Category Archives: Political Correctness

Guardian Newspaper Afraid Of The Truth?

Posted on by
Reprinted from Liberties Alliance by request:
By Aeneas • on August 19, 2010

An extremely biased article entitled ‘The EDL demonstration can’t be stopped? Rubbish’ was recently published by the Guardian Newspaper in the United Kingdom. It appears that this newspaper is more of a propaganda organ of the ruling elite and its approved version of event than it is of genuine journalism, and informing the public of current events in a balanced way. I made the following comment in response to this outrageous article that seemed to be written for the sole purpose of demonising the EDL and its important message to the British people:

“It is vital that people stand up and oppose the rise of sharia – the EDL are doing a service to civilization by taking up this cause. The EDL are not isolated, they are supported by people from all over the world from many walks of life, many cultures and many religions. It is a shame that the media chooses to continue to demonise the EDL and their valid message.

I think the so-called progressive element within British society are being hypocrites in two main ways. Firstly, they want to single out people to not have political rights because they disagree with their viewpoints. Secondly, they claim to be progressive but do not seem to be willing to oppose the drip, drip, entry of sharia into our socio-political environment, sharia being a system which is barbaric and blights the lives of millions around the world. By not opposing sharia they are condoning homophobia, tolerating misogyny, endorsing inequality before the law, undermining religious freedom (under sharia non-Muslims have a second class status), and supporting the emergency of a rival legal system and a two tier Britain. When I was involved in the politics of the left these were values that were central to its political philosophy. Now, the left seems to be totalitarian to the extent that they have embraced a form of fascism and totalitarianism. Continue Reading →

Canada Free Press:

Posted on by

Islam Means the End of Religious Freedom

By Daniel Greenfield  Sunday, August 15, 2010

image

At an Iftar dinner in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama proclaimed that he supports the building of the Ground Zero mosque as part of his “unshakable commitment to religious freedom”. Which of course sounds very noble and good, until you ask a single question, Where is the religious freedom in the Muslim world?

Obama has made the case for Islam in America, on the grounds that America’s religious diversity promotes the religious freedom of all. Islam no less than any other belief system. Yet if introducing Islam into America promotes religious freedom, then why is there no religious freedom in the Muslim world? Why are churches firebombed in Malaysia because Christians presumed to use the word Allah? Why are non-Muslims forbidden to enter the city of Mecca, from which Jews and Christians were ethnically cleansed by Mohammed? Why are Coptic Christians being oppressed and humiliated by the Egyptian government? Why are Muslims murdering Buddhist teachers in Thailand? There are a thousand examples, all of which add up to a single conclusion—Muslims demand religious freedom, yet are not willing to give it to others.

Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution

This has ominous implications for the prospects of religious freedom in America. Nor is this a theoretical issue. Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution. The recent case of Malmo, highlights the fact that Islam actually threatens religious diversity. Simply to protect themselves, Malmo’s 650 Jews were forced to spend half a million Kronor a year. The situation is much the same across Europe, as Jewish institutions are forced to become fortresses. What the Nazis did not succeed in accomplishing in Europe, the rise of Islam seems to be doing.

Nor are Christians safe, they are simply in the majority for now. But Christians and other religions were once in the majority in the Middle East. Until they were massacred and repressed by the tidal wave of Islam. Today the religions that were once a majority, whether it is Jews in Israel, Christians in Byzantium or Zoroastrians in Persia, have become oppressed minorities. Some may take comfort in the notion that “It can’t happen here.” But the fate of Europe’s Jews, shows that it can happen here. And that it is happening here.

Religious freedom requires that the religions which enjoy it, agree to tolerate each other. If they do not, instead of religious freedom, there is a religious war.

Looking at the religious map of the world today, Islam has grown in non-Muslim countries, while non-Muslims continue to dwindle in Muslim countries. And even the number of non-Muslim religious believers in non-Muslim countries dwindles, when Muslims are introduced into the equation. If Islam were a fish in a fish tank, it’s clear that it would be a piranha. If you put it into the fish tank, very soon you have a lot of Islamic piranhas and only a handful of other fish that survive, only because the piranhas need to keep some of them alive in order to feed on them. If you don’t like that picture, take an honest look at the Muslim world, with its dominant Muslim caste and inferior non-Muslims living in the cracks of their walls, and draw a better one.

Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom Continue Reading →

Bill Whittle does the best expose of the post modernists who polute our TV Hz.

Posted on by

This really is stunningly good. Probably the best thing on the dropping of the two atomic weapons on the Island of Japan I have seen.  And the fact that it needed to be made is as bad as the video is good. Also the movie, ‘The Fog of War’, an interview with Robert Strange Macnamera, is also very good on this subject.

