Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

dar al-harb

Diversity

Solution, if you don’t like traditions, don’t attend institutions which have them.

A group of students at Trinity University is lobbying trustees to drop a reference to "Our Lord" on their diplomas, arguing it does not respect the diversity of religions on campus.

"A diploma is a very personal item, and people want to proudly display it in their offices and homes," said Sidra Qureshi, president of Trinity Diversity Connection. "By having the phrase ‘In the Year of Our Lord,’ it is directly referencing Jesus Christ, and not everyone believes in Jesus Christ."

Qureshi, who is Muslim, has led the charge to tweak the wording

Diversity is so wonderful we must abolish it. Especially the non Islamic bits.

Update:    Thing is, if “The Year of Our Lord” is so unacceptable what is he doing attending a university named for a concept as repugnant to Islamic sensibilities as The Trinity?

No change here then

A week ago in Sydney:

Five Sydney men convicted of terrorism-related offences have been sentenced to maximum sentences ranging from 23 to 28 years in prison.

This week in Sydney:

SYDNEY’S Muslim community leaders last night condemned authorities over the conviction of five men under terrorism laws, describing their sentencing as a "travesty of justice".

Senior Muslim figures, including 10 imams and 20 community leaders, met privately at Lakemba Mosque before releasing a statement to The Australian late last night demanding police produce the evidence proving the criminal "intentions" of the men.

(…)

Hundreds gathered at the mosque in Sydney’s southwest to hear the outcome of the meeting.

Outside the mosque after the meeting, a group of young men pumped their fists in the air and accused ASIO of being "dogs".

(…)

The meeting was attended by Taj Din al-Hilali, formerly Australia’s most senior cleric.

Last night’s statement urged Australian Muslims "not to be afraid of being targeted" for their religion and promised the community would look after the families of those jailed.

al-Hilali? You may remember him. A well known expert in cats meat.

One day Islamic ‘community leaders’ will unequivocally condemn violence against the wider community, one day.

Just not today.

Holland

A conference centre in The Hague has cancelled the launch of a book criticising Islam. The book launch was scheduled for Thursday at The World Forum, but was cancelled because the director of the venue does not believe he can guarantee the safety of his guests.

The book in question is Islamofobie?

You know the worst bit?

There were not even any threats ~ it was the thought of challenging Islam in anyway that terrified the organisers.

Sigh.

Pre emptive dhimmitude I guess.

But don’t say Islam is violent ~ otherwise you may get arrested in Holland!

Well, those of us following the travails of Geert Wilders know something of this.

Did you know that Meneer Wilders has had most of his witnesses denied? Fifteen of the eighteen he wanted won’t be permitted, and the three he is allowed to have will be testifying in camera.

Testimony behind closed doors?

Isn’t justice in this glorious multi cultural Europe wonderful? To paraphrase – not only is justice being perverted, it is being seen to be perverted.

Try a little Pat Condell:

Have you noticed Pat isn’t funny any more? Just very very angry.

I don’t need vrijheid to be translated

 I'm Geert Wilders! for blog

Well, there’s a bit of narcissism on my part, I’m not Geert at all. Here, in Queensland, it remains legal to express loathing for a loathsome belief system, although for how long remains to be seen.

So, what is it with the Wilders trial? Or pre trial hearing anyway?

Here we are, a formal determination on whether Sharia (Thou shalt not criticise Islam, kiddie fiddler Mo or Big Al) is the dominant legal system for the Dutch, whether freedom of opinion and expression exists in Holland, and it is being largely ignored by the Brit blogs I read.

The Trial of the Century has started.

That Geert Wilders is on trial at all is a scandal, so c’mon people, lets make a fuss about it.

The International Free Press Society has a list of all the usual suspects writing on this topic, doughty freedom fighters all:

Bat Ye’or, Clare Lopez, Daniel Pipes, Diana West, Mark Steyn, plus more.

Go read.

Outside the courtroom today:

Wilders-trial1

Unfortunately, all too true.

Wilders Speech

For those who speak Dutch

 

And for those who don’t

Mister Speaker, judges of the court,

I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.

I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial.

Fair trial? The only way this travesty can be rendered fair is to cancel it and for all involved to extend an apology to Meneer Wilders.

Canary in the coal mine

Daniel Finklestein has an article in the Times carrying on about the security services having kept an eye on Sam Wannamaker because the actor was a commie. Well, I do have sympathy with Dannys point of view (he thought it was justified) because although one could have been a Soviet sympathiser in the 30’s and 40’s and still been a decent person, naive maybe, but decent, by the 50‘s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s only someone utterly ignorant, callous or downright evil could have kept up that support.

