Vlad Tepes is very honoured to be, as far as we know, the first to be given film of this excellent speech by Ms. Ali speaking at the Danish Peoples Party Sept 18th 2010
Please enjoy and comment. Clearly the rest of us can learn from Pia Kjærsgaard, the leader of the DPP, her most excellent example.
Category Archives: Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Danish TV, CFRA, CBC,
Ths from Gates of Vienna. I also was fortunate enough to capture 2 interesting radio interviews with Ayaan on Ottawa radio, first, CBC then CFRA with Steve Madeley who I think is one of Canada’s best journalists. Listen to them both in a row to see a contrast in the ideology of each.
The most disturbing one wit Ali was some couple of years ago with rabid leftist and now Al Jazeera employee, then CBC TV host, Avi Lewis.
First, this current Danish interview.
Interview: Ayaan Hirsi Ali May 2, 2010 from Cordialis on Vimeo.
Here is the CBC attack on her by Lewis from 2008:
Ottawa’s truly superb journalist, Steve Madeley interviews Ayaan
CBC Radio Canada interviews Ayaan here on June 10th 2010.
Untitled from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali interview: ‘Why are Muslims so hypersensitive?’
By Emma Brockes, The Guardian
‘Even with death threats,’ says Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ‘I can publish, I can travel and I can live the life that I want.’ To see the full photograph by Chris Buck, click on the detail above.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali enters an apartment in New York followed by a bodyguard. The 40-year-old, who for the last six years has been unable to turn up at a venue without it being checked by security, is a writer, polemicist and critic of Islam. She is also a Somali immigrant, an ex-Muslim, a survivor of child genital mutilation, an exile many times over, a former Dutch MP, a black woman whose language would not, in places, look amiss in a BNP pamphlet, a remarked-upon beauty and a lady-in-peril, identities that lend her as a figurehead to disparate causes and bring on confusion in the people she meets.
“I’m a serious person,” she says, frowning, as the photographer suggests various fashion poses, but she is also quietly, almost coyly glamorous, moving around with fawn-like grace. It’s a combination that works particularly well on male polemicists of the muscular left, who can’t do enough to defend her: her gentle charm, her small wrists, her big eyes – oh, and her brave commitment to Enlightenment values – in the face of all that extremism. Continue Reading →
Bill Maher on Islam
H/T LCC and from what looks like an interesting Channel. Better check it fast before someone has it closed.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker and Islam
As usual, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is lucid, articulate, and accurate.
An hour with Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Thank you KitmanTV, THE repository for anti-jihad, anti irrational leftism films on the net
Theo Van Gogh, and a fascist Dutch state.
The Dutch government has so much to be ashamed of in the events described herein.
I have been aware of it since I first read about it on Klein Verzet (The Little Resistance) some time ago. Perhaps two years or more. Where to begin? I would say with the murder of Theo van Gogh, an event which was profoundly hurtful to a good size segment of the Dutch population, perhaps a segment that until then had been unaware of Islam and its true nature.
One man, a Rotterdam artist, Chris Ripke, (who’s studio is right next door to the Mosque in the Insulindestraat [the Turkish Iskender Pasa Camii Mosque) decided to do a fairly innocuous protest. He went to Rotterdam, and painted a small mural of an Angel, some Koranic text about peace at the bottom, and the words:” Though Shalt Not Kill” in Dutch across the mural.
A man representing the nearby mosque was of course, offended by the Christian sentiment on the mural and called the city and demanded it be removed. In point form, the city obliged and perhaps most horrifying of all, the police told all media present for the removal of the mural they may not film it and had their film taken away in keeping with the Dutch police of ‘non-escalation’. A few days ago, someone sent me a link to a video on youtube of this whole event. Apparently someone decided not to comply with the police request thankfully, and a group of us worked hard to translate and subtitle this as we feel as many people as humanly possible need to see this and understand its importance. Although this event is old, the presence of this tape is new to me and almost certainly new to the English speaking world. Here is the English subtitled video:
Removal of angel Mural, Rotterdam 2004 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.
Please pass this link around to anyone who cares about freedom of the press, freedom from Government interference in what we may or may not know, and freedom from what is referred to in s video as ‘The Political Police” something I bet very few Dutch people even know exist but clearly have a massive impact on what they may or may not know that takes place within their own nation and cities.