Thank you Bill Whittle and PJTV for doing this video. I felt it worth reposting now that we are a few days out from the anniversary of dropping the big one.

Sdammat2 brings us Michael Coren on the ‘Victory Mosque’

Posted on by

Coren is truly one of my favourite TV regulars. An intellectual and with a great deal of integrity even though I do not agree with all his views. I certainly do agree with this:

“This Mosque is an act of triumphalism” -Michael Coren.

Sdamatt2 brings us this segment:

More Melanie: This one is… just read it.

Posted on by

From the Spectator:

Um… who needs protecting from whom here?

Sunday, 8th August 2010


An illuminating post on the excellent Muqata blog (backed up also here) reveals what western pro-Palestinian war (aka peace) activists don’t tell us what happens — it would seem frequently — to the women amongst them when they sally forth to protect the ‘defenceless’ Arabs against Israeli ‘aggression’. They get sexually assaulted by the defenceless Arabs.

Back in July, Ha’aretz reported the story of a former Arab convict named Alladin who would find these young female peace activist staying in nearby villages, he would tell them he was on the run from the Shabak (Israel security), and ask them to hide him. These young female dupes would of course be happy to help an Arab on the lam from the Israeli authorities and let him sleep in their rooms.

So far one girl initially came forward about the attempted rape against her. She was found wandering the village of Umm Salmuna (near Bethlehem) in a state of shock, so who knows if the attempt actually failed. But in the end [she] retracted her story due to pressure to ‘not hurt the cause’. Haaretz had learned that representatives of both the popular protest movement and the PA have since applied pressure on the American peace activist as to prevent her from making the story public.

The story could have ended there, except that there’s more. Apparently, quite a number of female protesters have been sexually assaulted and molested by the Arabs they are protesting for. One attack occurred just recently in Bil’in. After the army fired smoke gas towards the rioting crowd of ‘peace’ activists and Arabs, the protesters ran. One Arab decisively used the smoke cover as an opportunity to sexually assault one of the more seasoned female activists.

The problem has gotten so bad, that some female protesters have stopped showing up to the protests…Two months ago, some of the radical leftwing organizers started running secret workshops… The subject? ‘How to deal with sexual harassment during direct activities against the occupation’. The workshop is for female and transgender activists.

You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

Melanie Phillips on the persecution of Lars Hedigaard in Denmark

Posted on by

Its good to see people like Ms. Phillips noticing and publicizing this disgraceful action by Denmark which up to now, has been a beacon of light for freedoms in the gathering darkness of Scandinavian dhimmitude. (The next story there is rather revealing as well)

From the Spectator:


A chilling development in Denmark illustrates just how ‘hate speech’ laws, which were introduced by deluded western liberals, are being used to stifle and criminalise the expression of legitimate opinion and essential debate — the prerequisite of a liberal society. Lars Hedegaard is president of Denmark’s International Free Press Society, which is devoted to fighting to preserve freedom of expression — particularly against the threat from radical Islam to shut it down on the spurious grounds of ‘Islamophobia’. The inevitable has now happened: as Nathaniel Sugarman writes at The Legal Project, Hedegaard finds himself facing prosecution for ‘racism’ over remarks he has made about Islam.

The basis for Hedegaard’s prosecution was an interview from December 2009 in which he made controversial statements about Islam. These assertions included critiques of what Hedegaard saw as Islam’s permissiveness regarding child abuse and bearing false witness, as well as Islam’s general intolerance concerning apostacism and critical speech. Snaphanen, a Danish blog, published the original interview, and Hedegaard has since clarified some of his remarks.

For the rest, please click the Spectator link above the picture:

Australia: The first nation to notice the bloody obvious

Posted on by

While this is a stunning victory for logic and reason, it now provides both greater hope and greater contrast for the rest of Western nations who are self blinded by political correctness. In Canada for example, it i still technically illegal to say that ‘thieves steal’, as to cast aspersion on the identifiable group (by their mug shots presumably) by stating that they steal, would be likely to cause hatred towards them, and Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Commissions have already made it clear that “it doesn’t matter if what you say is true, only if its legal”

Meanwhile, in Australia:

From Andrew Bolt

Andrew Bolt

Saturday, August 07, 2010 at 12:02am

A very sane decision by the Equal Opportunity Division of the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal:


53 First, vilification of Muslims does not fall within section 20C(1), because Muslims are not a ‘race’ as defined in section 4 of the Act. The reason, as the Tribunal said in Khan [i.e., Khan v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services & anor [2002] NSWADT 131] at [18], is that Muslims ‘do not share common racial, national or ethnic origins’ and are therefore not an ethno-religious group such as the definition embraces. In so ruling, we follow the decisions, commencing with Khan, that are listed above at [44]. We are unaware of any recent authority to the contrary. It follows that any statements broadcast by the Respondents that generated negative feelings towards Muslims generally, or any group of Muslims, on the ground of their being Muslims could not amount to unlawful racial vilification.

