political Islam, calling for "the need to work on establishing the Islamic State, which seeks to effectively implement the provisions of Islam and its teachings."

Court records show that CAIR, meanwhile, was created by a Hamas-support network in America created by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ellison repeatedly defended CAIR in his Michigan speech, saying it is "a legally operating organization" that would have been shut down had it done anything wrong. He failed to tell his audience that the FBI severed formal relations with CAIR nearly three years ago, due to questions about its founders' ties to the Hamas-support network known as the Palestine Committee. FBI Director Robert Mueller has repeated this position twice in the past month before congressional panels.

In court papers, prosecutors wrote that CAIR was "a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew."

The Congressman cannot blame Jasser or the other witnesses for that.

Italy: Muslim Father Slits Daughter's Throat 28 Times To "Uphold Family Honor"

From Jihad Watch:

Italy: Muslim father slits daughter's throat 28 times to "uphold family honor"

Whenever an honor killing takes place in North America or Europe, the mainstream media tells us that honor killing is a cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam -- despite several facts indicating the contrary. It is no accident or coincidence that Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'" And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."

Nonetheless, the media drumbeat is constant: honor killings have nothing to do with Islam. And as long as that continues, we will see more and more murders like this one.

Video thanks to Faith Freedom.

Posted by Robert on April 12, 2011 4:59 AM

Dubai To Remove Apocalyptic Billboards: Anything In Contradiction With The Islamis Religion Is Not Permitted To Be Advertised

From Jihad Watch:

Dubai to remove apocalyptic billboards: "Anything in contradiction with the Islamic religion is not permitted to be advertised"

"Proselytising for religions other than Islam is prohibited in the UAE." How odd! Does the entire UAE governing establishment misunderstand Islam's expansiveness and openness to other religions? Shouldn't Hamas-linked CAIR be issuing Action Alerts calling on the UAE to change this law so as to avoid besmirching Islam's sterling record of tolerance? Honest Ibe? Brave Ahmed? Slick Nihad? Anyone? Anyone?

Islamic Tolerance Alert from modern, moderate Dubai. "Dubai to remove end of world billboards: Report," from AFP, April 12 (thanks to Twostellas):

DUBAI - HUGE billboards posted by fundamentalist American Christians across Dubai proclaiming that the world will end next month are to be taken down, a local newspaper reported on Monday.

'A billboard advertisement claiming that May 21, 2011 will be the 'judgment day' according to the Bible, and which shocked many and dismayed others, will be removed,' the Gulf News daily said, quoting a senior official.

'The great and terrible day, who shall be able to stand?' read the billboards set up by a group which runs a religious radio network named 'Family Radio'. 'The municipality will remove these advertisements as soon as possible,' Ms Mona Khamis Ebrahim, who oversees advertising campaigns in Dubai, told the English-language daily.

'This was an unintentional mistake... the section receives and licenses thousands of advertisements daily. Anything in contradiction with the Islamic religion is not permitted to be advertised,' Ms Ebrahim said.

Proselytising for religions other than Islam is prohibited in the UAE....

Posted by Robert on April 12, 2011 6:06 AM

Anti-Sharia Law Dead In Oklahoma Senate

From Jihad Watch:

Anti-Sharia law dead in Oklahoma Senate

71% of Oklahomans voted for an anti-Sharia law last November, but a clueless judge did the bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR and struck it down. Hamas-linked CAIR convinced the judge, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, that the measure constituted "bigotry," and infringed upon Muslims' religious freedom. Obviously neither is true. Oklahomans wanted to outlaw the elements of Sharia that interfere with Constitutionally protected freedoms, not Islam as an individual religious practice. The point has to be made that these anti-Sharia measures are aimed at political Islam, an authoritarian ideology at variance with the Constitution in numerous particulars. But unfortunately, even many of the proponents of these measures are unable to make this case effectively.

"Anti-Shariah measure dead in Okla. Senate," from UPI, April 12 (thanks to Block Ness):

OKLAHOMA CITY, April 12 (UPI) -- A bill that would outlaw the use of international and Shariah law in state courts will not get a hearing in the Oklahoma Senate, its sponsor said.

The controversial bill that would prohibit foreign laws from being enforced in Oklahoma courtrooms easily passed the state House of Representatives but has languished in the Senate, and is considered dead for this year, The Oklahoman reported Tuesday.

Rep. Sally Kern, the bill's author, expressed disappointment that the bill would not be heard by a Senate committee.

Kern, R-Oklahoma City, left open the possibility of attempting to get the measure's language attached to another bill.

That would be bad for the state, said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and would threaten international business contracts and companies in Oklahoma.

"It will harm our state using bigotry and encouraging divisive politics while discouraging business," Awad said. "It presents imminent harm to our business community jeopardizing international business contracts that thousands of Oklahoma businesses are engaged in."...

Posted by Robert on April 12, 2011 3:18 PM

Islamic Apparel Banned In France


Islamist Apparel Banned in France

by Daniel Pipes

April 12, 2011

Cross-posted from National Review Online: The Corner

Print Send Comment RSS Share

With a new law yesterday, the French salvaged an aspect of Western civilization.

The law prohibits "concealment of the face in public, especially by wearing a full body covering" ("dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, en particulier par la pratique du port du voile intégral"). In other words, it does not explicitly mention the Islamist gear known as niqab (which covers a woman's body except for the eyes) and burqa (covers the entire body).

Feminine beauty? Burqas on parade.

