New Britain's Undesirables

A long time ago, back in 1997, a new Labour government came to power, bearing a slogan: "New Labour -  New Britain". Its leader, Tony Blair, promised a new "Cool Britannia". Later, Blair vowed to "defeat" the "forces of conservatism". The 15 years since his election have taken the country on a long journey through rampant, deliberate and unprecedented levels of immigration, empowerment of Islamist groups, reducing the BBC to a propaganda station and a gradual battle with the country's own people and culture. And now, in the last few weeks, 5 stories emerge to illustrate the desirables, and undesirables, of this New Britain.

 First, the undesirables - who are unwelcome in the New Britain:

1) John Tulloch: A July 7 2005 bombing victim, born to British parents, lecturing at a London university college - and facing deportation from Britain. His "crime" - being born in India, while it was still a colony. By a decades-old legal quirk, it meant he was ineligible for UK citizenship. So he was forced to hand back the passport he had "wrongly" received, and now faces possible deportation. Below is John Tulloch just after the 2005 terror attacks: (image from the Daily Mail website):

As a comment below the article shows, he's not the only one to face such an experience:

"I'm in a similar boat. We can't settle in the UK, where I was born 70 years ago, because my wife's a Kiwi and would be deported on my death. When she applied for UK citizenship, when we lived there, she was asked, by a Sikh official, if our marriage (at that time of 30 years; now 40, was one of "convenience." I kid you not."  - protem, Burgundy, France, 3/9/2012 10:23


This implies that the visit to the Sikh official, culminating in his "perceptive" question, happened around 2002 - long after the "New Britain" revolution had started...

Some possible reasons, and ways Mr Tulloch could avoid being deported, are also mentioned in other comments:

"The problem is Mr Tulloch you were prepared to work in the UK, if you were a scrounger you would have a lovelly big and free house in London and never have to work again. Shame on this government." - jo-jo was a man, bahrain, 3/9/2012 5:02

"Yet if he had set off the same bomb that injured him he would be welcomed with open arms by the idiots in charge." - alzie, Cumbria ., 3/9/2012 10:28

"WHY IS HE FACING DEPORTATION? " Easy , I know why . It is because he is actually legitimately British , and as reported , born of British parents serving the country in a British colony , he has devoted his life to the education of others in this country , he also has paid his taxes and has no criminal record , thus he does not qualify to live in the cesspit of the world otherwise known as the UK. Oh, I forgot . . . . and suffered horrendous injuries and shock whilst going about his lawful business perpetrated by terrorists truly foreign to this country . Yup , obviously he must be the first out of the door so we can harbour and give succour unto illegal benefit scroungers , terrorists and honour bliar's human rights rubbish . We are trying to leave the cesspit so if he wants to come with us he is more than welcome . - Lara, London UK, 3/9/2012 5:21

Sadly, far-feched as these comments may sound, they allude to frequent events: wannabe terrorists, criminals and benefit receivers entering as illegal immigrants being given leave to stay - and often receiving British passports in the process. They are almost always never asked to hand them back, like John Tulloch.


2) Next, 4 UK Christians, fighting for the right to express their faith. 2 of them dismissed from their jobs for wearing small crucifixes. The government's lawyers had this to say:

"Christians should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a cross, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said."

The official reason for such a statement:

"James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in private”, which would be protected by human rights law."

Is that really so? Will we now then see the government ban the Muslim Burqa and Hijab from its offices - on account of such a ban "not preventing Muslim women from practicing religion in private"?

To see how such a proposition would sound in reality, let's make a very slight change to the original sentence:

"Hindus should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as a 'Bindi' on the forehead, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said." 

Or

"Muslims should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a Hijab, means they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have said." 

What would the reaction be to such a sentence being uttered by a government representative? Accusations of hate? Bigotry? But apparently, it's perfectly ok to say something similar about Christians...

The lawyer also mentioned the following:

"Government lawyers also told the Strasbourg court that wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship and is not required by scripture."