(Thanks to readers Rachel and Michael.)

Denmark: Prosecution of Free Speech Advocate May Prompt Changes to Racism Laws

Posted on by

Note: Danish URLs can be viewed in English using Google translate.

On August 4, 2010, the Public Prosecutor for Copenhagen charged International Free Press Society (IFPS) president Lars Hedegaard with racism. The IFPS describes itself as an organization “exclusively devoted to defending the right of free expression.”

The basis for Hedegaard’s prosecution was an interview from December 2009 in which he made controversial statements about Islam. These assertions included critiques of what Hedegaard saw as Islam’s permissiveness regarding child abuse and bearing false witness, as well as Islam’s general intolerance concerning apostacism and critical speech. Snaphanen, a Danish blog, published the original interview, and Hedegaard has since clarified some of his remarks.

Hedegaard’s statements earned him a hate speech charge under Danish law. While Denmark’s constitution ostensibly protects freedom of expression and forbids censorship (see Section 77), the Criminal code provides that “expressing and spreading racial hatred” is a criminal offense punishable with up to two years imprisonment. (Article 266b) Continue Reading →

Afghanistan War: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement

Posted on by

I have received some informed comments that say that for the first time ever, the US could see some serious resistance to orders by rank and file soldiers because of the grotesque, and now even more so, rules of engagement in Afghanistan. Please click here for the article on how Petraeus has made it even harder to win, or even defend yourself, in the Afghan theatre.

For an example of how absurd the ROE were even before Petraeus, please read this interview Vlad Tepes did with John Bernard a week or so ago.

Eeyore for Vlad

What the World Isn’t Being Told about the Israeli-Lebanese Border Incident

Posted on by

Pajamas media did an excellent and blunt description of what took place on the Israeli side of the Lebanese border early this week, with a critique of the SM handling of the event. The first part is here, and you can click here to read the rest of it over at Pajamas Media.

Despite the careful “he said … she said” approach of the mainstream news media about the clash along the Lebanese-Israeli border this week, events are quite clear: Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were deliberately ambushed by Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).

In an outdoor press conference held at a lookout point above the Lebanese border where the incident occurred, Ilan Diksteyn, the deputy commander of the Israeli brigade, explained what happened. The IDF had notified the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)  of its intentions and complied with multiple requests to delay a routine job that should have started early in the morning and didn’t get going till midday.

According to Diksteyn, he had personally walked the border with the UNIFIL commander and identified all the trees and shrubs they intended to cut down, all approved of as being located on the Israeli side of the border by the UNIFIL commander. The key tree was some 200 meters from the Blue Line, so there was not the most remote possibility that Israel trespassed on Lebanese territory. The IDF even set out the crane without a man in it, just to demonstrate their intentions beforehand.

But no sooner did they put a man in the unit and lift him over the fence than a sniper shot and killed the commanding officer of the unit who was away from the border and observing from a distance. Despite claiming they fired first in the air, and that Israel initiated the hostilities, an LAF spokesman eventually asserted their right “to defend Lebanon’s sovereignty.”

The Israelis claim this was an ambush by units of the Lebanese Armed Forces. And as such, this was an unprecedented new level of aggression. Even the normally cautious UNIFIL, which the previous day had restricted itself to calling for calm and announcing its intention to investigate, eventually — and exceptionally — sided with Israel’s claim that the tree was on their side of the border. Even the Lebanese admit they carried out an ambush.

Of course, for UNIFIL to do so means that Israel had to be unquestionably and irrefutably in the right — “2-300 meters away,” the Israeli officer claimed. Otherwise the UN troops, which operate on the Lebanese side of the border and are subject to constant harassment by Hezbollah, would have found some way to equivocate if not prevaricate. After all, in violation of UN Resolution 1701, which the UNIFIL forces have been deployed to enforce, Hezbollah has managed to rearm and reoccupy the southern border. Indeed, pictures of UNIFIL troops standing side by side with heavily armed LAF troops suggest that the efforts to prevent a clash consisted primarily in getting the Israelis not to do what they had a right to do, rather than preventing the Lebanese from doing what they had no right to do.

