“The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the non-obvious.” -Marcus Aurelius
According to the German language website of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s Save Free Speech, a major Austrian discount retailer, Hofer-Reisen, is selling trips to Iran that include tours of the tomb of the late Iranian tyrant, Ayatollah Khomeini. Wunderbar! KGS
NOTE: Bring extra shoes and sandals for throwing
Nationwide Austrian travel agency, Hofer-Reisenoffers offers trips to Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini´s tomb:
If any anti-Israel minded person tells you that the Muslims are just against “Zionism”, think again. They hate the Jews, pure and simple, for the Koran, Hadiths and Sunna tell them so. KGS
H/T: Al Avai
YNET: Iranian authorities once again ‘hit’ by past friendly relations with Israel : Images published Saturday by Iranian media outlets show a Star of David on the roof of the main national airline’s building at the Tehran airport.
The satellite image was taken from the Google Earth service. According to the Iranian report, the Iran Air building was “built by Israeli engineers,” who operated in the countries before the 1979 Islamic Revolution during the days of Shaa Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
“It’s interesting that even 32 years after the victory of the revolution, this Zionist star symbol has yet to be removed from this building,” a local news website wrote.
The calls to remove the Star of David, which the Iranian authorities view as a symbol associated with Israel, were accompanied by local media reports on the close relations with Israel in the past, which were completely severed after the revolution.
According to the reports, since 1960 El Al planes used to regularly take off from the Tehran airport to Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. In addition, Israel sold weapons to the Shaa’s army in exchange for oil, and Israeli experts trained their Iranian colleagues in the fields of agriculture and trade.
This is not the first time a symbol associated with Judaism sparks a media row in Iran. In August, a Star of David was spotted on one of the buildings in a main square in Tehran, which were accompanied by claims that “the Zionist regime is conquering the Revolution Square.”
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (photo © Snaphanen), delivered the following speech at a conference today held in Copenhagen, sponsored by the International Free Press Society . KGS
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I stand here before you in the city of Copenhagen in the year 2010. This is widely considered to be an enlightened country in the heart of an enlightened continent.
Our basic freedoms have long been guaranteed — first by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as passed by the United Nations in 1948, and then buttressed by the Council of Europe in 1950 through the European Convention of Human Rights, which was later affirmed by the European Union. Our individual countries have additionally codified the same basic rights in their own constitutions.
These rights include the freedom of individual conscience, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to practice our religion freely, or to have no religion at all. And, perhaps most importantly of all, they include the right to voice our opinions freely and to publish them without hindrance.
Yet freedom of speech is under attack today here in Denmark, as it is in my own country Austria, and indeed all across Europe. Today, in 21st century Western Europe, our right to free speech is being shut down quietly and systematically with an effectiveness that the commissars in the old Soviet Union could only dream of.
A milestone in this ominous totalitarian trend will be reached tomorrow, 28 November 2010, when the member states of the European Union are required to implement an innocuous-sounding legal provision known as the “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia”, or, more fully, the “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” According to the final article of the Framework Decision, “Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 28 November 2010.”
Why does this matter to the cause of free speech in Europe?
If you read the full text of the Framework Decision (which may be found in the legislative section of the EU’s website), you will learn that “Each Member State shall take the measures necessary… to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable.” Such “intentional conduct” includes “conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.”
Based on what has recently happened to Geert Wilders and me — and earlier to Gregorius Nekschot, Jussi Halla-aho, and numerous others — we can all guess who will be punished under this provision of the Framework Decision: those who criticize Islam.
Even worse, a complaint made by a member state does not have to be “dependent on a report or an accusation made by a victim of the conduct”, nor does the alleged offender have to be “physically present in its territory”.
In other words, if the dhimmi Austrian government objects to a cartoon published by Kurt Westergaard here in Denmark, Mr. Westergaard may be extradited by the Austrian Ministry of Justice to answer to hate speech charges in Austria. The European Arrest Warrant guarantees that the Danish government cannot legally interfere with such an extradition, and the 800-strong “European Gendarmerie Force” would be available to fetch Mr. Westergaard out of his bed and bring him to Vienna — with impunity.
As of tomorrow, the above scenario becomes a real possibility. It is not a paranoid fantasy. These legal provisions are detailed in the EU’s public documents, and they will enjoy the full force of law in all EU member states as of midnight tonight.
The death throes of free speech in Europe begin tomorrow morning.
