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...

Linking - the new hate speech?

Hate speech showtrials are nothing new - just ask Geert Wilders or Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

But now, it seems that on the other side of the Atlantic, in the liberal, tolerant bastion of Canada, where quotes from the Bible have in the past been deemed hate speech, merely linking to a "far-right website" can form part of a $500,000 lawsuit ...

From  BlazingCatFur-

About 18 months ago everybody's favourite Ex-Canadian Human Rights Commission employee Richard Warman launched one of his many, as in very many, SLAPP suits against yours truly for, among other dastardly deeds, linking to the "far-right web site http://www.steynonline.com/". Sheesh everybody knows Mark Steyn is controversial.

This referring to a post on a newsletter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The offending part?

Fifty-nine years ago, on this day, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, creating a foundation of equality, fairness, compassion and respect for all. (But not for the law and only so long as their our kind of people, Lucy Warman tells us who we should hate. Pie anyone?).

Apparently what caused the offence was that the words "our kind of people" led to an article by Canadian commentator Mark Steyn, in the words of the lawsuit a "far-right website".

Note that Richard Warman, the CHRC plaintiff in the case, has not sued Mark Steyn for the article... yet goes after a lone blogger linking to it. But this is not his first "hate speech" case -

In Warman v. Lemire, 2009 CHRT 26, Athanasios D. Hadjis held that the respondent's right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression should not be infringed by s. 13(1). Accordingly, the adjudicator did not penalize the respondent for his controversial postings to the Internet.


In Warman v. Northern Alliance, 2009 CHRT 10, Edward Peter Lustig held that the respondent's website was in violation of s. 13(1) because the website carried controversial remarks about Roma, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, blacks, Arabs, and others. The adjudicator made an order pursuant to s. 54(1)(a) to ensure that the impugned website, which is defunct, remained inactive.

In Warman v. Winnicki, 2006 CHRT 20, Karen A. Jensen found the respondent had posted messages to the Internet which were "vicious and dehumanizing". The adjudicator ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices and to pay a penalty of $6,000.

He has also sued Kathy Shaidle of FiveFeetofFury.com, Kate McMillan of SmallDeadAnimals.com, FreeDominion.com, Walker Morrow, Michael Veck, Jonathan Kay and the National Post. So why bother going through the courts with so many cases? In Warman's own words, he implements a "maximum disruption" approach...

I’ve come to the conclusion that I can be most effective by using what I like to describe as a “maximum Disruption” approach … I’ll look at all the potential targets and file complaints against them starting on a “worst offender” basis, although sometimes if I just find people to be particularly annoying this may move them up the list a bit. The “maximum disruption” part comes in because wherever I think it will be most helpful, or even if I just feel it will be the most fun, I strongly believe in hitting on as many of these fronts as possible either at the same time or one after the other. I say this because it keeps them off-balance and forces them to respond to things that focus their energies on defending themselves.

In other words - go after bloggers he thinks have too little funding to defend themselves, and make them spend all their resources on doing so - even if the case is unsuccessful. As part of his "maximum disruption" approach, he has allegedly also himself made racist comments on posts, while including the same posts in his lawsuits. So much for these posts being "offensive", or containing anything which a comission interested in real human rights could find of interest. Such is the great service to human rights made by laws such as section 13 of Canada's human rights act.

BlazingCatFur should win this lawsuit, but needs funding to fight it - a donation can be made by "feeding the kitty" on the right here.

An Islamic leader tells it straight

And speaks some basic facts about his faith... in calm, logical and rational terms. Can it be that a Muslim leader matching all these descriptions is someone most-commonly known as a fanatic extremist?

From CBN News, via Pamela...

Manute Bol - basketball player and human rights activist, dies

One of the NBA's tallest players - Manute Bol, a Sudanese from the Dinka tribe - passed away today. He was a record-breaking shot-blocker and a player who spent millions of dollars of his own money helping his war-ravaged country. So much so that he ended-up broke, only affording treatment after a car crash following a fundraising game by his former colleagues

Yet a player who most had never heard of. Indeed, this is someone who I did not know about until today. But, as it turns out, a legend on and off the basketball court. It is typical of the times today that his death, or life, is not front-page news, with the media instead preferring to send the story of someone fighting for an unfashionable cause to the small print on the back pages...

May he rest in peace

Suffering and oppression in Gaza

The terrible poverty of occupied Gaza in graphics -

(h/t Gates of Vienna)



With the impoverished surroundings and just a 16-page menu, time for another round of aid money?

Pray for Rifqa

In a shocking new development, Rifqa Bary, the apostate from Islam who ran away from her parents to try to live a free life as a Christian, has developed an aggressive form of uterine cancer. This in the culmination of a year during which she:

• escaped from her parents, after allegedly being threatened with death for apostasy
• stayed with a Florida family for what she called the "best three weeks of her life"
• was taken into care by the State of Florida
• transferred to Ohio by a judge's ruling
• kept in solitary confinement, with no access to internet, telephone or visits from friends
  had motions filed to bar her from receiving Christmas cards
• came to an agreement to be in the custody of the State of Ohio, with her immigration status still uncertain.

All this may be more than most 17 year-olds would imagine to suffer, yet now Rifqa is faced with a new and even more terrifying struggle within her own body.

Tomorrow (May 27th) is the day of her third operation, due for 10am US Eastern time. The level of spread of the cancer should be known afterwards, and if the operation is successful, chemotherapy will begin soon. Please pray for Rifqa's recovery, wherever you are...

Farage survives plane crash

On the day of the UK general election, UKIP former leader Nigel Farage survives a plane crash with only minor injuries. In his own words he was "lucky to be alive".

From the BBC

The former UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage said he was "lucky to be alive" after his plane crashed in Northamptonshire.

The aircraft came down at Hinton-in-the-Hedges Airfield near Brackley.
Mr Farage is being treated at John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford for broken ribs and other minor injuries. Pilot, Justin Adams, is also in hospital.

It is thought the aircraft came down when a trailing campaign banner became entangled.
'Trapped in wreckage'

Party leader Lord Pearson said Mr Farage had been visited by his wife in hospital.

He said: "Despite being in considerable pain, we deduce that Nigel is back to something like his normal form.
"We also understand that the injuries to the pilot, Justin Adams, may be less serious than previously feared though we have been unable to speak to his family.

"It is clear that both men had a remarkably lucky escape." 

This incident prompting one of his political opponents to write this tribute:

Nigel Farage always hated flying

He especially loathed having to take the tiny propellor-powered plane that was the only direct route to Strasbourg before the fast train link. But he bore those journeys with good-humoured stoicism, as he did most of the disagreeable aspects of our job.

Nigel is, I suppose, my chief rival in the South East. But he has always acted as a gentleman towards political opponents, and I like to think we have become friends. Nigel is in politics for the best possible reason: patriotism. He gave up a lucrative career to stand for the European Parliament, and there are plenty of other, more rewarding, things he could be doing.

It is typical of the man that, as he came round, his first words were to ask after the pilot. I hope all of us, whatever our parties, will join in wishing him a speedy and complete recovery.

Not long ago, he made this daring speech against the EU's new president:



And here, a recent interview with Jeremy Paxman:




This is a very lucky escape for someone who, in his stand against political correctness, could be described as the closest thing to a British Allen West or Geert Wilders. And an equally lucky escape for Britain, close to losing one of its only politicians willing to tell the truth as they see it.