Clever. But "concealment of the face" takes place routinely. Large, dark sunglasses hide the eyes. Surgical face masks (worn to fend off contagious diseases) cover the nose and mouth. Fire-retardant hoods obscure the neck, ears, and hair. Worn together, sunglasses, mask, and hood, such as sported by actress Faye Dunaway last year at LAX, might be illegal under the new French law, even though it is not a problem. One can discern plenty about Ms Dunaway, including her gender, her approximate age, and what she is carrying. She looks odd but does not threaten fellow passengers.

Faye Dunaway in her version of a niqab.

Niqabs and burqas, in contrast, are not veils but head-to-toe coverings that envelope the entire person. They routinely present security challenges by hiding males, guns, and bombs. They cause Vitamin D deficiency in women and breast-fed children. They obstruct communication, disrupt family life, dehumanize women, and undermine individualism.

Legislation should focus on full-body coverings; these cultural atrocities must be banned everywhere. (April 12, 2011)

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Discord Among Counter-Jihadists: A Call For Unity

From Jihad Watch:

Discord among counter-jihadists: a call for unity

Many, many times here at Jihad Watch I have stressed the need for those who are resisting the global jihad and Islamic supremacism to stick together -- or at least not to let jihadists, their agents, and/or their useful idiots (or even their own narrow self-interest or what they perceive as such) set them against other people who should be allies in our common fight for survival. At the risk of redundancy or belaboring the obvious, I will repeat here what I pointed out then about such “friendly fire attacks”:

There is a dispiriting number of self-described counter-jihad activists who spend more time sniping at other counter-jihadists instead of actually doing something constructive to fight the jihad. There are those who know all about how it can all be done better and more effectively, but never quite manage to get off their couch and prove it. There are those who sling around reckless and false charges against others, and those who style themselves as junior Machiavellis, maneuvering publicly and privately, in ways more or less transparent, to muscle out those they apparently regard as competition.

I find all this distasteful and wrongheaded, and do not participate, but am for whatever reason often the recipient of it.

This has particular reference to a dispute that opened up several weeks ago regarding the scholar Srdja Trifkovic, author of The Sword of the Prophet and many other fine books. Trifkovic was barred from Canada on false accusations of being a genocide denier and of having been a senior official in the Bosnian Serb government during the Balkan wars of the 1990s. These false accusations were initiated by a circle of Bosnian Muslims who are purveying militant anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian jihad, and pro-Mahmoud “I am proud to be a Holocaust denier” Ahmadinejad propaganda.

When I posted an item on Jihad Watch pointing out how “the ‘hate speech’ weapon is increasingly used by the thuggish Leftist/Islamic supremacist axis to silence its opponents,” Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, a young man who has since then exposed himself as a full-bore agent provocateur, writing in the Leftist dhimmi blog Harry's Place to denounce me and other "right-wing bloggers" for all sorts of transgressions (distorted and fabricated, of course) against the sainted Obama and obsessively elsewhere in what has become an ongoing campaign, saw an opportunity to launch an offensive against both me and Trifkovic.

That initiative had two immediate goals: first, to preserve in pristine form the lurid narrative of one-sided Muslim victimization in the Balkans. (Where are Muslims not the victims of the kuffar, rather than the perpetrators?) That issue has been dealt with masterfully by Andy Wilcoxson. The second – facilitated by the provocateur’s presenting to me a passage of Trifkovic’s writing taken out of context (genuinely, not the way Islamic supremacists are forever claiming is being done to the Qur'an by non-Muslims) and accordingly subject to misinterpretation as antisemitic – has been analyzed in depth by the relentless, indefatigable Julia Gorin:

Trifkovic concerns himself with Jewish and Israeli survival. That's more than can be said of other paleocons, too many of whom – not unlike too many liberals – have convinced themselves that Jews are the problem with jihad, and let the Muslims off the hook, often defending them. Unhindered by such biased mental blocks, Trifkovic does not have it in for Israel, as his maligned symposium contribution and a lifetime of work make clear.

Make no mistake. These two seemingly unrelated issues are closely linked: false Muslim claims of victimization (whether in the Balkans or in Gaza) and false accusations of “hate speech” (whether anti-Semitism or “Islamophobia”). They both spring from the same font, and have the same goal.

The key word is survival– survival in the face of efforts to blame the victims of jihad, not the jihadists. This means the physical survival of those fighting against jihad in their homelands: Jews in Israel; Christians in the Balkans, the Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere; Hindus in Kashmir; Bahais in Iran; Buddhists in southern Thailand; and so on. It means survival of our freedoms against efforts to muzzle and defame those who are telling the truth about Islam, jihad, Sharia, dhimmitude, the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and Muhammad. It means survival of persecuted non-Muslims in places too numerous to name, and whose only recourse in many cases is emigration.

As my colleague Roland Shirk recently observed regarding the much-maligned Terry Jones:

Another argument out there asserts that the actions of Pastor Jones – and by definition, of all Islamo-realists – provoke Islamic violence against real innocent civilians, including unarmed men, women and children: namely, the millions of non-Muslims who live as hostages inside Islamic countries. The numbers of these people are shrinking, to be sure, as resurgent Islamic governments from Kosovo to Iraq find ways to ethnically cleanse their territories, repeating against the Christians the purges Arab states conducted of Jews in 1948. Tragic and criminal as that mass-expulsion was, it did have one advantage: there aren't millions of Jews living at the mercy of Muslim mobs, whom hostile governments can use as pawns or hold for ransom. Likewise, the flight of ancient Christian communities from Muslim-occupied countries is a painful assault on heritage and history. But in the long run it may save their lives, and give the rest of us more freedom of action in confronting global Islam while we still can.

So regarding Trifkovic, I value him as an ally in a common struggle. Like me, he is dedicated to the survival of those fighting against the jihad, both for our freedoms here at home (not to mention Canadastan) and globally, including Israel. We don’t have to agree on everything -- pace the Leftists who try to convince the gullible that any counter-jihadist who ever stood in the same room with another counter-jihadist must necessarily and wholeheartedly agree with everything his momentary companion has ever said and approve of everything he has done. We still don't completely agree regarding his statements to which I initially objected, but we do agree on the primary goal of resisting jihad and Islamization. And I don’t think he is an antisemite or a “genocide denier." I respect his work on Islam and his stand for freedom -- and against the jihad in the Balkans and Israel. I regard the efforts by Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, whose pro-jihad (at least in the Balkans and probably elsewhere as well) sentiments are now clear, and others to frame him as such indistinguishable from the kind of smears and threats to which I am subjected constantly.

Posted by Robert on April 11, 2011 1:23 AM

Jihadist Hate-Preacher Anjem Choudary Banned From France After Attempting To Join Burqa Ban Protest

From Jihad Watch:

Jihadist hate preacher Anjem Choudary banned from France after attempting to join burqa ban protest

Both Choudary of "Islam4UK" and Fouad Belkacem of "Sharia4Belgium" were thwarted from joining the protests. Regarding the names, did these guys call each other, or are we witnessing the unforeseen development of Euro-jihadi kitsch? "British Muslims arrested in burka ban protest in France," by Peter Allen for the Daily Mail, April 10:

A British Muslim radical has been permanently banned from France as the country steps up security before the introduction of a nationwide burka ban tomorrow.

Anjem Choudary, head of the outlawed Islam4UK which advocates Sharia law, was turned back as he tried to join an illegal protest in Paris on Saturday.

Officials served Mr Choudary with a legal notice informing him that the French Interior Ministry was banning him permanently.

Abu Izzadeen and Omar Bakri, both also controversial figures based in Britain, both tried to get to the event but were stopped by police.

It eventually saw 61 people arrested, including 19 women wearing veils and an illegal immigrant who was carrying an offensive weapon.

France is on a high state of alert after Al Qaeda issued warnings that it would attack the country following the introduction of the ban, which imposes fines of £130 and 'civic duty' guidance to women caught wearing Islamic veils.

In October Jacques Myard, a senior member of President Nicolas Sarkozy's ruling UMP party who helped introduce the burka ban in France, said Britain was 'losing the battle against Islamic extremism' and thus 'opened the door to terrorism'.

Mr Myard said he was shocked at the way radicals like Mr Choudary and Mr Bakri were allowed to make comments attacking British soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

Mr Choudary, 43, is a former solicitor who ran the outlawed Islam4UK group and who has appeared in court in Britain for organising marches.

He has frequently praised the terrorists who organised the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. and the 7/7 bombings in London.

He formed the group Al-Muhajiroun with Mr Bakri, 52, who became known as the 'Tottenham Ayatollah' because of his praise of extremism.

Mr Izzadeen, 34, is British spokesman for Al Ghurabaa, a Muslim group banned under the Terrorism Act 2006 for its glorification of violence.

Another man, Fouad Belkacem of the Sharia4Belgium group, was also arrested in Paris yesterday.

France is the second country in Europe, after Belgium, to introduce a full ban on a garment which immigration minister Eric Besson called a 'walking coffin'.

The rigorous new law, which was passed last October, makes it an offence to wear face coverings in 'public places'.

Exceptions include crash helmets and ski masks, with the government making it clear that garments favoured by Muslim women are the principal target of the legislation.

Al Qaeda has already issued warnings against France for introducing the law....

Posted by Marisol on April 11, 2011 2:46 AM

Hamas-Linked CAIR Enraged As Oakland Athleitcs Plan Jewish Heritage Night

From Jihad Watch:

Hamas-linked CAIR enraged as Oakland Athletics plan Jewish Heritage Night

A righteous pitch

The malignant Islamic supremacists of Hamas-linked CAIR let their mask slip a bit, revealing the depth of their Islamic antisemitism. Honest Ibe Hooper here stoops lower than even I thought he could go, criticizing the Oakland Athletics for holding a promotion that is noble in light of the relentless vilification of Israel in the mainstream media and the world community today. Note also Honest Ibe's whiny attempt yet again to claim victim status for Muslims in the U.S.

"Finding their religion: Oakland A's plan first Jewish Heritage night," by Michael McCarthy for USA Today, April 9 (thanks to Jack):

The issue of religious freedom vs. separation of church and state is always dicey and sports is not immune.

A growing number of MLB, NBA, NHL and NFL clubs are offering Christian, Jewish and Mormon nights.

But a national Muslim advocacy group doesn't think it's appropriate for teams to mix religion and sports. If sports teams are going do it, then the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wants equal time for other religions.

"The ultimate test of this kind of policy would be to have a Muslim Family Day — and gauge the public reaction to it," says CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. "Given the heightened state of anti-Muslim sentiment in our society, I have a feeling there would be some objections to that."

The Oakland A's, for example, will hold their first Jewish Heritage Night against the Los [Angeles] Angels May 17. Attendees get an A's yarmulke and a seat in the plaza infield section for $26.

Wish I could be there. Go, if you can, and show your support.

On Sunday, the NBA's Golden State Warriors will hold their first Jewish Heritage night, including a Q&A with Israeli basketball player Omri Casspi, Jewish music and kosher barbecue. The 2010 World Series Champion San Francisco Giants are planning Fellowship (Christian), Jewish and LDS (Mormon) days among various ethnic heritage promotions this season....

(Pictured above is a great hero of my callow pre-jihad days, Vida Blue of the three-time World Champion Oakland A's of the early 1970's. Ah. In those days there were pitchers.)

Posted by Robert on April 11, 2011 2:49 AM

Frnech Police Said They Will Be Enforcing The Country's New Burka Ban "Extremely Cautiosly" Because Of Fears Of Provoking Violence"

From Jihad Watch:

"French police said they will be enforcing the country’s new burka ban 'extremely cautiously' because of fears of provoking violence"

"They fear Muslims extremists will use the law to provoke fights with officers, while rich visitors from countries like Saudi Arabia will also cause trouble."

Note also the supremacist overtones of the protest site, in front of the Cathedral of Notre Dame. It's not exactly a charm offensive the Muslim community has embarked upon here. Perhaps they feel they have the strength in numbers not to care anymore, but displays like this may yet be politically counterproductive. "French burka ban: police arrest two veiled women," by Peter Allen for the Telegraph, April 11:

The women were arrested along with several other people protesting in front of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris against the new law.

Jourrnalists at the scene said the arrests came after police moved in to break up the protest which had not been authorised.

On Saturday police arrested 59 people, including 19 veiled women, who turned up for a banned protest in Paris against the draconian new law, the first of its kind to be enforced in Europe.

Draconian? You'd think we were talking about floggings, stonings, and amputations here. Is daylight on the human face now classified as torture? What is at issue here is the expectation that people in France behave according to French values and customs in public.

If that's draconian, leave France.

Earlier, French police said they will be enforcing the country’s new burka ban "extremely cautiously" because of fears of provoking violence.

They fear Muslims extremists will use the law to provoke fights with officers, while rich visitors from countries like Saudi Arabia will also cause trouble .

All garments which cover the face were officially banned from first thing this morning, with offenders facing fines of 150 euros (£133).

But police admitted that they feared being accused of discrimination against Muslims, whether approaching women in tinderbox housing projects or on the Champs Elysee.

"The law will be very difficult to apply on certain estates," said Patrice Ribeiro, of the Synergie police union.

Referring to two Paris suburbs where riots regularly break out because of alleged discrimination against Muslims, Mr Ribeiro said: "I can’t see police going to book dozens of veiled women doing their shopping in Venissieux or in Trappes.

"It will be the same when a police officer is about to arrest a veiled Saudi who is about to go into Louis Vuitton on the Champs Elysees. In all cases, the forces of order will have to be measured and cautious in their behaviour."

The moment someone is untouchable, the rule of law is shot. Saudis in France must obey French law. To treat anyone otherwise only feeds and validates Islamic supremacism.

Synergie has already instructed its members to view the ban as a "low priority", and Mr Ribeiro said there would "inevitably be incidents".

Mohamed Douhane, another Paris police officer and Synergie member, said he and his colleagues also "expected provocation by a minority."

Mr Douhane added: "Fundamentalist movements are eager to raise the stakes. The police know they will be held responsible for any public order disturbances."

Police have already been warned not to arrest women "in or around" mosques, and "citizen’s de-veilings" are also banned.

The strict instructions, from Interior Minister Claude Guent, are contained in a nine page circular issued to officers.

With tensions running high within the country’s six million strong Muslim community, officers have been told to look out for members of the public taking the law into their own hands.

Instead they will have to call the police, who will in turn have four hours to consider whether an offender should be fined.

This will apply to all garments which cover the eyes, although scarfs, hats, and sunglasses are excluded.

As well as a mosque, Muslims will also be able to put on a veil in the privacy of their own homes, a hotel room, or even a car, as long as they are not driving.

Police have already complained that they will have to waste time on "burka-chasing", with Denis Jacob, of the Alliance police union, adding: "We have more important matters to be dealing with."

The ban means France is officially the second country in Europe, after Belgium, to introduce a full ban on a garment which immigration minister Eric Besson has called a "walking coffin".

While French women face the fines and ‘civic duty’ guidance if they break the law, men who force their wives or daughters to wear burkas will face up to a year in prison, and fines of up to 25,000 pounds.

Posters have already gone up in town halls across France reading: "The Republic lives with its face uncovered."

Belgium introduced a full ban last year, although it has not been enforced with any vigour. A ban also looks likely in Holland, Spain and Switzerland.

There are no plans to introduce a similar ban in Britain, although politicians from the UK Independence Party and some Tory backbenchers have suggested one.

Posted by Marisol on April 11, 2011 7:50 AM

U.K.: Charges Dropped Agaisnt Welsh Assembly Candidate Over Quran Burning, But "Police Continue to Investigate"

From Jihad Watch:

U.K.: Charges dropped against Welsh assembly candidate over Qur'an burning, but "police continue to investigate"

A partial, but perhaps temporary victory for sanity, in an update on this story. How many suspected jihadists are now under surveillance in the U.K., and police "continue to investigate" a man for burning a Qur'an in his garage? "'Koran burning' charge dropped," from the Associated Press, April 11 (thanks to Twostellas):

A British National Party election candidate accused of publicly burning a copy of the Koran was freed today when the charge against him was unexpectedly dropped.

Sion Owens (41) of Bonymaen, Swansea, South Wales, was arrested and charged at the weekend under Britain's Public Order Act.

The BNP candidate in next month’s Welsh Assembly elections spent the weekend in custody before appearing at Swansea Magistrates’ Court.

He was warned today that police are continuing to investigate the alleged incident and to expect further action.

It is understood that his release was due to a technicality regarding the Act under which he was arrested and charged.

An unconfirmed source in court today claimed that the permission of the Attorney General must be sought before such a charge can be made. In the case of Mr Owens, it was not.

His arrest and charge came after the Observer newspaper reported it had handed police a video which appeared to show Mr Owens dousing a copy of the Koran with paraffin before setting it alight.

Bryn Hurford, prosecuting today, read out the charge after Mr Owens was brought into court from a custody suite.

He said that he was accused of having in his possession “a record of visual images or sounds showing you burning a copy of the Koran whilst saying ‘I am burning the Holy Koran and I hope that you Muslims are watching.”’

The mock trial and torching of the Koran which controversial US pastor Terry Jones staged on March 20th precipitated days of mob violence and the deaths of at least two dozen people in Afghanistan.

No, people who were given a free pass and exempted from the responsibility to exercise their free will to control themselves precipitated "days of mob violence."

Posted by Marisol on April 11, 2011 8:21 AM

Call The Police! Desecrated Copy Of The Bible On Display At Glasgow Gallery Of Modern Art! No, Wait, The Police Only Come Out For Qurans...

From Jihad Watch:

Call the police! Desecrated copy of the Bible on display at Glasgow Gallery of Modern Art! No, wait, the police only come out for Qur'ans...

As noted here yesterday:

"Would they have been arrested for burning a Bible? A Bhagavad-Gita? A Torah? A Talmud? The Analects of Confucius? The Tao Te Ching? Why not? Absurdities lie on either end of the spectrum of enforcement: either admit there is a double standard and the Qur'an is protected unlike any other book, or exhaust resources protecting all religions' holy writ from physical desecration, from the most ornate King James Bible to a paperback copy of Dianetics."

Indeed, the British blogger "Archbisop Cranmer" has called attention to this work of "art", a desecrated Bible sitting on proud display (including the words "F--- the Bible" scrawled in it) at taxpayer expense while a Welsh assembly candidate (party affiliation is immaterial to the question of free speech) got hauled into jail for burning his own copy of the Qur'an.

If authorities do not abandon their double standard, they admit they are already ruled by fear. They will fold like a tent on the issue of free speech when threatened with violence.

"BNP member arrested for burning the Qur'an in his own garage," from Archbishop Cranmer, April 10:

...Contrast the response of the police over this man's decision to burn a copy of the Qur'an with their complete indifference to the desecration of the Bible. The response to that 'exhibit' was measured, but the offence to many Christians was no less palpable. But Sion Owens has been arrested under the Public Order Act.

Since when has it been possible to commit a public order offence in the privacy of one's own garage?

The Home Office is reported to have ‘absolutely condemned’ the book-burning incident. A statement said: ‘It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society.’

Curious, that. For there are some who would say precisely the same about the Qur'an. Indeed, Dr Richard Dawkins might even say it of the Bible.

The state permits freedom of artistic expression, and the Bible is considered fair game. One cannot coerce the non-believer to revere that to which he or she is completely indifferent and, in an increasingly post-Christian and secular context, the Bible is perhaps no more sacred than the latest Harry Potter book.

But we are reminded time and again that the burning of the Qur'an is one of the most offensive acts to Muslims that could be imagined. Certainly, it is sacred to many millions, who assiduously wash even before touching it and keep it on the very top shelf in a place of supreme honour: they take the word of Allah very seriously indeed. And yet, for millions more non-Mulsims, it is nothing but a book, and for some of these millions, a vile book indeed. Certainly - how shall His Grace put it? - not everyone agrees that it is 'God's guidance' on any matter whatsoever.

In the UK, there is now pressure even upon public libraries to set aside the Dewy [sic] Decimal Classification and place the Qur'an on the top shelf.

His Grace has said many times that he is not one to condone the burning of books; that is, unless he is cold and has run out of logs. And he certainly would never condone causing gratuitous offence.

The right to do so must exist, or freedom of speech is a hollow platitude.

But there is an emerging state coercion here which is moving perilously close to the need for an 'I am Spartacus' moment: not, in any sense, either to support the odious BNP or to cause offence to Muslims; but to stick two fingers up to the ubiquitous, illiberal totalitarianism which denies freedom of expression by negating the right to offend against the supposed sensibilities of minorities. The doctrine of the state is compelling respect and enforcing reverence for that which the majority may consider profane....

Posted by Marisol on April 11, 2011 8:30 AM

Malaysian "Rights Group" Leader Warns Christians Not To "Test Patience" Of Muslims By Making "Excessive Demands" Like Wanting Malay-Language Bibles

From Jihad Watch:

Malaysian "rights group" leader warns Christians not to "test patience" of Muslims by making "excessive demands" like wanting Malay-language Bibles

Predictably, the Malaysian government's partial backtracking on its Islamic supremacist restrictions on the right of access to and distribution of Bibles was indeed not the last word we would hear on this issue. The dispute has dragged on for years, particularly over the issue of Malay-speaking Christians' use of the Malay word for "God," which is the Arabic loanword "Allah," and they have used it for centuries.

Qur'an 29:46 does say "our Allah and your Allah are one and to Him we surrender," but is a one-way line of discourse for Islamic proselytizing, claiming the authentic worship of the one, true deity for Islam alone. An unbeliever would be forbidden to argue with a Muslim in that manner. And depriving Christians of the right to call upon God in the name they have always used is a particularly devastating way of ensuring they "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29) and a way of further marginalizing them in society by being able to say, "See? They don't worship Allah!"

The "reasonableness" of the demands of a marginalized group, as Christians are in this Muslim-majority nation, is in the eye of the overlord beholder. "Unreasonable" becomes translatable as "Frankly, we don't have to, and don't you dare ask us again."

"Don’t test patience of Malays, Perkasa warns Christians," by Shazwan Mustafa Kamal for Malaysian Insider, April 11 (thanks to Twostellas):

KUALA LUMPUR, April 10 — Christians should be wary of making unreasonable demands such as asking that bibles be printed in Bahasa Malaysia, Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali said today.

The Malay rights group president said that Malays have been patient for “far too long” and have allowed non-Malays to make excessive demands.

“How many Malays are Christian? Why do you have to have bibles in Bahasa? Why not use bahasa Iban, or Kadazan?

“This is a problem of national security ... we (Malays) have been far too giving, I want to remind them to not be excessive in their demands,” said Ibrahim.

“They are not the majority of the country,” he stressed.

He said it, in so many words: Non-Muslim minority rights are to be at the mercy of the Muslim majority.

The Pasir Mas MP said that the reason why the Christian community were making demands now was because Sarawak elections were underway.

“They are taking advantage of the elections, they raise these things and we cannot object ... they are trying to exploit sensitive issues,” added Ibrahim.

“We have not brought up the issue of our rights,” he said.

Christian groups have been locked in a dispute with the government over the usage of Malay language bibles, or Alkitab, and over the 35,000 new copies that have been impounded in Kuching and Port Klang by the home ministry.

The ministry then allowed the bibles to be released on condition of being stamped with serial numbers and the phrase “For Christians only”. Christian groups had initially refused to abide by these conditions and have not collected the copies.

The Najib administration said yesterday that the Malay bible importers have now agreed to collect the 35,000 copies impounded in Port Klang and Kuching.

However, the importers of the books in Port Klang have said the bibles will not be sold or distributed, but will be preserved as museum pieces to illustrate what Christians have called the “defacement” of their holy book.

Home Ministry secretary-general Datuk Seri Mahmood Adam said the 10-point solution proposed last week had “paved the way” for the importers, Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM) and The Gideons, to collect the books.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein himself had also been quoted as saying that the latest move was a “positive response” to the Cabinet’s collective decision in drawing up the 10-point solution.

Posted by Marisol on April 11, 2011 9:34 AM

More Useful Jihad Idiocy At N.Y. Senate Hearings

From Jihad Watch:

Spencer: More Useful Jihad Idiocy at N.Y. Senate Hearings


In Human Events for Tuesday I discuss the projection and wishful thinking that marred the recent New York State Senate hearings on Islam and jihad -- and all other similar hearings so far:

[...] The fireworks began in earnest when [ex-Muslim Nonie] Darwish testified, speaking about the education in hate that Muslim children receive in the Middle East. “The education of Arab children is to make killing of certain groups of people not only good, it’s holy. It becomes holy in our culture.”

That was too much for Brooklyn Sen. Eric Adams, who presented a Koran and thundered that Darwish was “bringing hate and poison” into the proceedings. Adams, an extremely serviceable useful idiot, was using the familiar Islamic supremacist tactic of accusing those who report on the hate and poison of jihadists of spreading that hate and poison. He did not, and could not, refute what Darwish said about the education of Arab children, so he decided instead to shoot the messenger.

And as for a critic of Islam bringing hate and poison into the hearing, which Adams countered by waving around the Koran as a talisman, one wonders whether he's ever bothered to open that book even once. Adams is worried about hate and poison? How about this for starters: The Koran tells Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as their friends (5:51), that Jews will be “strongest in enmity” to the Muslims (5:82), that Jews and Christians are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and that Muslims must wage war against them and subjugate them (9:29).

But in Adams’ world, the hate is all Nonie Darwish’s fault. It was just the latest indication of the willful blindness of the PC crowd, and the fix we’re in as a result.

There is more.

Posted by Robert on April 12, 2011 12:05 AM

Monday, April 11, 2011

Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood Says French Veil Ban Beginning Of Dangerous Battle

From The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report:

Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood Says French Veil Ban Beginning Of Dangerous Battle

DailyComments (0)

Print This Post

French media is reporting on comments by the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood in which they call the French ban on full face veils “the beginning of a dangerous battle.” According to an AFP report:

The Muslim Brotherhood of Jordan on Monday slammed a French ban on women wearing full face-face veils in public, calling the measure the ‘beginning of a dangerous battle’. Hammad Said, head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, said the ban ‘was contrary to the human rights principles’ that France takes pride in. ‘We see (in this ban) a neo-crusading attitude towards Muslims in the world, which constitutes the beginning of a dangerous battle,’ he told AFP. ‘This decision attacks Islam and Muslims worldwide.’ Said labelled the measure a ‘violation of a fundamental right’, arguing that ‘if women are allowed to undress at the beach, they should also be allowed to cover up and wear the niqab’. The new law, which affects women who wear full-face veils such as the burqa or the niqab, came into effect Monday and represents the first of its kind to be enforced in Europe. French officials estimate that only around 2,000 women, from a total Muslim population estimated at between four and six million, wear the full-face veils that are traditional in parts of Arab world and South Asia.

The Islamic Action Front (IAF) is generally considered to be the political wing of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. The current leader of the IAF is Secretary-General Ishaq Farhan a Jordanian of Palestinian origin, one of the three foundersof the IAF, and a former education minister and senator. Mr. Farhan is also listed as a director of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), founded in the U.S. in 1980 by important members of the Global Muslim Brotherhood who wished to promote the “Islamization of Knowledge.” IIIT was associated with the now defunct SAAR Foundation, a network of Islamic organizations located in Northern Virginia that was raided by the Federal government in March 2002 in connection with the financing of terrorism. In 2000, Mr. Farhan was denied entry to the U.S. after having had his visa revoked in the prior year without informing him. The New York Times reported at that time that unidentified American diplomats called Mr. Farhan a “moderating force” and that he “as kept a distance from the vociferous opposition to peaceful relations with Israel.” However, in 2003 a media report said that the IAF had “declared a jihad in favor of Iraq and Palestine if the US attacks Iraq.”

