Quebec: Muslim National Assembly Member Sole Dissenter To Motion Affirminf Quebec's Stance Against "The Menace Of Terrorism"

From Jihad Watch:


Quebec: Muslim national assembly member sole dissenter to motion affirming Quebec's stance against "the menace of terrorism"







Amir Khadir complained that it sounded like Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. And meanwhile, he sounds like Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore. "Quebec motion inspired by bin Laden's death draws just 1 dissenter," by Kevin Dougherty for Postmedia News, May 10 (thanks to Twostellas):



QUEBEC — Quebec solidaire's lone member was the only member of the province's 125-seat national assembly to vote Tuesday against a resolution inspired by the death of Osama bin Laden, saying the motion smacked of "Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin's" rhetoric.

Amir Khadir was the only dissenter to a motion presented by Action democratique du Quebec leader Gerard Deltell, whose Chauveau riding is near Canadian Forces Base Valcartier.



It affirmed that Quebec "has and will continue to be an ally of the whole international community in security issues and more particularly against the menace of terrorism."



The motion's co-sponsors were Louise Beaudoin, of the Parti Quebecois, and two independents.



Deltell called the death of bin Laden "justice," saying the world's best-known terrorist orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on New York's World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 people and leading to the United Nations-mandated military operation in Afghanistan, where 27 Quebec soldiers have died.



But Khadir recalled that bin Laden was trained by the Central Intelligence Agency to fight a guerrilla war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, "when Islamic terrorism was acceptable to the military-industrial complex in the United States and largely supported by the monarchist, theocratic, fundamentalist government of Saudi Arabia."



Then, he said, "these religious fundamentalists, who used Islam for terrorist ends, turned against the United States."



In addition to the 9/11 attacks, Khadir noted that bin Laden's al-Qaida has also killed in Africa, Asia and the Arab countries, including in Iraq.



Khadir later explained that his objection was to the "security" aspect of the motion, which he said ignored the causes of terrorism, naming the status of the Palestinian people.





Not the jihad doctrine. Oh, no. Of course not.



He also called the military operation in Afghanistan "a lamentable failure."

Khadir said rather than warfare, Canadian tax dollars would have been better spent rebuilding the Afghan economy.



Khadir said the killing of bin Laden may have been "illegal," but it was not immoral in a context of warfare. He called the death "primary justice," and said he regretted that the "magnificent occasion" of a bin Laden trial had been lost.





I wonder why he thinks it would have been a "magnificent occasion." Bin Laden would have been given a platform to propagandize. Would that have been "magnificent"?



Posted by Robert on May 11, 2011 10:37 AM

Hedegaard Found Guilty

From The Legal Project:

Another Bite at the Apple: Hedegaard Found Guilty


by Ann Snyder • May 10, 2011 at 3:48 pm



http://www.legal-project.org/blog/2011/05/another-bite-at-the-apple-hedegaard-found-guilty



Send RSS Share:

Be the first of your friends to like this.

Last week, Lars Hedegaard, president and founder of the Danish and International Free Press Societies was convicted of "hate speech" under Article 266 b of the Danish penal code and fined the equivalent of about $1000. (See IFPS's press release here.) Beyond being an appalling assault on freedom of speech, if the conviction strikes you as a bit odd, perhaps it should. Just this past March, the Legal Project published an interview with Hedegaard following his acquittal on the very same charges. (Note: In December 2010, Danish MP, Jesper Langballe, of the Danish People's Party "confessed" to violating the same provision for remarks made in support of Hedegaard.)





Apparently the Danish government's current position on free speech isn't the only thing rotten in Denmark. In what reeks of violation of the general proscription against double jeopardy from this American's perspective, it would seem Danish prosecutors are allowed to make multiple attacks against the same defendant on the same charges. Determined to convict Hedegaard, the prosecutor appealed the lower court's decision, and Hedegaard was retried on April 26, 2010, the same day he released his new book, Muhammed's Girls: Violence, Murder and Rape in the House of Islam.