A Tundra Tabloids’ source claims to know the person who saw the two perps running out of the building just before it blew. The unnamed source also says that the police have the Iraqi store owner in custody for questioning. KGS
UPDATE: According to the Helsingin Sanomat: The man who was at the city’s center told the Helsingin Sanomat that he heard a loud bang and then saw how the restaurant was flying supplies out into the street. All the windows in the Restaurant were broken. Several other people in the vicinity of the fire had heard in the morning a strong bang. The center of Tampere in the morning was full of smoke.
YLE: Police in Tampere have detained one man thought to be involved in Monday morning’s fatal fire in the city centre. Forensic evidence indicates that the fire, which took three lives, was intentionally set.
They announced on Tuesday morning they had taken one man into custody, but declined to say whether he was one of two seen leaving the scene.
Police are investigating the fire as a case of aggravated arson, three cases of first degree manslaughter and four cases of battery.
The blaze, which started in the foreign-owned Juliet kebab-pizzeria on the ground floor, caused the deaths of three and the hospitalization of another four people. Police say there is no evidence indicating that it was a crime specifically aimed against immigrants, but said that the theory could not be ruled out.
Three of the four who were hospitalized were released on Monday afternoon. One elderly woman was still in intensive care on Tuesday morning, but her condition had stabilised.
The dead were two men and one woman, all in their late 20s. They were found in stairwells on the first floor and between the 4th and 5th floors.
Police are asking the public for any eyewitness reports of people or vehicles seen near the site of the blaze just before or after the fire broke out aruond 5.26 a.m.. They have an eyewitness report of two figures dressed in dark clothing seen running from the area toward the Kyttälä neighbourhood just after the fire began.
This is coming straight from the courtroom in Vienna, Austria, where the Tundra Tabloids is being handed a live feed from Henrik Raeder Clausen of EuropeNews. You’ll be the first to know about the events taking place inside the Austrian courtroom, where the first hearing of the case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who’s accused of violating Europe’s onerous hate speech statutes, will be heard.
NOTE: There is a one hour time difference between Finnish and Austrian time zones. KGS
HEARING BEGINS AT 10:00 AUSTRIAN TIME:
9:20 Henrik Clausen states that “we’re outside the court room, waiting for Elisabeth to appear at 9:00.”
Credit for the pictures : http://sosheimat.wordpress.com/
9:41: H.C. Austrian TV is here with camera crew.
10:34: Opening remarks
The room has seats for 15, 25 spectators there. ATV and other press asks for comments, but on advice of the lawyer ESW says ”No comments now, after the hearings”.
The judge informs ESW about her rights, that all she says can be used against her.
The public prosecutor makes a short summary of various conclusions from ESW, taken out of the context from 8 hours of teachings. Without the context, they sound omnious, like speaking of a ”Burqa ghost”, comparing her statements to those of Susanne Winter, mentioning that Muhammad married a child of 6, as well as the risk that we will eventually have a civil war.
Defence lawyer talks of the principles of gender equality, freedom of religion and the lack of reciprocity that exists in Islam, for example that other religions cannot be freely excercised in several Islamic countries. That ESW grew up in Islamic countries and has experienced the situation of women there directly.
He continues to explain that the statements mentioned were taken seriously out of context, and that some were not public, thus not relevant to the case. And that we should play the 8 hours of recordings to understand the context.
He proceeds to invoke three expert witmesses who will testify that ESW speaks the truth:
Wafa Sultan,
Hans Jansen
Robert Spencer
10:53: The judge inquires if we are talking Islamic extremism or of Islam as such?
Elisabeth explains that we are talking Islam as such, as defined by its scripture, and quotes Erdogan that there is no moderate Islam anyway.
The judge accepts that we can play the tapes.
Then proceeds to ask about us being lied to 24 hours a day. Elisabeth explains the concept of Taqiyya. The judge says: ”That is your interpretation”, to which Elisabeth responds: ”No, this is the canonical interpretation”.
Next question is: ”Is Islam in a never-ending war with the West?”
Elisabeth refers to history and newspapers to document that, and that Jihad has at times been considered a pillar of Islam.
11:15: The ”burqa ghost” story is related.
Elisabeth took a photo of a woman in burqa in Meitlinger Hauptstrasse, Vienna, and told about this in her seminars. It is difficult to figure out why the public prosecutor finds this offensive, not to mention illegal. The defence asks about this. Elisabeth explains a few things about freedom for women – all women – to decide for themselves.