For many Christians, wearing a Crucifix is an important part of their faith - and something they have done for most of their lives. Whereas in Islam, many women do not wear the Hijab or Burqa. So who's to say that the Crucifix "is not a generally recognised act of Christian worship" - but that the Hijab is an act of Muslim worship?! Naturally, the ever-unbiased British justice system is assumed to be the best judge of that!


3) Last but not least, those protesting against the radical Islam which has become so prominent in the New Britain. They came last weekend to Walthamstow in London, to protest against the attempted enforcement of Sharia law in the area. The reception by radical Muslim and "anti-racist" groups such as United Against Fascism was predictable. What was new, however, was the type of treatment meted out by the police, meant to be protecting their right to democratic assembly and protest. Among the incidents (from Gates of Vienna):

• A man bleeding from deep gashes to the head (believed to have been inflicted by Muslim protestors) in clear view of dozens of officers, offered no medical aid, not even basic first-aid.
• A heavily pregnant woman kettled in and detained with the others and released only after dark. (There were reports that she had been vomiting, having being denied access to water and toilet facilities for many hours .)
• People forced to remain on their feet for eight hours or more.
• Water and toilet facilities agreed by the police only after angry and vociferous protests from the crowd.
• People complaining to police officers of chronic pain due to not being able to relieve themselves.
• Others, unable to contain themselves any longer, forced to endure the humiliation of urinating or defecating in full sight of the crowd, in a busy public place.
• Searching of individuals taking many hours longer than necessary, with only a handful of officers deployed for the task, whilst dozens of others sat on the kerb drinking water or stood idly chatting.
• Individuals who, having been searched and found clean, were arrested, handcuffed and put into police vans.
• Reports of women left by the police in unfamiliar locations in dead of night.

A compilation of video footage, put together by Vlad Tepes, can be seen here.
All this leading Paul Weston, leader of the British Freedom party and ex-candidate for MP of Westminster to conclude:

"Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech died in Walthamstow on September 1st 2012".

So is freedom of speech another of those "undesirable" traits of New Britain?


Taking the places of the undesirables in the New Britain are the desirables. Those wanted, supported and, by many on the side of the new regime, even celebrated:

1) Those in Walthamstow protesting against the anti-radical-Islam protesters:

While the English Defence League are the undesirable "racists", these are the "anti-racist heroes" protesting against them. No doubt the "Islam" that they want to "dominate" would be every bit as respectful of (what's left of) British culture as the powers-that-be in Britain are respectful of Islam, today... or would it?


2) Earlier this summer, the East London rapper Dizzee Rascal performed at the Olympics opening ceremony:

At 0:20 of the video, he sings, in front of the Queen, dignitaries from around the World, and a worldwide audience of around a billion people, the memorable line:

"And all I care about is sex and violence..."

With the London riots, carried out by "youth" in large part listening to artists such as Dizzee Rascal, only a year old, this seems to have been a fitting line to summarise the defining values of the New Britain.


So, with these flag-bearers of the New Britain in mind, perhaps there is a way to ensure that the 7/7 victim John Tulloch stays in the country? Perhaps if he was a rapper glorifying violence, or an Islamic supremacist Jihadi wannabe, he would not be now facing deportation?

Banned at Harry's Place - reply to sarka

First my comments were put up for pre-moderation. Now it looks like, despite my best attempts to stick within their rules, I've been banned from Harry's Place altogether. 2 of my comments on their "Christians" thread did not even make it past pre-moderation. Only the last one I had saved on my computer - a reply to sarka - so I will repost it here. The topic concerns a young Pakistani-Christian girl accused of burning a Quran, and comparisons between this case and Pussy Riot's trial in Moscow for breaking into a cathedral to play a concert.