However, that’s bye the bye. What I find fascinating is a comment by someone writing under the name ‘kev lax’

This is the second time Mr. Finklestein has rubbished the reputation of a respected leftist who is dead and unable to defend himself. Not long ago it was IF Stone, who I am sure would wipe the floor in any debate, written or spoken, with him.
If the secret servces are doing their job they will be keeping their eye on Mr. Finklestein too. It’s obvious that his allegiances are with a foreign power( gve you a clue, it’s in the Middle East and has nukes–and it isn’t Iran).

Gee, who cares if Wannamaker could defend himself or not? I guess there are intelligent NAZI’s who could defend themselves, wouldn’t mean I wouldn’t despise them regardless. However, note the final sentence. Gosh, Daniel Finklestein is a JOOO!!!!! Shock. Horror. And as a JOOO he owes allegiance to the JOOO state!!!!

And?

Of course Mr Finklestein’s religion has no bearing on the quality of his argument, so, here we have someone quite openly, on the website of the Times Newspaper and in the opening decade of the 21st century, defending the worst sort of lefty and being a gratuitous JOOO hater with it.

And he clearly doesn’t realise just how repugnant he is.

I think it’s time European Jews started holding their wealth in easily carried jewellery.

They are welcome here in Oz any time.

Moral relativism

We have recently been having a bit of a discussion on a couple of threads with a bloke calling himself Locke. Now this gentleman comes across as a moral relativist, he doesn’t seen willing to take a stance on anything other than sticking to “Well mustn’t criticise, it’s their kulcha, innit?”

To me, an unwillingness to take a stand is tantamount to condoning. Refusal to condemn a contemptible practice is to allow it to flourish.

An example of his line, and no, I’m not taking it out of context. It means what it says:

we can’t in all honesty claim that our ideas are inherently superior to any other means of organising society.

To which my response is: I most certainly can, and I do.

I found this today, a little news item from Saudi, and I see similar time and again. As must anyone who actually takes note of the world around them:

A 10-year-old bride was returned last Sunday to her 80-year-old husband by her father who discovered her at the home of her aunt with whom she has been hiding for around 10 days.

(…)

My marriage is not against Shariah. It included the elements of acceptance and response by the father of the bride,” he said.

Well, yes. I am well aware that elderly men fucking ten year old girls is not against shariah, which is one of the many many reasons shariah is repugnant. Jesus, it isn’t even that it is isn’t against it. If you live your life by the Sunnah it is almost a sacrament, emulating the murderous old kiddie fucker himself.

Ah the hell with it, this isn’t just repugnant, it’s evil, and I really don’t give a toss whether you, or Locke, or the sodding Archwhatsit of Canterbury agree or disagree. If you can’t find it in your heart to call this, and the culture which spawns it, repulsive, then the hell with you too.

Moral relativism really is an evil philosophy. The racism of low expectations.

Party Time

Wey Hey.

Come on boys and girls, I’m off to Baghdad.

IT’S PARTAY TIME.

there is a place [of entertainment] for the children of top officials only. It is run by an organization that calls itself an NGO, which is supported by an international entity that gives it money. What do they hand out in that club? They hand out drugs and alcohol free of charge. What does this mean? An NGO that hands out alcohol, which is forbidden [by Islamic law], to innocent young men, free of charge – all this costs money. Who pays for this? Near Baghdad University, hormone injections are given to young men free of charge: “Try this, you will feel…” All this costs money. People don’t understand this.

Young men only? Damn, no chicks huh? I’m not going.

The same thing happens with girls as well. This is not a joke. I cannot explain this. The number of liquor stores rises drastically, and then you realize that an international entity is giving $20,000 to anyone who opens a liquor store, and $30,000 to anyone who opens a night club.

Woo Hoo, chicks as well; drugs, booze, chicks and hormone injections. Free of charge, wacko the diddle o.

Hormone injections?

Whatever, free booze, free drugs. Probably gets you numb before the hormone injections.

And all this largesse is provided by some international entity? An international entity huh? You think there might be some rootless cosmopolitans involved with an international entity like this?

Can you tell me this has nothing to do with the Mossad? I swear that the Israeli Mossad is behind all this.

There, how did you guess?

When was the last time Mossad paid for your party night? Lucky bastards.

Dhimmi example #29,372

The Huffington Post – honesty, integrity and committed to the truth. And here it gives of its dhimmified best:

A hostile view of Islam began in the 8th century when Muslims expanded into the Iberian Peninsula.

Muslims expanded into the Iberian Peninsula? True, they did. As to the hostility? Well, yeah. Some bloke comes running at me, sword over his head and screaming Allahu Akbar, I get real hostile, real fast.

I guess it is sort of a not wanting to die type thing.

What a load of dishonest drivel this article is. Sheesh, it could almost have come from PressTV or Comment is Free.