A reference is then made to debates at OSCE, where she discussed child molestation, and says: Christian cardinals molest children in conflict with their religion, Muslims in line with theirs. As background the marriage between Muhammad and Aisha is related, as documented by several Hadith authors.
Paedophilia is discussed, in light of Muhammad being the perfect example for Muslims, as stated in Quran 33:21. That means everything Muhammad ever did or said, which is in the hadith.
Elisabeth explains what the hadith collections are, how they constitute an indispensable part of Islam, due to 33:21 and similar suras. And emphasises that she is not making up statements, merely quoting canonical Islamic scripture.
Henrik Clausen: [Now apostacy – more later]
11:34: The Judge opens a discussion if we’re talking of ”All Muslims” here.
Elisabeth says no, for most Muslims do not know what is in the Quran, which is in a language (Arabic) they do not understand, and thus place their confidence in the imams for interpretations.
Judge: ”Is every Muslim a Jihadist?”
Elisabeth: ”No, not at all. But Jihad is an obligation for Muslims.”
Elisabeth: ”Converts, not cultural Muslims, are problematic.”
Elisabeth: ”This is about the teachings of Islam, not about Muslims.”
Judge: ”You said Mulisms in the seminars?”
Elisabeth: ”Yes, in context that is needed to understand the relevance of this.”
Judge: ”What percentage of Muslims are Jihadis?”
Elisabeth: ”I do not know. Not the majority. One promille is enough to be a problem, though”.
Then the quote about ”Islam is shit” is debated. Elisabeth points out that she was debating, using visual quotes, if it is legal or punishable to say ”Islam is shit”. Thus, what we are discussing here is the meta-question:
Is it illegal, or punishable, to debate the legality of saying: ”Islam is shit”?
UPDATE:
A powerful explosion ripped through a convenience store in the Rosengård area of Malmö on Monday morning.
THE LOCAL: The blast was so powerful that the windows in the property opposite the building were blown out. “It was not fire crackers that were used,” according to a spokesperson at Malmö police.
According to police the explosive was probably placed at the outside of the property, which contained a store combined with a restaurant. Police forensics have begun their inspection of the scene.
It remains unknown who could have been behind the attack. An alarm call came in about the explosion at around 4.30am on Monday and according to police no people were injured.
Police confirmed that there is damage to the building as far up as the third floor in the eight story building where the explosion occurred.
UPDATE: Finnish state broadcaster YLE reports that the blast was so severe that it damaged the top floor above the bakery-restaurant business located in the eight story building.
YLE: The Rosengard district in Malmö, Sweden has been the scene of a powerful explosion on Monday morning, “says Swedish television SVT. Explosion occurred in a small sandwich shop on Bennet Street. Police suspect the explosion was due to a bomb. The explosion was so powerful that the shop windows and other stuff had flown into pieces on the street. Explosion caused the fire alarm at half five in the morning. No one was hurt in the explosion.
According to the police explosives were probably placed outside the shop. Business premises was located on an eight story building where the rooms above the shop (TT: located on the 3rd floor) also suffered damage. The police are doing technical research on the spot. Rosengard is an area with a known bad reputation, which is home to many immigrants.
There’s a video released by the LDF, but there isn’t any subtitles to it as of yet, so the Tundra Tabloids publishes the translated transcript to the release, and the video when it’s subtitled. It sounds very serious, the LDF is taking a no nonsense approach to the Muslims commandeering the streets of France to show their political weight. Under French law, such taking over the streets for religious display is forbidden. KGS
NOTE: Special thanks to Gaia for sending this in.
Warning to Muslims who believe that the public space can be invaded without consequences.
For a number of years, certain of you muslim gentlemen dare to regularly occupy the public space for your prayers.
This occupation, as you well know, is illegal, and is, as we well know, a provocation and a demonstration of force designed to show your domination in certain parts of France and your contempt for our laws and the secular nature of our country.
These politico-cultural demonstrations are in defiance of our institutions and our culture, they put our territorial integrity under pressure with the aim of forcing the construction of mosques, which are often financed by the money of non-muslims who then find themselves victims of gigantic rackets in which our elected officials are complicit.
Muslim militias and certain muslims totally illegally block the streets to non-muslims, preventing the citizens and residents from circulating, returning home or leaving their houses and the mayors say nothing, the police say nothing, the State says nothing.
Thus it remains for the French Nation, to the citizens themselves to take over because all their representatives have spinelessly bent over in the face of intimidation.
The message sent out by the French nation to the “praying” is clear:
Stop praying immediately on the public highway, it is illegal. Pray elsewhere, or don’t pray, we couldn’t care less about that. Nothing gives you the right to occupy our streets, you must respect our laws.
You are extremely lucky that the French (of all confessions and origins) are so patient and indulgent with you but in the face of your arrogant provocations, one day the limit will be reached.
Then there will no longer be time to whine about discrimination. You will have been the sole cause of your inevitable future troubles if you continue to defy our laws.
Who sows the wind reaps the storm. Stop sowing discord in France, stop occupying our streets and our towns with your inopportune prayers.
(1) For example: the Mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoë , under muslim pressure spend 20 million Euros of taxpayer money to finance a muslim “cultural centre/mosque” in direct defiance of the law of 1905 which forbids this sort of financing.
H/T TROP
The family of a Pakistani Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy is appealing the verdict with the Lahore High Court. Asia Bibi, a mother of two and field hand, was sentenced to death for allegedly making slanderous remarks about the Prophet Muhammad.
Blasphemy is a capital offense under Pakistani law. Bibi is the first Christian woman in Pakistan to be sentenced to death for blasphemy. Yet her guilt is questionable.
One report claims Bibi’s neighbors objected to an infidel touching the communal water bowl and approached a cleric, claiming she had insulted the Prophet.
Another report claims some of the women workers had reportedly been pressuring Bibi to renounce her Christian faith and accept Islam. During the discussion, Bibi responded by speaking of how Jesus had died on the cross for the sins of mankind and asking the Muslim women what Muhammad had done for them.
The Muslim women took offence and began to beat Bibi and she was locked in a room by some men. A mob reportedly formed and “violently abused” her and her children.
In response to the question about what to think of Greece’s announcement that it won’t be able to pay back it’s debt on time, and that Finland is expected to hand over millions to a failing Ireland, Timo Soini, spokesman for the True Finns party, whose party has extended its popularity to + 14% of the vote, responded in a MTV3 interview this morning on Finnish TV: “Did it come as a surprise? No it didn’t.”
He goes on further to add:
“When Greece was discussed earlier, it was clear then that Greece wouldn’t be able to pay back its debt. Now Ireland falls into the same hole, not as deeply, but it won’t survive without outside help. We should distance ourselves from Ireland. When the EU’s constitution was approved, we were told that it would bring jobs, I was there at the time. It was the West’s biggest brainwashing process. Now where are we? We were lied to then, and we’re being lied to now.
All three countries who are in trouble, Greece Portugal and Spain, are all EU monetary (Euro) members, and why, because the EU monetary system is political not about the economy. […] It’s not based on the free market economy nor does it work. The different economies and their abilities are too different. It was a political decision to make the monetary union, and “political money” doesn’t work.
The interest rates are low in Sweden, in Denmark and in the UK, they are the ones that have their own money. A sensible economic policy should be formulated, whether it be inside or outside the EMU, but the whole time its being spun that there’s only one possibility, a monetary union. Such thinking isn’t possible without a fusion of politics, like finance politics, tax politics etc.. This has been the EU’s aim, towards a federalized European Union. This is a wrong policy.”
The drone MTV3 morning show host: “Why Timo Soini, is it wrong politics, why is harmonizing such a bad idea, a joint Europe, in which the welfare state is spread evenly?!”
Because sovereignty is the most important political value. So that Finns, in their own parliament, can decide all of their own issues. So now that we’ve come into this super state of Europe, we’re just floating along, then the finance minister is once again explaining why it has to be done like this, and then brings it before our parliament, but knowing full well why it was done. Greece should be thrown out of the EMU system, because Greece won’t survive no matter how much money you pump into it.
The only solution is for those countries in an economic crisis, should be returned to their own currencies. They should devalue 30%, and they should gradually climb themselves back into balance. Outside of doing that, nothing else will help.European-wide cooperation is needed, but the federation should be rejected. Only a common economic and free trade area would have a meaningful form of cooperation.
Sounds like good politics to the Tundra Tabloids, and only when other countries begin to take his words seriously, do we have a hope of breaking the EU altogether, because the politicians can’t be trusted not to try and re-invent another evil supra-state, because it’s in their DNA. KGS
THE HAGUE, 11/11/10 – The appeal court in The Hague yesterday acquitted a rapper of threatening Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders because it did not consider the text of his song constituted an offence.
The rapper, who calls himself Mosheb, was prosecuted for the track ‘Who is next?’. He sings: Pim Fotuyn talked about Muslims, was shot. Theo van Gogh, talked about Muslims, was shot. Who is next…? (…) Am planning to make an attack on Geert Wilders. And that in WORDS. I find you a creep. You will be strangled. (…) Everyone who talks about Muslims gets killed.”
In the number, the rapper constantly alternates threats with mitigating words. “Geert you would be better to jump off the roof, or would you rather have bullets in your body? I am no terrorist, am an innocent rapper. This is a warning!! Do you want to stay alive? Then you must take back all your statements (…) Listen Geert, this is no joke, last night I dreamed that I had cut off your head.”
Wilders launched proceedings against the song in 2007, after he had heard and seen the clip on the Internet. A lower court convicted Mosheb, but the appeal court arrived at acquittal yesterday.
According to the appeal court, the text is not in itself a punishable offence. The track is punishable however in the way it was to be seen on Internet site YouTube. There, gunshots were also heard.
These shots cannot however be heard on the rapper’s original CD version. The appeal court concludes that it cannot be established whether the shots were added by the rapper or by someone else.
Killing the infidel
comes at a cheap price
“Former Army Sgt. Layne Morris, who lost an eye in the firefight that captured Khadr, said he was concerned that an eight-year sentence put the Canadian “on frankly the fast-track to freedom” and “the prime of his life.”
Layne Morris is right, jihadi Khadr has been placed on the fast track to freedom and an eventual suicide-homicide run against the infidel. A numerous amount of former Gitmo jihadi inmates have returned to the fight and there is not one person who can reasonably assure us that this dirtbag won’t do the same. 40 years wasn’t enough, that it was reduced to 8, is a travesty of justice. KGS
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba — A military jury on Sunday gave teen terrorist Omar Khadr a 40-year prison sentence for killing an American commando in Afghanistan, but the sentence was merely symbolic — the United States already had agreed to limit Khadr’s prison time to eight years, and Canada last week said it would allow Khadr to serve the bulk of his sentence there.
Canada had been cagey in public about its agreement to the deal, under which Khadr pleaded guilty to war crimes. But the military judge at Khadr’s trial on Sunday released an exchange of diplomatic notes between the U.S. and Canadian governments that included Canada’s assertion that it “is inclined to favourably consider Mr. Khadr’s application to be transferred to Canada to serve the remainder of his sentence” or whichever portion Canada’s National Parole Board decides is required.
The note was signed by the Canadian Embassy on Oct. 23, with no name attached.
That agreement will allow Khadr to be released from prison by age 32, if not earlier under Canadian parole provisions.
Khadr, 24, looked straight ahead when the jury foreman announced the 40-year sentence. The widow of his victim, Tabitha Speer, 40, cheered “yes,” and then wept.
“He will forever be a murderer my eyes,” Speer said.
The 40-year sentence, even though it will never be enforced, provided a sense of finality, she said — along with assurances that Khadr would never be allowed to enter the United States or ride on an airplane.
The seven-officer jury was unaware that Khadr’s sentence had already been set before they began deliberating Saturday.
Jurors were told only that Guantánamo’s youngest captive had pleaded guilty to five war crimes, including hurling the grenade that mortally wounded Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, 28, during a July 2002 assault on an al Qaeda compound. Khadr was 15.
The prosecution sought a 25-year sentence. Defense lawyers recommended repatriation.
In a rebuke, the jury said he should be imprisoned until age 64.
The Toronto-born Khadr also admitted that, in the days ahead of his capture, he planted mines intended to maim or kill U.S. and allied forces. He was captured near dead, treated by U.S. forces and sent to Guantánamo soon after his 16th birthday.
The Pentagon’s Chief War Crimes Prosecutor, Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, said he made the eight-year plea deal with Khadr to secure the certainty of a conviction for the victims of the so-called “child-soldier.”
Read more:
ALSO: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff addresses the crowd:
UPDATE: An anonymous speaker who goes by the nome de guerre, Gandalf, spoke at the event as well.
Thanks to Frank Kitman for the amount of work he’s done in uploading videos from the Free Speech Event in Amsterdam. KGS
“We Will Hold You to Account”
Below is the speech given at today’s demonstration at Generatorstraat in Amsterdam by the British author and former Parliamentary candidate Paul Weston.
Hello. My name is Paul Weston, and I represent the International Free Press Society.
And I am standing here today because our liberal elites have betrayed our countries to Islam.
Forty-two years ago the British politician Enoch Powell made his famous “Rivers of Blood” speech, in which he stated that “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”
Our politicians today do the exact opposite. They actively promote a preventable evil.
But eighty years ago one man, Winston Churchill, was very clear about preventing a clear and present evil, Herr Hitler and the Nazis. But Churchill was a lone voice crying in the wind of appeasement, and the carnage that could have been avoided came with a vengeance.
And today Europe finds itself in much the same position. Even as Islam grows demographically, territorially, and militantly, it is promoted as the “religion of peace” by the same type of cowardly, careerist politicians who once appeased Hitler.
Islam was not the religion of peace to Winston Churchill. He described it as the religion of blood and war.
Anyone with a knowledge of the foundations and history of Islamic expansion knows this to be the truth.
Mohammed was a warlord. And a very good warlord indeed. By the time of his death he had militarily defeated and converted most of the pagan and Christian tribes of the Arabian Peninsula.
After his death Islam rapidly expanded at the point of a sword, defeating ancient civilisations and overrunning continents as it did so.
And today it is within Europe, it is within the West, and it is calling for what it has always called for: total Islamic domination. And if we wish to resist, then they will use terror against us.
Yet still our treasonous politicians call it the “religion of peace”, and tell us that if we refuse to share such a fantastical and ridiculous notion, that if we choose to believe Winston Churchill’s argument that Islam is a religion of blood and war, then we will be sent to prison.
Of course it is not a religion of peace. Its founder was a warrior, and the highest honour bestowed upon a Muslim is the promise of hordes of scented houris and an eternal leg-over in the after life, achievable not by being a good Samaritan, but by dying as a martyr in the physical battle to expand imperialist Islam.
Islam literally means submission. What kind of a religion can possibly call itself submission?
Islam divides the world into two spheres. The House of Islam (submission) and the House of War. What kind of religion defines itself by military conquest?
Yet our leaders tell us we cannot criticise Islam because it is a religion, whilst the organisation of the Islamic conference, in cahoots with the united nations is striving to make any criticism of Islam illegal.
But Islam is so much more than just a religion. It is a political, social, legal and structural blueprint which totally dominates a devout Muslim’s life, and wishes coincidentally to dominate all devout non-Muslims’ lives as well.
It is profoundly illiberal and it is profoundly undemocratic. It does not believe in the man-made laws of democracy, preferring instead to adhere to the absolute word of Allah, as interpreted by an illiterate 7th-century desert dweller.
And our politicians have imported this illiberal and undemocratic ideology into the liberal democracies than make up the West, and then they dare to criminalise us when we object to this!
But how can we not criticise Islam? Can our politicians really protect it as a religion and therefore place it out of legal reach
When homosexuals are hung from cranes, is this political Islam in action or religious Islam?
When adulterous women are buried up to their shoulders in sand and stoned to death, is this political Islam or religious Islam?
When Muslims who wish to leave Islam are issued with death sentences, is this political Islam, or is this religious Islam?
When wives and daughters are slaughtered to protect their families honour by husbands fathers and uncles, is this political Islam or religious Islam?
If it is political, then it must be denounced as evil and barbaric. If it religious, how can it possibly not be denounced as the same? What is evil is evil and what is barbaric is barbaric and cannot be exempted from criticism because it is sheltered by the word “religion”.
In criminalising free speech, our socialist leaders reveal their dictatorial ambition. The mark of a free society is freedom of speech. To take this away is a totalitarian act, made all the worse because freedom of speech is our only defence in the peaceful opposition against the foreign totalitarian ideology of Islam.
And I hope this irony is not lost on you. In order to protect and advance a foreign totalitarian ideology, our own rulers are prepared to adopt native totalitarian means to stop us defending our democracy and our freedom.
The West lives in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Islam does not. They signed up instead to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.
But they have a very important caveat: when sharia law collides with human rights law, guess which law prevails?
Quite so. Sharia is the top trumps when it comes to human rights.
This is like a signatory to the Geneva convention murdering and torturing prisoners of war, and being given a pass at a war trial because it was “part of their religion.”
And when our politicians today excuse Islam as a religion of peace and allow them to set the rules both at home, at the European Union, and at the United Nations, then our politicians are betraying their countries and they are betraying their people. They are committing treason.
“Can one commit treason in a time of peace?” people may ask. But are we really at peace?
We may not consider ourselves at war with Islam, but Islam considers itself at war with us.
And it is a war we are losing. Territorially, demographically, politically, and democratically.
In fact, it is a war of aggression on two fronts. Radical Islam on the one, and left-wing treason on the other.