Sarka's original reply to me was here:

Green Infidel:
If a group of Muslim (or of Muslim background) women went into a mosque, and cavorted a bit chanting a ditty that went “Oh Allah, oh for the sake of Ayesha, drive out (insert name of political leader in Muslim-maj state), and may crap fall on the head of (insert name of leading imam), oh we are feminists for Allah! etc etc…” Then THAT would be a sort of equivalent. An EDL group rushing into a mosque in shoes and chanting. “Allah Allah, who the fuck is Allah?”, would NOT be an equivalent.

As far as I know, all the convicted Pussy Rioters are at least vaguely Russian Orthodox Christian by background (none are of other faiths by background, anyway – I am sure if one had been Muslim, or Jewish by background we would have heard about that!), and they made reference to RO cultural traditions – as being their own, Russian traditions – in their statements.

To which I replied (banned by HP):

@sarka - what does "their own traditions" mean?! Did the families of Pussy Riot go to church - or were they perhaps a small part of the vast Soviet state apparatus that was, among their other activities, persecuting the Church? That makes a slight difference - for the latter, making fun of religious symbols is something that's likely been practiced for most of their lives... so how exactly would doing so in adulthood be "radical" in any way?! And would you say the descendants of Soviet security forces sending priests to Gulags also share Russian "Orthodox tradition" - and if they acted disrespectfully to Orthodox beliefs, that it would be comparable to people who were once Orthodox doing the same?!

If PR were once Orthodox then the above of course does not apply. But I'm still not sure how it would be any more acceptable - personally as a Catholic, if anything, I would find it more offensive if those from a Catholic background acted disrepectfully towards their former religion than the likes of Ian Paisley. After all, they should know better!

"Acting disrespectfully" is the operative phrase here - PR did not merely criticise Orthodox belief. They went way above that, invading the sacred area of a church to do something seriously offensive to Orthodox believers.

(by comparison, in the case in Pakistan, it is only alleged that a young girl who may have Down's Syndrome did something in any way comparable)

Apparently this was too much for HP's rules - but Sarka, if you're out there -  this is my reply. Any on-topic replies posted here will not be removed!

Imagine... a multi-kulti olympics!

On Sunday, the 2012 London Olympics drew to a close. 2 weeks earlier, the opening Ceremony was a feast of multiculturalism on steroids. And now, in the Closing Ceremony, the song was played that encapsulated the spirit of the Games - and perhaps the ideals of much of Britain's population. That song, of course, being John Lennon's "Imagine"...




Below are the full lyrics:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one

The ideas expressed in these lyrics are a large source of what has driven Britain to adopt the multi-cultural, "progressive" form it has today.

John Lennon was among other stars such as Crowded House, the Spice Girls, One Direction, Eric Idle from Monty Python and  many others... however, perhaps Professor Green and his hit "Jungle" could have also been included to showcase the wonders of Britain's type of multiculturalism in practice? He raps, after all, about Hackney - an area very close to the Olympic Stadium. Below is the video:

Criticism of Mehdi Hasan - censored at the Guardian

The recent bout of Guardian censorship continues on an article by Mehdi Hasan, as what must be one of the most complete rebuttal comments ever published at the Guardian is deleted - after receiving more than 1600 recommends...

For those not familiar with Hasan - he is a smooth-talking British journalist who up until recently was the editor of the New Statesman. (one of the two leading British news magazines). And someone who was also exposed as being not-so-smooth in his other incarnation - as a Muslim talking to his fellow "brothers":

http://hurryupharry.org/2009/07/24/medhi-hasan-exposed-part-i-–-atheists-and-disbelievers-are-“cattle”-and-“of-no-intelligence”

The main premise of his point - there in the name of the link :)

Mehdi Hasan denied being an "Islamist", and instead wrote to complain about how he was stereotyped because of words "taken out of context".

The third comment of the thread was by quizborg, citing Hasan's earlier offending words (something Hasan failed to do), and posing to him some difficult, but polite, questions... However, after many other comments asking Hasan to answer quizblorg's points, the Guardian moderators had their own answer - to delete quizblorg's comment...

Fortunately, Harry's Place managed to get a copy of the comment, so it is not wasted but can instead serve to remind us of the two-faced nature of Mehdi Hasan, as well as the increasingly desperate measures the Guardian are resorting to.

Pasted below in full is quizborg's deleted rebuttal to Hasan:



Mehdi

    I absolutely agree with you that there is a disturbing phenomenon of nasty and bigoted comments being posted in the comments box of any piece about Muslims or by a Muslim writer

    There is world of difference between that – which should be condemned – and the proper criticism of writers who are Muslim, who themselves express sometimes horrific political views, or use offensive rhetoric. Such revolting rhetoric should be opposed, always.

    You don’t quote from the ’selectively edited speeches’ that you gave. You should.

    This was what you said:

    ““The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.””

    Not only did you use the offensive term ‘kaffar’. You said that people who were not Muslim were ‘people of no intelligence’. Imagine somebody saying that about Muslims -you would object, and rightly so.

    You went on to say:

    ““In Islam, to believe is to know. To disbelieve is not to know. That is what it fundamentally comes down to; it [to disbelieve] is to remain ignorant; to cover up knowledge. After all, what is ‘kaffar’? Kaffar comes from the root word which means to cover up, to conceal. The kaffar is the one who covers up that knowledge which is clear. The French orientalist scholar Lamens [?], he once wrote that the “Quran is not far from considering unbelief, disbelief as an infirmity, as an illness, as a disease of the human mind”. Subhanallah. Non-Muslims point this out to us.””

    What is the ‘context’ within which that is acceptable?

    You also said that Muslims needed to improve their standard of education, and were praised for saying this by your defenders. But you made this point in the context of … Muslims needing to “outthink” Jews!

    ” Our Jewish brethren who we spend so much time fighting and arguing with: 12 million Jews in the world and 150 nobel prizes to their name. All Israel’s top 6 universities feature in the top 200 universities on earth – none of the Muslim world’s top universities feature in top 100 or 200 universities in the world and then we wonder why we are losing battles – we are not being out-fought we are being out-thought. We are not underarmed. We are undereducated.””

    This was a comment about conflict – battles, arms – with those you think are in conflict with Islam.

    The most worrying part of your speech was when you praised the Supreme Leader of Iran – a Shia religious authority – for his supposed opposition to nuclear weapons. Is it not worrying that a political editor of a national newspaper should take the statements of a religious leader as ‘gospel’, so to speak. It implies that you believe that Iran is not really building nuclear weapons – and that, I think, is actually your view. You’re free to hold that view, but to do so on religious grounds is worrying:

    ““Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the stockpiling, the production, the use of nuclear weapons us forbidden under Islam. Spot on. Islamic Republic of Iran. The fatwa of the Supreme Leader.””

    The other matter of concern is that you have shown a readiness to attack others who draw attention to Islamist hate preachers. Remember this piece?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/01/islam-channel-quilliam

    In it, you attacked the anti-extremists of Quilliam for their report on hate preaching and extremism on the Islam Channel. You denied it existed. However – tellingly – you then went on to attack the Islam Channel itself – because it had broadcast a preacher who had said nasty things about Shia Islam, your own sect. The Islam Channel was later censured by OFCOM for precisely the offences that you denied it was guilty of.

    There are other points to make briefly. Lady Warsi is a politician. She has a close relationship with somebody who was active in Hizb ut Tahrir. Frankly, if there were a Tory with a close relationship with a BNP activist, you’d attack them, and rightly so. They’d probably resign. Similarly, Lord Ahmed, whose record speaks for itself. Yet, he has been let back into the Labour Party, recently.

    Frankly, if these problems are not addressed by us, then the field is left clear for the BNP and the EDL, and the nastiest people in the comments box.

Morsi at the Guardian - a sign of things to come?

The new Egyptian president, Mohammed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood, last week became the latest commentator at the Guardian. With this, came another example of censorship at the Guardian website. (for an earlier case, see here) But was it the Guardian moderators, or Morsi himself (or one of his staff) responsible this time?

Morsi's post consisted of the address to the Egyptian people at Tahrir Square, after his election. It was flowing in superlatives. Below, just a few snippets:

"Social justice, freedom and human dignity are our basic slogans..."

"We Egyptians, Muslims and Christians, are harbingers of development and civilisation and we will remain so."

"we will work to have a system of Egyptian values, especially in the area of freedom and human rights, and women's and children's rights, and to remove all forms of discrimination."

"Therefore, say with me together my beloved people, by our will and our unity and our love for each other, we will be able to make a great future."

Soon enough, in the comments section, PeterNW1 linked to a post by the (US-based) Egyptian Coptic blogger Raymond Ibrahim, who'd found a snippet by President Morsi from six months back:

According to the popular Egyptian website, El Bashayer, Muhammad Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate, just declared that he will "achieve the Islamic conquest (fath) of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam, or else pay the jizya," the traditional Islamic tax, or financial tribute, required of non-Muslim "dhimmis."

In a brief report written by Samuel al-Ashay and published by El Bashayer on May 27, Morsi allegedly made these comments while speaking with a journalist at the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, adding "We will not allow Ahmed Shafiq or anyone else to impede our second Islamic conquest of Egypt."

 The original article on elbashayer.com can be seen here. The Google translation contains this fragment:

 Mohamed Morsi Alastbn candidate for the Brotherhood, Egypt Amusliman it would open for the second time and enter all the Christians in Islam or to pay tribute.

and

Mursi said the second is the conqueror Mohammed Morsi and me Cisgelh history.

The journalist said: What do you think voting in the cluster given by the Copts for the team Shafiq.

Mercy replied, saying: They have to know that the opening is coming and Egypt will be Muslim and they have to pay tribute or migrate as one who left.

Although, as all Google translations, it's not 100% perfect, the context seems clear enough. According to Morsi, Christians in Egypt will have 3 choices: convert to Islam, pay a tribute or leave Egypt.

Another user,  "Hereslookingatyou", responded to PeterNW1's post, accusing Raymond Ibrahim of being an "Islamophobe", and saying that the accusation at Morsi was a "lie". As a response, I wrote the following comment, under my long-time Guardian username:

Falcon3

25 June 2012 11:01PM

Response to Hereslookingatyou, 25 June 2012 8:17PM

This paying of the jizya issue has already been discredited.

Where exactly?! Can you provide details or is this another ad hominem fallacy? e.g. "Raymond Ibrahim is a horrible Islamophobe and therefore everything he says must be wrong".

Raymond Ibrahim is a well known Islamaphobic writer whose article are often published on vehemently anti Muslim websites such as the David Horrowitz center website. It's a lie and you've been bandying this about quite a bit.

Err, the original source (of Ibrahim's article) is elbashayer.com, not Raymond Ibrahim - and the Google translation does indeed suggest that Mohammed Morsi, the new president of Egypt, said that Christians in Egypt should "pay a tribute".
And there's nothing to suggest that elbashayer.com in Arabic is an "Islamophobic" website.
So, looks like Mohammed Morsi, who a year ago in a BBC interview said that the Muslim Brotherhood "wouldn't put up a candidate for president", is making false promises again - either to the English or Arabic-speaking public. Deal with it.

The following day, the comment had 50 recommends - then disappeared...

Below is a screenshot of the comment:

The next picture shows the comment, with the previous comment visible:

The final screenshot shows the comments page after the deletion:

Did the post - consisting of a citation of another website, and recollection of Morsi's past statements - contain "hate speech", or anything else which would break the Guardian's community standards?

PeterNW1's comment (about Morsi suggesting Christians should pay the Jizya) is still visible on other threads. Which begs the question - was my comment deleted by a Guardian moderator (surely extreme, even for them?) or did Morsi himself, or one of his staff, take it upon themselves to re-edit the comments in such a way that "inconvenient" comments ceased to exist?

And if so, what might that imply for the future of Egypt?

"Mohammed did" - 2 words too much for the Guardian

Today, news broke of the convictions of a Muslim paedophile gang centered in Rochdale, England.

With strict English laws on trial by jury (which, btw, the BNP seems not to have grasped), comments on newspaper websites were usually banned prior to today, so that users' opinions would not influence jury members who may be reading the articles. However with today's verdict, the kid gloves were off, and commentary articles were in full swing.

One such article was on Guardian's comment-is-free, promising much hard work for the moderators.

The comments section didn't disappoint - and included this from one user, speculating on a possible source of inspiration for the grooming gangs:

hhhmmm

9 May 2012 11:16AM

"Practising Muslims certainly aren't supposed to have sex with children".

Mohammed did...

Recommend? (10)

Responses (1)

Report

• | Link

Presumably the poster had Mohammed's marriage to Aisha in mind...

One didn't have to wait too long for a response from an "offended" (presumably) Muslim poster:

fazza

9 May 2012 11:25AM

Response to hhhmmm, 9 May 2012 11:16AM

I've reported this. I hope it gets moderated.

• Recommend? (1)
• Responses (1)
• Report
• | Link

What would the Guardian moderators do? Show some steel? Or bury their heads in the sand, as per the usual? The answer came swiftly - a removal of the "unacceptable" comment. "Mohammed did" now being 2 words banned from the Guardian.

But speculating on another religious figure being gay - Jesus - is a subject perfectly OK for an article in the same newspaper...

This despite the consummation of Mohammed's marriage to Aisha at age 9 being widely-accepted - yet Jesus as a homosexual being a form of speculation highly offensive to most Christians.

Such are the double standards of the newspaper for whom "comment is free... but facts are sacred".

Anders Breivik - warrior against... Islam free speech

Anders Breivik - a man with anti-Islam views, decided to kill many people. Not Muslims - but the youth wing of the Norwegian Labour Party, who he regarded as the enablers of multiculturalism... Labour Party youth with placards like this...

And imitating flotillas to Gaza, like this

Hate speech, to some? You bet...

Yet surely nobody in their right minds, in a democratic Western society, would deny these youngsters the rights to display their viewpoints? Just as nobody would see them as anything other than young people of a high calibre and potential, contributing to discourse in a democratic state. And many may yet have "changed sides", following in the footsteps of the likes of Paul Dacre, the editor of the UK's Daily Mail. In fact, if you look at the history of "right-wingers" in Europe and North America, you will find many former leftists - who may have wanted to take part in such a youth camp, at some stage in their life.

All this is key to a democratic society. And what Breivik wanted to destroy. While personally, I'm not convinced as to why Breivik did what he did, some theories are that he wanted to scare people away from attending left-wing camps. Whatever the reason, he did not respect his opponents' right to a democratic viewpoint - the bedrock of a democratic society...

Recently, he is not the only individual to have shown such a lack of respect for freedom of speech...

Dutch and Austrian judges have been all to happy to also join in this "crusade", with Geert Wilders and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff being dragged through the courts, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff forced to pay a fine of 480 Euros for the "crime" of referring to the Islamic prophet Mohammed as a paedophile - for having sex with Aisha when she was 9, and he was a fifty-something... yet it was Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff who had to make a statement distancing herself from Anders Breivik!

Moreover, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined forces with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to attempt to compel UN members “to take concrete steps to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief”... surely nothing wrong with that?

Well, that will depend on what those in charge would consider to be "negative stereotyping"... The bottom line - from resolutions such as this to trials like those of Wilders and Sabaditsch-Wolff is a very short path. Which is why documents such as the First Amendment to the US constitution are vital to our societies - societies in which both the critics of Islam and the Norwegian Labour Party Youth can freely express their viewpoints. Anything else - and we're well on the road to a totalitarian state.

So, when it comes down to the philosophy inspiring the massacre, who is Anders Breivik closer to? And who should be distancing themselves from his actions? Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff? Or Hillary Clinton?

 Warriors against freedom

Yes, there is a worrying trend happening in Europe right now. But it is not the trend of opposition to Islam - something that has been in existence since the days of Winston Churchill, and long before... rather, it is the trend of an increasing lack of respect for freedom of speech that is the biggest danger to the foundations of our society. A trend that Anders Breivik fully embraced. But one that is almost fully ignored by our media...

"We are all bin Laden" - in Tahrir Square

From the dreaming idealism of a democratic revolution...



To cries of "We are all Osama bin Laden", and the Muslim Brotherhood dominating Tahrir Square...



While all this may be shocking to those viewing mainstream media, Jihadwatch readers should not be the least bit surprised...

H/T  Gates of Vienna

An Islamic-free state

Both critics of Islam, and apostates from Islam are currently faced with dangers – not only in Muslim countries – but increasingly in non-Islamic countries, where followers of the Religion of Peace seeking to silence its critics have more and more co-religionists, among which to disguise themselves... In order for such people to have their safety ensured, a nation should come into existence where such targets for “Islamic extremists” are not threatened... since any Islamic community can play host to such “extremists” (and most Islamic communities around the world likely have their fare share of such extremists), such a nation should not contain Muslims – or contain them in such a small number that they are not a threat – not even on the level of Eastern Europe or South America today – but perhaps a similar number to the amount of Muslims in England or Germany in the 19^th Century... But what would such a nation look like? Here are some attributes which would be essential to such a state:

1. Secure in natural resources – the state should either be self-sufficient in these, or have their supply ensured by friendly states, preferably in close proximity.
2. Friendly neighbours – while the state's neighbours need not limit Islam like the state concerned, they should be on friendly terms with the state, to ensure trade and security.
3. International relations – the international clout of the nation should be high enough to ensure it is not “swept aside” and has friends it can rely on, but also not so large that exposing itself to a large amount of international trade & relations becomes necessary.
4. A homogeneous population – a lack of fault lines (in terms of race, religion, class or other factors) will ensure that there is no friction within the state for Islam to exploit.
5. A strong economy – the greater the size of the economy and trade with non-Islamic trades – the less chance of any sanctions coming to fruition.
6. Not too small, not too large – the country should be large enough to have a substantial army it can call on if needed, however if it is too large, the country can become difficult to manage (such as Russia), or rely on too many imports of resources (such as France, Germany or Britain). Therefore it should not be as large as those countries.
7. Secure from immigration – the country should be secure from attempts to infiltrate it from outside, by Muslim immigrants (and others with different priorities on their mind).
8. Secure government – The country should offer secure protection to apostates and critics of Islam for the long-term – these should not depend on the wishes of the next 4-year-term government. Therefore the characteristics of the country should be defined in its constitution, or the country should have a government not liable to change (ie NOT a democracy)
9. Freedom of speech – The country's citizens should not be ashamed of their point of view – and be proud to say it – even if they're to be seen as “Loons”, “backward”, “xenophobic” or anything else... in other words, a tolerance for freedom of speech = an absolute intolerance of political correctness! Allowing such a political correctness to creep in will mean the country risks once again becoming susceptible to Islamisation in the long run.

Were such a country to exist, critics of Islam and other targets of Islamists would not need to walk with 24-hour protection – they could instead live life like normal citizens, enabling them much greater freedom - and time to concentrate on the real priorities... The country could also – through lobby groups, government efforts, and sympathisers abroad, attempt to influence the policies of other countries. Much like Islam is (likely) influencing Western governments today...

Alas, such a state is currently a long way away... but perhaps there may be candidates, exhibiting some similarities?

6am in Brooklyn, NYC

A new sound to help Brooklyn residents wake up early...



or is it Baghdad?

It may seem more like the latter, but the sound that Barack Obama thinks is one of the most-beautiful sounds in the World has already made its <i>public</i> debut in the Big Apple...