H/T Weasel Zippers

 

Freedom Warrior

Damn, after the hatemongering and useful idiocy of this, how about a bit of this to take the bad taste from your mouth:

If you are committed to Israel’s destruction, and if you believe that dead Palestinians help you score a propaganda victory, you do things like launch rockets from a Palestinian schoolyard. This ensures that when the Israelis do respond, it will likely lead to the death of an innocent Palestinian – no matter how many precautions Israeli soldiers take.

(…)

Why, for example, do we hear no calls for human rights investigations into Hamas gunmen using Palestinian children as human shields? Why so few stories on the reports of Hamas assassins going to hospitals to hunt down their fellow Palestinians? And where are the international human rights groups demanding that Hamas stop blurring the most fundamental line in warfare: the distinction between civilian and combatant?

(…)

I do not pretend to have all the answers to Gaza this evening. But I do know this: The free world makes a terrible mistake if we deceive ourselves into thinking this is not our fight.

In the end, the Israeli people are fighting the same enemy we are: cold-blooded killers who reject peace, who reject freedom and who rule by the suicide vest, the car bomb and the human shield.

But of course, who on the left would be willing to take morality lessons from Rupert Murdoch?

Condell on Wilders

Shouting “fire” in a theatre which is on fire is a duty incumbent on us all.

Hi, I’m Pat Condell.

I don’t respect your beliefs
and I don’t care if you’re offended.

 

The obvious response -

 

Peter Tatchell and Ken Livingstone disagreeing. I guess to the British media that constitutes balance.

Shouting “fire” in a theatre which is on fire is a duty incumbent on us all.

Geert Wilders

This is the speech considered too incendiary for the House of Lords to hear

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.

This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.

The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.

In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.

What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.

Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands you respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.

Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.

Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.

For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.

Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.

But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan.’

I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of Islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeals ordered my criminal prosecution for making Fitna and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime.’

You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech,’ then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?

Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.

I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trail.

The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi Arabia and Jordan on one hand, and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.

Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?

We have to defend freedom of speech.

For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.

What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?

The choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.

Geert Wilders MP

Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)

The Netherlands

The police gave the bigots what they wanted.

This is how the pogroms start:

Another anti-Semitic incident took place in a Canadian university Thursday when over 100 anti-Israel activists surrounded a campus building belonging to the Jewish student club ‘Hillel’ at York University, Toronto. The activists pounded on office doors while yelling out racial slurs. Campus security was forced to alert police to restore order and the latter demanded that the offices be shut down.

The police demanded that the offices be shut down.

The thugs were free to do as they wish, the law abiding Jews were punished.

Where is the multicultural tolerance here?

Middle East Moderate

Yousuf al-Qaradawi in full flow, Ken Livingstone’s bestest mate in all the Middle East:

One of Kens moderates?

What a vile little man.

Definition creep

What constitutes the far-right? Militarism? Economic collectivism? Vocal racism? Suppression of dissent? Elimination of democracy? Enforced uniformity of opinion? Politicised courts? Economic communalism?

Well, not according to The Independent.

The Far-right Dutch politician who gained global notoriety with a film claiming links between the Koran and terrorism is to be put on trial for his public statements against Islam.

Seems to be ‘far-right’ today applies to anyone supporting freedom of expression, free association, women’s rights, tolerance, free markets, democratic accountability and equality under the law, while objecting to Jew hatred, treating women as property, blatant racism, lies, civil violence, intimidation, clerical fascism, bigotry and intolerance. Wanna bet disliking genocidal theocracy and not hating Israel comes into it somewhere as well?

Yeah, my father was shot at for five years because he wanted to impose far-right regimes on Germany and Japan.

1944_NormandyLSTFar-right war mongering fanatics landing on Omaha Beach to impose far-right policies across Europe.

 

Addendum:   Comment I made to this posting at Harry’s:

These days calling someone ‘far-right’ is just a more sophisticated variant on the habit of some lefties of labeling anything they disagree with as fascist.

Wilders is a liberal democrat with a firm commitment to the core values of western civilisation, but with equally firm views on the effect that islamic clerical fascism is having on that civilisation. Apparently that, and his not being at least a social democrat, is enough to have him smeared with the far-right label.

Is it really necessary to quote Goldwater on this? “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

ROP

Further follow up: “You can belt your wife and force her to root”

 

Islamic Council of Victoria vice-president Sherene Hassan said Islam did not condone domestic violence.

You sure about that Sherene?

As reported in the New York Times no less:

FRANKFURT, March 22 — A German judge has stirred a storm of protest here by citing the Koran in turning down a German Muslim woman’s request for a fast-track divorce on the ground that her husband beat her.

In a remarkable ruling that underlines the tension between Muslim customs and European laws, the judge, Christa Datz-Winter, said that the couple came from a Moroccan cultural milieu, in which she said it was common for husbands to beat their wives. The Koran, she wrote, sanctions such physical abuse.

Gee, you really think that the Islamic Council of Victoria veepee is that ignorant of Islam?

Really?

%d bloggers like this: