Category Archives: Political Correctness

Niqab is the “British way”

Posted on by

From The Telegraph U.K.

Islamic face-veil part of ‘British way of life’

The full Islamic face-veil is a part of the “British way of life” and should be celebrated along with religious symbols such as the crucifix, according to a report published today.

By Tim Ross, Religious Affairs Editor
Published: 8:30AM BST 16 Oct 2010
Islamic face-veil part of 'British way of life'

Politicians in France and Belgium have voted in favour of banning the full veil Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Opponents of the veil claim it oppresses women and presents a barrier between those who wear traditional dress and the rest of society.

But in a new report from think-tank Civitas, Alveena Malik, a former faith adviser to the last Labour government, said the test of whether religious symbols are appropriate should be based on whether they are practical.

Politicians in France and Belgium have voted in favour of banning the full veil, or “niqab”, and other European countries are thought to be considering similar action.

In a new report, Women, Islam and Western Liberalism, Mrs Malik said: “We in Britain need to take a different direction from others in Europe and to accept the veil as part of a modern British way of life.”

She continued: “The wearing of religious symbols, including the full veil, should be a fundamental human right of an individual in both the public and private sphere.

“The real test for religious symbols in the public sphere should always be: ‘Does the wearing of a symbol (such as the kirpan, turban, yarmulke, crucifix and the veil) hinder a citizen’s ability to perform their public civic duties?’”

Britain is in a “unique” position to embrace such a public display of faith because of the role the church plays in the affairs of the state and its “multicultural diversity”.

Mrs Malik was appointed by last government to a panel of faith advisers for the Department for Communities. She has overseen British Council guidance on “intercultural dialogue”.

Canadian Court of Appeal ‘decides’ on niqabs in courtrooms

Posted on by

From The Ottawa Sun

Putting face on religion

By MICHELE MANDEL, QMI Agency

Last Updated: October 13, 2010 10:08pm

TORONTO – It is a typically Canadian solution.

The Ontario Court of Appeal won’t ban Muslim witnesses from wearing a face veil. Nor will the highest court in the province grant them an automatic right to do so.

Instead, in its highly anticipated decision, the appeal court has ruled right down the middle, saying “each case must turn on its own facts.”

As long as it doesn’t prejudice a fair trial, the court ruled, Muslim women should have the religious right to wear their niqab when testifying.

But if a judge is convinced by the accused that he can’t properly defend himself if she’s testifying against him behind a veil, the witness must remove her niqab and allow the face-to-face confrontation that is the norm in Canadian courts.

Justice system

“The criminal justice system as it presently operates, and as it has operated for centuries, places considerable value on the ability of lawyers and the trier of fact to see the full face of the witness as the witness testifies,” wrote Justice David Doherty in the ruling released Wednesday morning on behalf of the three-judge panel.

“There is no getting around the reality that in some cases, particularly those involving trial by jury where a witness’s credibility is central to the outcome, a judge will have a difficult decision to make.”

It was not a clear-cut victory for any side, but one cautiously applauded by all.

“It’s a real step forward,” said David Butt, lawyer for N.S., the Toronto woman who was ordered to remove her niqab at a preliminary hearing. “This walks a middle ground that balances two very important, competing rights.”

N.S. came forward in 2007 and accused her uncle and cousin of sexually abusing her as a child. When the case went to a preliminary hearing in 2008, she said she wanted to testify while wearing her niqab. When the judge ruled against her, she took her case to the Ontario Court of Appeal in June.

In its 54-page decision, the three-judge appeal panel ruled that there needs to be a “case by case assessment” and for the first time set out guidelines for judges in these previously “uncharted waters”.

For N.S., the appeal court overturned her niqab ban and said she must be given a proper hearing to show why her religion requires her to cover all but her eyes.

The defence must also be allowed to call evidence on the issue before the judge decides if she can testify wearing her veil or whether accommodations can be made for her testimony — such as an all-female court.

“The court did not decide the crux issue of whether the niqab comes off or stays on,” said N.S.’ lawyer.

“On the other hand, the court has given us a very firm set of factors to guide us.”

The Criminal Lawyers’ Association had argued that a witness can’t be properly cross-examined if their face is concealed but was satisfied with the ruling.

“It is a paradigmatic, Canadian decision insofar as it strikes a very workable compromise rather than making a choice between two important competing values,” noted association president Paul Burstein. “Time will tell.”

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, was relieved the court of appeal did not grant an automatic right to give testimony behind the veil, which he insists is a political, not a religious, symbol. But he was troubled the appeal court seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate women wearing a face covering many in the west see as backward and misogynistic.

“They do not think that Muslim women are women per se, but some kind of exotic species that they have to nurture in the laboratory that’s called Canada,” Fatah complained.