Share and Enjoy:

Related posts:

a.Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas Condem French Ban On Face Veils

b.Qaradawi Threatens Europeans With Dress Code Over Face Veil Issue

c.Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood Calls For Resignation Of Labor Minister

d.French Jews End Dialog With French Muslim Brotherhood

e.French Muslim Brotherhood Leader Comments On Burqa Controversy

GlobalMB @ April 11, 2011

U.K.: Two Candidates For Welsh Assembly Arrested For Burning Quran

Madness.  Insanity.

From Jihad Watch:

U.K.: Two candidates for Welsh assembly arrested for burning Qur'an

Their party affiliation is immaterial to this, the central question: Would they have been arrested for burning a Bible? A Bhagavad-Gita? A Torah? A Talmud? The Analects of Confucius? The Tao Te Ching?

Why not? Absurdities lie on either end of the spectrum of enforcement: either admit there is a double standard and the Qur'an is protected unlike any other book, or exhaust resources protecting all religions' holy writ from physical desecration, from the most ornate King James Bible to a paperback copy of Dianetics.

Or, simply respect the right to free speech, which is hollow when the possibility of causing offense is ruled out, and all the more so when only one group is protected above all others. "BNP candidate Sion Owens faces 'Koran burn' charge," from BBC News, April 10:

A BNP candidate for next month's Welsh assembly elections has been charged with a public order offence, after police were passed a video appearing to show him burning a copy of the Koran.

Quoth the British Home Office in this report: "'The government absolutely condemns the burning of the Koran. It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society.'"

By "it," one supposes they mean the burning. That kind of grammatical ambiguity could all but cause riots nowadays.

Sion Owens, 41, was named as a party candidate for the South Wales West regional list last week.

He is due to appear at Swansea magistrates' court on Monday.

A second BNP election candidate has been arrested in connection with the incident, and released on bail.

A BNP spokesperson said both would still be candidates in the assembly election on 5 May.

On Friday, police were given a video which appeared to show Mr Owens dousing a copy of the Koran with a highly flammable fluid, before setting it alight and watching it burn.

Later that day he and another of the party's candidates for the assembly election, Swansea East candidate Joanne Shannon, were arrested.

Mr Owens was charged on Saturday night. He is in custody in Swansea, and due to appear in court on Monday.

Ms Shannon has been bailed pending further inquiries

Posted by Marisol on April 10, 2011 7:36 AM

Finland: Priest Accused Of Inciting Religious Hatred For Calling Jihad Terrorists "Terrorists"

From Jihad Watch:

Finland: Priest accused of inciting religious hatred for calling jihad terrorists "terrorists"

This out-Orwells Orwell. "Finnish priest persecuted for speaking out against terrorists," from RT, April 7 (thanks to Paul):

A priest in Finland is being accused of inciting religious hatred after he described one of the world's most-wanted criminals as a 'terrorist'.

­Police have questioned Pastor Juha Molari after he gave an interview to RT in which he discussed Doku Umarov, the man behind the Moscow metro and airport bombings.

Russia's number one outlaw Chechen terrorist Doku Umarov is also high-up on the international most-wanted list. But it seems one of Russia's neighbors isn't interested in helping bring him to justice.

“I use the word terrorist. They use the word president,” Molari explains.

The pastor has been a long-time critic of a website called the Kavkaz Center, where extremists freely express their views.

The site was the first to publish the terrorist's words on the attacks claimed by Umarov, and is banned in many European countries but freely operates in Finland.

Apart from facing being defrocked for speaking out against Doku Umarov and his internet mouthpiece, Juha Molari is receiving threats of a different kind.

“We advise you to stop your activity against the Kavkaz Center. If you don’t come to your senses we’ll cut off the heads of you and your family”, one of them says.

Posted by Robert on April 10, 2011 6:32 PM

Will France Survive? French Interior Minister Calls For Less Immigration

From Jihad Watch:

Will France survive? French interior minister calls for less immigration

Will France survive? Or will it continue to commit slow demographic suicide by allowing in millions of Muslim immigrants who believe it to be their responsibility before god to work to transform France into a Sharia state? "French interior minister calls for less immigration," by Joseph Bamat for France24, April 7 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

French Interior Minister Claude Guéant says the government intends to reduce the number of immigrants allowed to enter the country legally, in statements evoking a divisive and little-understood aspect of contemporary French society.

“I have asked that we reduce the number of people admitted under work immigration visas,” Guéant told the conservative Figaro Magazine in an interview to be published on Friday.

“We also continue to reduce the number of foreigners coming to France for family reunification,” he said.

Some 20,000 people are allowed to enter France on work visas and another 15,000 for family reasons each year, according to the Ministry of the Interior, which is responsible for immigration.

Guéant also said he would not exclude changes to France’s policy on asylum seekers, suggesting a cap on asylum visas was also on the table.

The opposition Socialist Party and the organization SOS Racism have already condemned Guéant’s statement as a “provocation”....

What a surprise.

Posted by Robert on April 10, 2011 6:42 PM

Will The Netherlands Survive? Dutch Minister Wants To Slash Non-E.U. Work Permits

From Jihad Watch:

Will the Netherlands survive? Dutch minister wants to slash non-EU work permits

Will the Netherlands survive? Or will it continue to commit slow demographic suicide by allowing in millions of Muslim immigrants who believe it to be their responsibility before god to work to transform the Netherlands into a Sharia state?