From here on out, however, the story gets fuzzy. While some newspapers acknowledged UNIFIL’s confirmation of the Israeli “narrative,” few bothered to draw out the implications, and some, like France2, continued to insist the tree was on the Lebanese side. The New York Times, for example, in a remarkably uninformed article, acknowledged the correction, but ended up repeating the “he said … she said” dance by quoting Lebanese officials rather than questioning them about the problems. The Wall Street Journal emphasized the efforts of UNIFIL to prevent an incident, without even addressing the disturbing evidence that they collaborated in the ambush, and then took a day to state what they knew from the beginning — that Israel was on its own turf.

Solution to the world wide burka debate

Posted on by

Well, its debated at least in the parts of the world where debate is allowed. Of course, in much of the Islamic world, there is no debate on it. Women must wear it and the degree of severity is increasing, not decreasing.

I have taken the position that making some kind of garment illegal is a bad idea, contrary to purpose, and sets a dangerous precedent. Instead, governments should do, what they should do in general far more often, which is let the private sector determine what is in it’s own interest.

If the government simply does not interfere in our rights to not let burka clad or face covered women into our own homes, stores, businesses, taxis or mass transit etc. then these coverings become so inconvenient that they will not be worn. We need the same rights we have always had to determine our own interests. Precedents like the smoking bans in private bars have set the stage for governments to determine all that goes on inside. As a consequence, Muslims demand the right not only to do what they want in private space, but are beginning to demand we do not do what we want in private space. In this issue, as in so many, less government and regulation means less problems.

Thank you very much Tundra Tabloids for mocking up this sign for me so quickly.

Eeyore for Vlad

Shariah Comes to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan’s Decisions

Posted on by

Shariah Comes to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan’s Decisions Big Peace.Com

Posted by Christine Brim Aug 4th 2010 at 8:57 am in Justice/Legal, Obama, Uncategorized | Comments (0)

The Senate should not confirm Elena Kagan, because her views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Shariah law into national Constitutions and legal systems.  To excuse themselves for voting for her confirmation, Senators of both parties have told themselves this vote for Kagan’s confirmation will result in a harmless swap:  the substitution of one liberal justice for another.

The reality is far more threatening and unprecedented in American history.  A vote to confirm Elena Kagan’s nomination will bring a liberal, pro-Shariah justice to our highest Court.  And if she is confirmed, her behavior as Obama’s Solicitor General indicates she will refuse to recuse herself on any Shariah-related decision but instead will lead the charge to legitimate Shariah law in America.

Senators have told themselves they have little evidence on which to evaluate Kagan, because other than her work as Obama’s Solicitor General, she has no judicial experience.

But Kagan has made repeated and very public decisions about a judicial system – Shariah – and Senators should be obligated to take into account those decisions when they vote for her.  Her 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School is a history of those decisions, and every one of them  shows her “deep appreciation” of Shariah law.

Every vote for Kagan is a vote to bring a pro-Shariah view to the Supreme Court.  Here are five reasons to vote against Kagan’s nomination:

1. PRO-SHARIAH MISSION: With Kagan’s direction,  Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement (here on 9/2008, also 6/2009) dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.”  That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean. Continue Reading →

Obama admin takes Az. law enforcement to court for enforcing the law

Posted on by

Arizona Sheriff: ‘Our Own Government Has Become Our Enemy’

Monday, August 02, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer


Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu
(Correction: As initially posted, this story inaccurately said that Pinal County was contiguous with the Mexican border. It is in southern Arizona, but not on the border.)

(CNSNews.com) – Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu is hopping mad at the federal government.

Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.

“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.

The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state’s new immigration law.

“So who has partnered with the ACLU?” Babeu said in a telephone interview with CNSNews.com. “It’s the president and (Attorney General) Eric Holder himself. And that’s simply outrageous.” Continue Reading →

Once again the CBC shows contempt and scorn for Canada and democracy

Posted on by

The people at the CBC have crossed the line clean into treason at this point. They have assisted the people at Wikileaks, people who have published documents that will get many Afghans killed who cooperate with Western forces, Documents that are classified and now are in the enemies hands, CBC has actually indexed them for easier viewing and perusing. At least in terms of Canada’s participation. How is this not being a spy for the enemy? Why is the CBC or at least the people who are responsible for this post, not on trial for treason?

H/T Fred at GAR as well as Cjunk even if I do think they are being overly harsh on Harper. Stephen did in fact improve conditions for the Canadian military a great deal, undoing a lot of the damage from Chretien and Trudeau’s near obliteration of the Canadian military as a meaningful institution, and the Harper government continues to improve the equipment and resources available to our fine men in uniform.