For its part, the appeal court wisely shied away from making a definitive ruling on a piece of cloth that continues to divide.

“The wearing of a niqab in public places is controversial in many countries including Canada,” Doherty wrote.

“The controversy raises important public policy concerns that have generated heated debate. Those difficult and important questions are not the focus of this proceeding and cannot and should not be resolved in this forum.”

mi************@******ia.ca

Interview with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Berlin, Oct 3 2010

Posted on by

ESW is on trial in Austria for ‘Hate speech violations’ which of course, means accurately quoting the Koran and exposing it’s contents in an unsympathetic way to Islam.

If you can, please consider contributing to her defence fund. I will post a link to it when one is available.

Full text below the fold:
Continue Reading →

Danish multicultural leftist gets solid dose of reality

Posted on by

Interesting clip. Would help a lot if I could read the article here, but as I can’t the video will have to do. Here is a link to a machine translation of the article. I do know one thing, his name was hysterically translated as, ‘Ra Buttercup’. His first name is indeed Ra, but his last name, a normal Danish last name I presume, was translated as ‘Butterup’

11 foreign nations sue the US state of Arizona for refusing to allow ILLEGAL immigration

Posted on by

This has to be a new level of absurdity and sedition by Obama. It is actually hard to type that. The President of the USA, it would appear, is in collusion with foreign nations to undermine a US state which is attempting to preserve it’s own American character.

H/T to the tireless FOOMF

EDL Leader, Tommy Robinson speaks today at rally.

Posted on by

I was going to write something clever about the severity of the situation in the UK and how freedom is vanishing fast to aid and abet the rapid Islamification of England. Instead, Ill just ask you to watch this yourself and form your own opinions.

This needs to be seen…

More strong evidence of bias in the Geert Wilders trial.

Posted on by

Translated from Dutch media by VH with much thanks!

Hirsch Ballin was consulted over a trial

by Johan van den Dongen

Outgoing Minister Ernst  Hirsch Ballin (Justice) has, from a very early stage, been personally involved in the decision making on whether or not to prosecute Geert Wilders.

This is evidenced by internal e-mail correspondence from 2008, between the public prosecutor’s office in The Hague (the top of the OM) and the public prosecutor in Amsterdam.

The information has quite some piquancy, because in our country the justice minister habitually keeps the necessary distance to prevent exposing the OM to changing political influences. In addition, with this information a different light is shed on the role of Hirsch Ballin as one of the fiercest CDA opponents of tolerating the support Wilders’ PVV [to a new coalition govenrment].

On March 14, 2008, the prosecutor-general and the prosecutor in Amsterdam emailed each other on the advise of Rick Lawson, professor of European Law at the University of Leiden. Lawson was asked by the OM for a mapping on whether prosecuting of Wilders would have a chance. On the last page of his ten pages analysis, Lawson concludes that it is “well-founded to prosecute Wilders”.

This opinion was, with both prosecutors, received with cheers, as can be  established form the email correspondence: “What a superb piece!!!!” And: “Monday there will be a meeting with the Minister of Justice about this advise. We will try with all we can to provide as much input as possible to Harm Brouwer (OM chief, ed) for this conversation. Everything is welcome.”

Wilders’ lawyer Bram Moszkowicz is stunned by the internal information. “From this it shows that not only that at the highest ministerial level there has been spoken of the possible prosecution of my client, but moreover that there has been a matter of substantive political involvement in the decision to prosecute.”

Despite Lawson’s analysis, the prosecutor decided not to prosecute Wilders. The court however, later still ordered to do so.

According to a spokeswoman for OM, there is nothing strange about the involvement of Hirsch Ballin. “It is very common for the OM in cases with a social impact, to discusses and exchanges views with the minister. He is politically responsible for the OM and is regularly called to Parliament to explain why things will or will not be prosecuted. ALso when it concerns a prominent politician. The law provided that if the Minister disagrees with the OM, he may give a directive on how to still act otherwise, what in this case has not happened.”

Sanctimony rules the day in Sweden.

Posted on by

Man reading this, feels like they are in Ottawa or something. I guess while Sanctimony is indeed Canada’s chief export, we do not have a monopoly on it.

Thanks to Snaphanen for this partial translation of this disgusting display from the Swedish Parliament:

from this editorial for Dagens Nyheter:

The greens and The Left [former communists] declared, that for environmental reasons they would not occupy the same building in the chancellery as the Sweden-democrats…  …Furthermore they demanded seperate queues in the parliament cafeteria, so that they would not have to stand next to a Sweden-democrat waiting for lunch

Day 3 of the wilders trial and this judge shows some bias.

Posted on by

I am not a lawyer, and neither am I familiar with the Dutch legal system. But clearly one can see from the proceedings so far that there are laws on the books in Dutch legal codes that a judge may not be biased before the evidence is seen. Here in this segment of day 3 of the trial, I have a very hard time believing the judge’s very weak attempt to cover up his clear bias when questioned by Geert’s lawyer on why it is understandable that the plaintiff would not want to view Geert’s movie Fitna.

For more excellent daily coverage and cometary on the Wilders trial including today’s, please visit Klein Verzet, the English language Dutch blog.

Wilders trial day 3

Posted on by

This from Klein Verzet, the excellent Dutch blog.

Geert Wilders on trial day 3
Today the trial against Geert Wilders continued with the same judges The trial day started with a screening of Fitna.

Before the screening we already had the first incident, a woman (plaintiff) asked if she could leave the room. She did not want to see Fitna she declared. The president of the court answers:

I can imagine

Wilder lawyer complained, he could not believe what he just had heard (again a value statement of the court).

See incident above and for the rest of the commentary please visit Klein Verzet by clicking here

CIC’s Islamic History Month Canada? Not on my dime.

Posted on by

Vlad Op-Ed

The affair concerning the barred Imam and DND is fast becoming even more mired in controversy and confusion. Imam Zijad Delic has remarked in a purely defensive move there is no truth to the allegation, adding it compromises Canada’s interests and the well being of our troops in Afghanistan. Mrs. Valiante, president of the CIC, called Mr. MacKay’s decision a crass attempt to pander to the far-right, evangelical base of the Conservative party by smearing the representatives of Muslim and Arab communities.

Meanwhile, Mr. MacKay defended his position in the House, reiterating that his decision was based on the fact that the Canadian Islamic Congress is deemed an extreme outfit whose sentiments are not welcome. Jason Kenney referenced the group in a 2009 speech in which he said it is part of an ongoing review. We are warned time and again by both security experts and moderate Muslim groups of the increasing infiltration of government departments by those actively seeking to impose Islamist standards. Yet despite this, celebrations of Islamic History Month went ahead at DND even without the Imam.

Those critical of MacKay’s decision are calling for an inquiry. I agree there should be one; but chances are not for the same reasons. I have no quarrel with this government’s approach to combating extremism as a matter of fact, I support the initiatives. But, I do want to know why Islamic History Month Canada, the creation of a publicly known extremist group, continues on it’s traveling road show every year.

I want to know why my tax dollars funded it’s launch with an appearance at the Ottawa Police Station last Friday and why Kingston became the first Ontarian city in 2007 to proclaim CIC’s Islamic History Month a yearly event, signed by proclamation by its mayor. I want to know why it would be seen as suitable, that last years IHMC’s theme revolved around ‘Islamic solutions to finance’; an introduction to sharia finance/banking alternatives in Canada. I want to know why on October 25, a portion of my taxes will fund a contest for Muslim school children to participate in a contest for this year’s theme ‘Islam and the Environment’ to be held at Dalton’s Queen’s Park while my family struggles to pay him more in increased taxes for his costly eco-initiatives.

But most of all I want to know this: why do our government officials (of all parties) continue to host the CIC’s advancement of Islamist standards through their creation of Islamic History Month to any degree while simultaneously denouncing extremism? We’re seeking outreach with the wrong folks and are mistaken if we believe such bridge building efforts are not in fact, sharia compliant.

A day at a show-trial. Geert Wilders being hung out to dry

Posted on by

Please read this play-by-play over at Klein Verzet:

Today, it was the 1st real trial day in the prosecution against Geert Wilders and his opinions. The event is broadcasted live on Dutch state television and it’s quite a story:

The first amazing thing was that the court wanted to show Fitna in court. That means that for the first time, Fitna will be broadcasted on Dutch national television.

Second surprise was that at the start of the trial, Wilders his lawyer, unexpectedly stated that Wilders would use his right not to answer any questions during his trial, as he as his lawyer had advised him to do so.

His lawyer also asked the court to allow mister Wilders to make a small 2 minute statement in order for him to explain this decision. During the short statement Wilders defended free speech and declared that he has said what he has said and does not take anything back from it. Also he added that he can’t guarantee that anything that is attributed to him is also actually said by him.

The president of the court Jan Moorse then wanted to debate Wilders his decision, but again Wilders repeated that he wouldn’t not answer any questions in court. Then judge Jan Moorse amazingly did not accept his statement in which he took his right not to answer the court and even allowed him selves to make a value judgment about it. Judge Moorse said: that in the press Wilders has been criticized to make statements he is not willing to defend during debates and that he now seems to be doing the same thing here in court.

Jan Moors repeats political smear against Geert Wilders as if they are facts.

The rest is at the link at the top. Please read to see how democracy and due process of law becomes tyranny and Torquemada show trials.