"Minister wants to slash non-EU work permits," from Dutch News, April 8 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

The cabinet on Friday will discuss home affairs minister Henk Kamp’s plan to drastically reduce the number of work permits for non-EU nationals, the Telegraaf reports.

The rules for knowledge migrants will not be affected, the paper says.

The paper says the minister wants to make it much more difficult for companies to prove they cannot find suitable staff in the Netherlands or the EU....

Posted by Robert on April 10, 2011 6:46 PM

Congress Cuts Budget For Program That Rescues Persecuted Christians From Iran

From Jihad Watch:

Congress cuts budget for program that rescues persecuted Christians from Iran

The budget is out of control and should be reined in before the whole thing comes crashing down. The American people are being bled dry. But the programs that need to be cut are aid to Pakistan (i.e., to the jihadists in Pakistan, which is where all too much of that aid has ended up); money for the bombing of Libya (which aids the jihadists there); and other self-defeating and ultimately suicidal initiatives -- not programs like this.

"Iranian Christians Endangered by Congressional Budget Cuts," from International Christian Concern, April 8 (thanks to Cyril Lucar):

Washington, D.C. (April 8, 2011) – International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that a U.S. program that rescues persecuted Christians from Iran may end as Congress debates major cuts in the congressional budget. The program is set to be chopped just days after reports surfaced that an Armenian Christian and his Jewish wife were executed in Tehran.

The Lautenberg Amendment was established in 1989 to offer U.S. refugee status to persecuted Jews and Christians from the former Soviet Union and was expanded in 2003 to assist Christians, Baha’is and Jews in Iran. Without the program, persecuted Christians and other religious minorities in Iran will be denied the opportunity to apply for the same refugee status in the U.S. that is offered to persecuted religious minorities throughout the world.

The program was not included in any resolutions that carried over into the new year and its renewal has been delayed due to the current budget standoff in the U.S. Congress. Furthermore, Rep. Lamar Smith, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has proposed overseeing all existing immigration related programs prior to being passed by Congress, meaning that the program will suffer further deferment, delay and possible rejection by the committee. Since its enactment 22 years ago, this noncontroversial humanitarian program has received nothing but widespread support in Congress.

As the program’s renewal hangs on a thread, persecution in Iran increases. On March 14, a Jewish-Armenian couple and three others were secretly executed in Tehran’s Evin Prison. Moreover, Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani awaits the same fate after being convicted of apostasy last September and issued the death sentence by hanging. Without the Lautenberg Amendment, imprisonments and executions of Iranian Christians and other religious minorities will heighten.

Aidan Clay, ICC Regional Manager for the Middle East, said, “Without the assurance of the Lautenberg amendment, Iranian Christians who have fled to neighboring countries face potential deportation back to Iran. For them, returning to Iran means immediate imprisonment, and potential execution, upon arrival. This program assures religious minorities that their applications to receive refuge in the U.S. from religious persecution will be reviewed and processed. We urge the U.S. Congress, particularly Representative Lamar Smith, to save countless lives by immediately renewing the Lautenberg amendment.”

Please call Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, to express your concern: (202) 225-4236.

Please do -- politely and respectfully.

Posted by Robert on April 10, 2011 10:10 PM

Muslim Women Defy French Face Veil Ban: I Will Only Respect Laws Of The French Republic Which Are Not In Contradiction With Me, My Religion And My Faith

From Jihad Watch:

Muslim women defy French face veil ban: "I will only respect laws of the French Republic which are not in contradiction with me, my religion and my faith"

The implications of a vow only to obey French laws that do not contradict Islam are huge. Ultimately, many French laws, including those establishing equality of rights for women and mandating no penalty for people who leave Islam, contradict Islamic law. A showdown between the two will be hard for the French to avoid.

"For life, liberty and the burqa: Muslim women defy France's ban on full-face veils," by Dheepthi Namasivayam in the Herald Sun, April 11:

THEY are the women prepared to defy France for the burqa.

From today French police have the power to stop Muslim women wearing full-face veils and to threaten them with fines or prison if they refuse to expose their faces.

All over France posters have been put up reminding veil-clad women that “the Republic lives with its face uncovered”.

Last year, President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed through a controversial law banning Muslim women from wearing burqas or niqabs in public. He said the law was to increase security but claimed it would liberate Muslim women from the oppression of their veil.

Any woman who refuse to lift her veil can be taken to a police station, fined 150 euros ($205) and ordered to attend re-education classes.

Anyone found guilty of forcing a woman to wear face veils in public or in private faces a fine of 30,000 euros and a year in jail.

However, some women have vowed to defy the law.

“I will not obey it,” said Wahiba Mebrek, 25, from the suburb of Villepinte, north of Paris. “I will only respect laws of the French Republic which are not in contradiction with me, my religion and my faith,” she added.

She is angry the Government and media peddled this image of them as being oppressed. For her, it was a conscious decision, made by her and husband when they became devout Muslims eight years ago.

Violent reaction

Hind*, a 31-year-old single mother from the suburb of Aulnay-sous-Bois outside Paris, switched from the “miniskirt to the veil” after converting to Islam six years ago.

She said that her wearing of the veil had provoked hostile, even violent reactions in the street. She was recently attacked in front of her daughter by a couple.

“People’s reactions weren’t as violent until this issue was mediatised. Now that the law has passed, they feel that their violent behaviour towards us is justified,” she said.

“People have the impression that we are totally cut off from the world, but we have normal relationships like everyone else, we are accessible."

Hind will not take off her niqab, if asked by police. “Never ever will I apply this law,” she said. “It is not up to the government to meddle in my private life and my beliefs.”...

Posted by Robert on April 11, 2011 12:28 AM