Here is a link to the Klein Verzet story on this. Below, a segment of it:
From Klein Verzet:
What a difference a few years make. When we started this blog, the Dutch had a reputation comparable to the Danes. But now it seems that the Netherlands has joined the madness of the UK, France, Sweden and Norway, in their mad dash to destroy the spirit of the native people, for diversity’s sake. Or, as Mark Steyn puts it:
In the Netherlands even the most innocuous statement can get you into trouble. To express his disgust at Theo van Gogh’s murder, the artist Chris Ripke put up a mural outside his studio showing an angel and the words “Thou shalt not kill”. But the cops thought this was somehow a dig at the local mosque and so came round, destroyed the mural, arrested the TV news crew filming it, and wiped their tape. The Dutch have determined to commit societal euthanasia, and dislike fellows pointing out it might not be as painless as they’ve assumed.
The staggering injustice of all of this is nicely put into words by Bruce Bawer, in a piece he concluded with these words:
In Dutch Muslim schools and mosques, incendiary rhetoric about the Netherlands, America, Jews, gays, democracy, and sexual equality is routine; a generation of Dutch Muslims are being brought up with toxic attitudes toward the society in which they live. And no one is ever prosecuted for any of this. Instead, a court in the Netherlands—a nation once famous for being an oasis of free speech—has now decided to prosecute a member of the national legislature for speaking his mind. By doing so, it proves exactly what Wilders has argued all along: that fear and “sensitivity” to a religion of submission are destroying Dutch freedom.
Well worth going over to Mark Steyn’s article on it as well:
There is an interview with the man who was arrested. I hope to add that transcript in English to the rest of this post as well very soon. In the meantime, I am going to have to ask myself as a Canadian,
What is it I am not allowed to hear or know?
How is whatever law is being used to isolate me from reality being selectively enforced as Mark Steyn so clearly points out in his article related to this? Here is the original youtube link with more information on this incident and links to other interviews and information. This may not be spectacularly violent or sexy as fascist expose’s go. But that is what makes this so important. We must familiarize ourselves with this and humiliate the Dutch government and thereby all western governments that would make it impossible for their own people to make healthy decisions for themselves by effectively blinding and deafening them. While the cop may not have been wearing jackboots, at least that would have gotten some people upset. With the Dutch policy of non-escalation, no one can know enough to be upset. But after all, isn’t that is what ‘non-escalation’ means?
Huge thanks to V.H. for the amazingly fast and excellent work on the translation, and to a flu ridden Baron over at the gates who despite being bed ridden with the rotten flu that is going around, edited the work before I subtitled it. This gives some idea of the importance many of us feel this has. It also is an amazingly rare exception to the Frank Zappa rule of getting work done. 1. Good 2. Fast 3. Cheap. Pick any 2.
Typically this is really true. However our team did everything well fast and free. Thank you again guys and of course to Klein Verzet for sending me the links and to A Certain Amount of Evil for sending me the original Dutch video in the first place a few days ago. Something I did not know existed. But something that by coincidence, did come up in a recent interview a few weeks ago, between The International Free Speech Society and Morten Meserschmidt
ADDITIONAL INFO: Please click here to read the Gates of Vienna post on this matter. He has more information including a transcription of an interview with the man who was arrested and more. Very thorough work by V.H. The translator (I made a mistake in the credits in the video) and The Baron.
___________ COMMENT FROM YOUTUBE WHERE THIS VIDEO IS HOSTED_________
4711inside has replied to your comment on Dutch police remove mural on Islamic instruction:
right WHERE Theo was executed in cold blood a portrait of him was painted on a window shutter… not unlike the one in this video. The police painted over it IN THE NIGHT. Then it reappeared and was painted over again and so forth.
People paint THEO just his name, around the neighborhood. And the police paint over it. But they NEVER paint over gang signs!
I’m sorry to say this but the dutch police are nothing but cowards.
You can’t count on them to uphold the law. They bow to islam every time.
People paint THEO just his name, around the neighborhood. And the police paint over it. But they NEVER paint over gang signs!
I’m sorry to say this but the dutch police are nothing but cowards.
You can’t count on them to uphold the law. They bow to islam every time.
Does god hate women? An excellent piece by Nick Cohen
Burka-clad women walk in the old city of Kabul (AFP/Getty)
A while ago, a BBC producer phoned to tell me I had written a “controversial” book. I knew that already, and gathered from the teeth-sucking sound coming down the line that she did not approve.
“So,” she continued, “we’ve lined up four guests to argue against you.”
I told her to go away — maybe I used a stronger term — and then thought about her predicament. As a biased broadcaster, she wanted to hear my book denounced, but she could not risk organising a one-on-one debate. Maybe I would have come out on top. More probably, some listeners would have agreed with me, others with my opponent, as is the normal way of things. By arranging her show to make it four against one, however, she could maintain the illusion of impartiality while creating the impression in listeners’ mind that the consensus was overwhelmingly against arguments she found uncomfortable. In the interests of “balance” and of letting “everyone have their say”, she would fill 80 per cent of the airtime with advocates of her own political position. I have watched out for rigged debates ever since. They are the surest signal the BBC dares send that an idea does not deserve a hearing in polite society.
Ophelia Benson did not quite get the four-on-one treatment when she appeared on Radio 3’s cultural talk show Nightwaves to discuss a “controversial” book she has co-authored with Jeremy Stangroom. They gave her a mere two opponents, and the presenter tried to be fair. Still, when one adversary stopped disparaging her, the other started, as the BBC flashed warning signs to listeners to ignore her.
If they missed the point, the press banged it home. The Independent denounced Benson and Stangroom “as inflammatory in the extreme”; authors who produce “torrents of invective” and “show no desire to go beyond name-calling and distortion.” The Guardian accused them of “crudeness and lack of insight”. It was “staggered anyone wanted to publish” them, and concluded that only a base desire to make money could explain the release of a “profoundly intellectually dishonest”, “hysterical” and “bizarre” work. My own newspaper, the Observer, was slightly more temperate, but not so the casual reader would notice. Benson and Stangroom were not original thinkers but had “trawled through newspaper articles”. They “splutter with righteous anger”, their style “clunky”, “hammering” and “repetitive”, their arguments “flimsy” and “deadening”.
Readers who imagine that Benson and Stangroom were on the receiving end of the fullest stomach-load of bile literary London has brought up this year because they were making the case for white supremacy or the return of the death penalty do not understand the dark turn Western thought took between the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Benson and Stangroom’s book is Does God Hate Women?, which the predecessors of today’s critics would have hailed as a feminist classic.
“So does God hate women?” it asks.
Well, what can one say. Religious authorities and conservative clerics worship a wretchedly cruel unjust vindictive executioner of a God. They worship a God of 10-year-old boys, a God of playground bullies, a God of rapists, of gangs, of pimps. They worship — despite rhetoric about justice and compassion — a God who sides with the strong against the weak, a God who cheers for privilege and punishes egalitarianism. They worship a God who is a male and who gangs up with other males against women. They worship a thug. They worship a God who thinks little girls should be married to grown men. They worship a God who looks on in approval when a grown man rapes a child because he is “married” to her. They worship a God who thinks a woman should receive 80 lashes with a whip because her hair wasn’t completely covered. They worship a God who is pleased when three brothers hack their sisters to death with axes because one of them married without their father’s permission.
Please go to Standpoint Mag to read the rest of this excellent article.
The burqa as liberating choice? not so says Chesler
From the Chesler Chronicles/Pajamas Media.
August 31st, 2009 8:10 am
The Burqa: Ultimate Feminist Choice?
Naomi Wolf Discovers That Shrouds Are Sexy
Women in chadors are really feminist ninja warriors. Rather than allow themselves to be gawked at by male strangers, they choose to defeat the “male gaze” by hiding from it in plain view.
But don’t you worry: Beneath that chador, abaya, burqa, or veil, there is a sexy courtesan wearing “Victoria Secret, elegant fashion, and skin care lotion,” just waiting for her husband to come home for a night of wild and sensuous marital lovemaking.
Obviously, these are not my ideas. I am quoting from a piece by Naomi Wolf that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago. Yes, Wolf is the bubbly, feminist author who once advised Vice President Al “The Climate” Gore on what colors he should wear while campaigning and who is or was friendly with Gore’s daughter. Full disclosure: I have casually known Wolf and her parents for more than a quarter-century. Continue Reading →
2007 interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Excellent use of an hour
Link: 
Ayaan Hirsi Alli weighs in on Obama’s speech.
One of my very favorite human beings offers an opinion on Obama’s speech in Cairo. As I would have expected, one of the best analysis I have read so far. If anyone has not yet read her book ‘Infidel’ do not waste another moment, go buy it and read it now. Everyone I have convinced to read this book has found it fantastic and has convinced others to read it as well.
From The New Majority:
AYAAN HIRSI ALI: OBAMA LET DOWN MODERATE MUSLIMS
Friday, June 05, 2009 1:25 PM
In an exclusive interview with NM’s Jeb Golinkin, Ayaan Hirsi Ali — the bestselling author of Infidel and Islamic reformer — gives us her quick take of the President’s address to the Muslim world. Here are excerpts:
ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS:
President Obama’s speech didn’t do much for Muslim women. He defended their rights in Western countries to wear the hijab. He didn’t touch on Muslim women being confined, being forced into marriages or being victims of honor killings: These traditions and principles in the Koran and in Islam are being practiced in the West. He didn’t address that.
I think he was just appeasing the Muslim world because they perceive–they have these notions that Muslim women in Western countries–are not allowed to wear the headscarf or cover themselves. I mean you can wear whatever you want in the United States.
In Egypt where he spoke, women who do not wear their veil in public are subjected to very obscene remarks on the street and even sexual assault. Nowadays, even if they are covered they become victims of the same things: That is, in public, in Egypt, as a woman, you run 80% of the time the risk of being assaulted simply because you are a woman walking down the street. They are forced into marriages; their testimony in countries where Sharia is law is just half of that of a man. They can be divorced with no rights. They need guardians, a married guardian or they cannot sign any legal papers. The President simply did not address Sharia or Islamic law in relation to women.
ON ISLAMIC EXTREMISM:
Who is a real reformer? Obama’s message is that all of this [violence] has nothing to do with Islam. He says that progress and human rights are perfectly reconcilable with Islam. “Islam is peace.” He sticks to the line that there is nothing to reform in there. According to the President, we are only fighting a very small number of extremists, but it’s not Islam, so if that’s the case then there really isn’t much to reform. The true reformers — the moderate Muslims — take away from the speech that they can’t depend on the Obama administration to criticize Islam. Between the lines it’s as if he is saying that he will prevent Islam from negative stereotyping or something like that, which is ridiculous because he can’t do that. But most Muslims as we know, believe that negative stereotyping is equal to criticizing Islam.
Obama said “let’s speak plainly to one another”; I would have liked him to have added, “and that means let us face some of your religious principles and how they are radically different from American principles.” That’s what we need to talk about. His plain speaking went as far as saying we have a right to be in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda attacked and keeps trying to attack us… but what inspires Al-Qaeda? Why are people we call moderates not facing up to Al-Qaeda? What is it about Islamic values that causes this? His plain speaking ended exactly where George Bush’s and all the Presidents that came before him… and Tony Blair… ended: with the selective quoting from the Koran. It’s like Hillary Clinton putting on the headscarf as a “sign of respect.”
That said, some of the speech’s passages were tough. I liked it the way he told them that “we are in Afghanistan and we are not leaving,” and I liked what he said about Holocaust denial. But overall, the speech just didn’t go far enough.
ON OBAMA’S “NEW ERA”:
Obama has now clearly defined that he is different from the previous administration. So far, that clearly has been his goal: To show the Muslim world that they are different, and that this is the beginning of a new era, etc. I think once he has succeeded in creating the image that he is different, then I hope he will say look, I am different but — and this was a statement I really liked — I will always protect the security of Americans.
American security is going to repeatedly be attacked in the name of Islam. When that happens, he can always point back to this speech and to negotiations with Iran and say “I came with outstretched arms, I tried to include you… I told you some things about how fabulous you are.” And when all of that is rejected, then that’s when he can say “Now lets really discuss what is wrong with your religion, and where do our [American] values clash with Islamic values? Will he do that? That’s That’s the real question. But I don’t know if he will do it. George Bush never did it. He used the term “Islamofascism”; once but quickly took it back. So I don’t know. We will see.