Hedegaard will appeal, of course, "to the Supreme Court and – if that is denied – to the European Court of Human Rights," according to a released statement. Hedegaard will not give in, and so, who are the real losers in this case? According to Hedegaard:



"The real victims of this despicable case are freedom of speech and the tens of thousands of girls and women – Muslim as well as non-Muslim – whose plight may no longer be mentioned in my country for fear of legal prosecution and public denigration."



Noted feminist psychologist, Dr. Phyllis Chesler offers a similar perspective on Hedegaard's conviction.



While it is true that some topics may make us uncomfortable and may be difficult to discuss – sexual and honor violence probably fall squarely into this category - it doesn't logically follow that they shouldn't or needn't be discussed, let alone outlawed. If we cannot even talk about the problem, what are our chances, realistically, of doing anything to stop it? Slim-to-none, I would wager.



In its zeal to convict Hedegaard the prosecution not only diminished free speech rights, generally, but also made it harder to protect the victims of violence. All of this begs the question: which side is the prosecution on, anyway? That of the perpetrators of violence and those whose PC sensibilities are offended by discussing the realities of sexual and honor violence or that of the victims and those who have the courage to speak out despite being persecuted (and prosecuted) for it? The answer seems pretty clear.

Egypt: Coptic Christians Say They Are Under Organized Attack

From The Telegraph and ADF:


Egyptian Christians say they are 'under organised attack'



A priest whose church was at the centre of sectarian riots at the weekend has said Egyptian Christians were "under organised attack" as religious authorities warned the country was at risk of civil war





Egyptian Coptic Christian priests perform a mass prayer for those killed in clashes between Muslims and Christian in the Imbaba Photo: EPA











By Richard Spencer, Cairo12:04AM BST 10 May 2011









Armed troops and riot police guarded the streets around St Mena's church and nearby burned-out shops and apartment blocks in the impoverished, crumbling Cairo suburb of Imbaba.





Inside, Father Cherubim Awad said a conspiracy was the only possible explanation for the violence that had engulfed relations between Christians and Muslims in recent weeks.





"Five churches were attacked on the same night," he said. "From the beginning of this year we have had all these attacks in a short space of time.





"There is some hidden hand behind this, whether from inside the country or outside it."





The street battles, which began on Saturday evening outside his church, demonstrated the breakdown in law and order in parts of Egyptthat began during the uprising that overthrew President Hosni Mubarak in February.







Related Articles



Tehran uses Cairo links to tip power balance

09 May 2011



Peer on Gaddafi 'peace mission'

09 May 2011



Egypt: the two women at the centre of the clashes

08 May 2011



Egypt: Muslim mobs attack churches

08 May 2011



Egypt: 10 killed in religious clashes in Cairo

08 May 2011



Cairo churches ablaze after religious clashes

08 May 2011





The police failed to intervene, while Fr Cherubim said that, after several hours, the army moved in to protect the church but not the surrounding buildings, and refused to try to break up the warring sides.



Sectarian violence has increased in Egypt. It began with a church bombing in Alexandria before the uprising began, but has worsened since.



A large gang of Salafi Muslims – followers of a purist sect to which most Islamist terrorist groups are aligned – led the attack on St Mena's, claiming a Christian woman who had converted to Islam to marry a Muslim was being held inside against her will.



"They performed evening prayer 200 metres from the church and after they finished they started shouting 'We want you to leave', meaning the Copts," Fr Cherubim said.



"They were shouting 'Islamiya, Islamiya, Islamiya, with our souls and blood we sacrifice ourselves for the crescent'.



"Are we not citizens? Are we foreigners? Should we leave this country now and go away?"



The Christian and Muslim sides disagree about who began the escalation of protests. Local Muslims said it was a local Christian café owner who fired a gun into the air.



But both sides brought out guns, including rifles, and fired from the closely packed, brick-built blocks lining the street. As the night progressed, a stream of injured poured into the church.



Five Christians died in or around the church, including Rami Radian, 23, who was keeping lookout from the bell tower and was hit by a sniper.



Six Muslims died outside on Al-Mashoe Street. After the army sealed it, the mob moved on to the nearby Church of the Virgin Mary, burned it to the ground and beat the watchman to death.



Abdul Moneim al-Shahad, a spokesman for the Dawa Salafi movement, said it opposed all violence.



But he said Muslims were angry at the church's refusal to hand over women who convert to Islam so that they can divorce their husbands, which the Coptic church makes difficult.



Salafis and even the once-banned Gamaa Islamiya, which was responsible for terrorist attacks on tourists in the 1990s, have been more prominent since the downfall of Mr Mubarak, announcing they would back candidates at forthcoming elections.



A group of Salafis held a prayer vigil for Osama bin Laden last week, despite attempts by the army to stop them. Egyptian newspapers yesterday claimed that the riots were being deliberately orchestrated by elements of the old regime still loyal to Mr Mubarak, eager to make his warnings that without him there would be chaos come true.



The Supreme Military Council, which replaced him, is promising an "iron fist" to end the discord, but Ali Gomaa, the country's Grand Mufti, or senior Islamic scholar, warned there was a potential for civil war.



"Outlaws want to defy the authority of the state," he said.

The Germans: All Set For Dhimmitude?

From Europe News:

Germans All Set for Dhimmitude?





Hot Air 10 May 2011

By J.E. Dyer



Everyone knows at this point about the German judge who filed a criminal complaint against Chancellor Angela Merkel for her remark that she was glad Osama bin Laden was dead. A great deal has been made of what she said and whether it’s appropriate to be "glad” that bin Laden was killed. But what concerns me is that a German judge thought what she did was criminal.



The situation here is actually worse than it looks. It would be bad enough if the problem were only that a bunch of Germans through it was inappropriate to cheer over bin Laden’s death. That’s the least of our worries. I had the same thought myself; but I don’t propose doing anything about it other than expressing my opinion.



The real problem is that the German judge’s complaint against Merkel, while calling it "tacky and undignified” for her to be "glad” about bin Laden’s death, invoked Germany’s criminal code specifically by claiming that Merkel was "rewarding and approving of a crime” in her statement about it.



Rewarding a crime is one thing – although it is first necessary for a competent authority to determine that a crime has occurred. No such determination has been made in the case of the slaying of bin Laden. Rewarding a crime in a material sense may, however, be sensibly deemed criminal. (...)









Posted May 10th, 2011 by pk

Islam A Threat To Western Freedom: Wilders

From Europe News:

Islam a threat to Western freedom: Wilders



National Post 10 May 2011

By Jessica Hume



The presence of Muslims in Canada threatens the country’s freedoms and democracy, and only if immigration from Islamic countries is suspended can the cultural deterioration of the country be stopped, controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders told a packed house Monday night in Toronto.



"Our Western culture is far superior to Islamic culture,” Mr. Wilders said. "And only once we are convinced of this will we be able to defend our civilization.”



The event, held at the Canadian Christian College in north Toronto, marked Mr. Wilders’ second stop on a three-city tour. The visit, his first to Canada, is sponsored by the International Free Press Society.



He spoke in London on Sunday, and he will be in Ottawa on Tuesday.



Charles McVety, president of the Christian College, introduced Mr. Wilders to an ebullient crowd as a man with "a prophetic message.”



The leader of Party for Freedom, the third party in the Dutch parliament, Mr. Wilders is better known for his uncompromising position on Islam. His vitriol against the religion has necessitated the hiring of 24-hour personal security for the past seven years.



In his speech on Monday night, he said Muslim immigrants to Europe have changed the social and political landscape there. An increasingly vociferous Islamic lobby has led to the harassment of Christians, female genital mutilation and polygamy, he said, adding that with its own growing Muslim community, Canada faces the same fate.



His career has been driven by a belief that the Koran encourages violence, that moderate Islam is an impossibility and that in allowing Muslims to immigrate to Western nations, these countries open themselves up to inevitable Islamization.









Posted May 10th, 2011 by pk

Ireland: Warning Sounded Over Polygamous Muslim Marriages

From Europe News:

Warning sounded over polygamous Muslim marriages




Sunday Business Post 10 May 2011

By John Burke



The government has been told that it may be risking causing offence to Muslims living in Ireland who wish to engage in polygamous marriages. Senior department officials at the Department of Social Protection said procedures where children born to second or concurrent wives were recorded as illegitimate could cause offence. In a special briefing note prepared for the minister, Joan Burton, the officials warned that Muslim men here may believe that Irish procedures were ‘‘disrespectful’’ to their religion.



The move follows concerns by the High Court over the acceptance of certain marriages as valid when celebrated in certain countries under so-called ‘native law and custom’.



The High Court’s concern follows a case brought by a Lebanese man last year, in which he sought to obtain recognition for a second concurrent marriage, both of which he had entered into while living in Lebanon. (...)









Posted May 10th, 2011 by pk

EDL Oppose Radical Muslims Outside The U.S. Embassy

From Europe News:

EDL Oppose Radical Muslims Outside the US Embassy




English Defence League 10 May 2011



On Saturday, a small group of brave patriots from across London and the surrounding area came together to once again oppose the radical Islamic group Muslims Against Crusades (MAC).









The support received from the public as we leafleted outside the muster pub was truly astounding - men and women of all ages, races and social classes, all thanking us and wishing us well.



Not surprisingly, there was no sign of the UAF, the trade unions or anyone else that claims to ‘oppose all extremism’, but who only actually come out to counter our demonstrations.As we marched to the park opposite the US embassy, cars and vans hooted in support. Once in the park, we relaxed with music, songs, casual chatter, crosswords and a bite to eat, as we waited for MAC to arrive.



Then a Muslim lady came over to speak to us. We were hoping to be able to address any misconceptions that she may have had about our intentions and for her to join our counter-demonstration. But unfortunately she just yelled abuse, calling us "scum" and showering praise on Osama bin Laden, calling him a "martyr" and "freedom fighter" – exactly the sort of extremism that we’d come to oppose.



Obviously this provoked a reaction, but EDL supporters kept it peaceful and attempted to have a reasoned debate with the woman. What did the police do in the face of this obvious provocation? Absolutely nothing… except warn US to be careful. I complained to an officer about them allowing this lady to provoke us and incite hatred. The officer’s response?



"What can we do? Orders from above, we can’t touch them."



Just what you want to hear, the police force refusing to protect British citizens or to arrest criminals, based on nothing but the criminals’ religion.That response at least served as a warning. Despite complying fully with the police (on the day and during the build up) we had to endure 3 hours penned in to a small area near the US embassy, and officers refused to answer basic questions about where we were permitted to go and how long our movements would be restricted.



This was all going on whilst MAC were allowed to pollute London’s air with their hate speech and threats. They faced no warnings or any action of any kind from the police, despite the fact that members of the public had been attacked by MAC on their march to the embassy, with a young lad being knocked unconscious (we've since had word that he's been released from hospital and will be fine).Throughout the protests, the EDL supporters were entirely peaceful with no hint of violence. Three individuals were arrested (for reasons that remain unclear), but no charges were filed. All in all, the counter-demonstration itself was a joyous occasion with chants of "Where’s bin Laden gone?" and "We love Navy Seals" joining the usual patriotic songs. There was even a conga thrown in for good measure.



It was a day of celebration for us. A murderous terrorist is dead and he doesn’t deserve to be mourned – unlike, of course, the innocent people who were murdered in the 9/11 and 7/7 atrocities. Their memories live on through their friends and relatives, in England, in the US, and around the world. We stand side by side with all those who lost people on those horrible days, and reject those who believe that these terrible acts were justified.On Saturday we did our part to make clear that terrorist supporters have no place in England. It is to our shame that so many terrorist sympathisers, financiers, radical preachers, recruiters and eventual terrorists have found a safe haven in this country. This needs to stop.



We need to stand up for the people of England, for the United Kingdom, for our American cousins, and for all freedom-loving peoples across the world. Defending ourselves from radical Islam is the only way in which we can help to defend others.



We’re glad that the public were so receptive to our counter-demonstration, as it would seem to signal a growing willingness to acknowledge the threat that radical Islam poses, and a desire to see it defeated









Posted May 10th, 2011 by pk