Muslim Woman Stabbed to Death in German Courtroom

I suppose it was only a matter of time before an infidel went nuts and murdered a Muslim. Not that the Germans gave these two feuding neighbors the opportunity to get past their argument. Andy W. should have moved if he hated Muslims so much and the Muslim should have told him to “fuck off” in response to his “terrorist” verbals. Instead the courts became involved in a minor name-calling incident. Now Egyptians are crying racism [in between persecuting non-Muslims] and will, I’m sure demand that Muslims recieve an apology and retribution from Germany. I guess when a Muslim flies a plane into a building, cuts the throats of Christian missionaries or murders a Copt from Egypt pregidous and hatred are justified because it is in the Qu’ran.

 Don’t get me wrong readers. I hope Andy gets a long prison sentence but for Muslims anywhere to claim they do not deserve to be hated is a joke.

CAIRO —  Egyptians are horrified by the brutal slaying of a pregnant Muslim woman stabbed repeatedly inside a German courtroom, calling what they see as a lack of outrage in Germany evidence of racism and anti-Islamic sentiment.

On Monday, thousands of mourners marched behind the coffin of Marwa al-Sherbini, 32, in her Mediterranean hometown of Alexandria where her body was buried after being flown back from Germany.

“There is no god but God and the Germans are the enemies of God,” chanted the mourners, while others carried banners condemning racism.

“We will avenge her killing,” her brother Tarek el-Sherbini told The Associated Press by telephone from the mosque where prayers were being recited in front of his sister’s coffin. “In the West, they don’t recognize us. There is racism.”

Al-Sherbini, who was about four months pregnant and wore the Islamic head scarf, was involved in a court case against her neighbor for calling her a terrorist and was set to testify against him when he stabbed her 18 times inside the courtroom in front of her 3-year-old son.

Her husband, who was in Germany on a research fellowship, came to her aid and was also stabbed by the neighbor and shot in the leg by a security guard who initially mistook him for the attacker, German prosecutors said. He is now in critical condition in a German hospital, according to al-Sherbini’s brother.

“The guards thought that as long as he wasn’t blond, he must be the attacker so they shot him,” al-Sherbini told an Egyptian television station.

The man, who has only been identified as 28-year-old Alex W., remains in detention and prosecutors have opened an investigation on suspicion of murder.

Christian Avenarius, the prosecutor in Dresden where the incident took place, described the killer as driven by a deep hatred of Muslims. “It was very clearly a xenophobic attack of a fanatical lone wolf.”

He added that the attacker was a Russian of German descent who had immigrated to Germany in 2003 and had expressed his contempt for Muslims at the start of the trial.

At its regular news conference on Monday, a German government spokesman Thomas Steg said if the attack was racist, the government “naturally condemns this in the strongest terms.”

The killing has dominated Egyptian media for days, while it has received comparatively little coverage in German and Western media.

A German Muslim group criticized government officials and the media for not paying enough attention to the crime.

“The incident in Dresden had anti-Islamic motives. So far, the reactions from politicians and media have been incomprehensibly meager,” Aiman Mazyek, the general secretary of the Central Council of Muslims, told Berlin’s Tagesspiegel daily.

Egyptian commentators said the incident was an example of how hate crimes against Muslims are overlooked in comparison to hate crimes committed by Muslims against Westerners. Many commentators pointed to the uproar that followed the 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-born Islamic fundamentalist angry over one of his films criticizing the treatment of Muslim women.

Abdel Azeem Hamad, chief editor of the independent Egyptian daily el-Shorouk, said that if the victim had been a Jew, there would have been an uproar.

“What we demand is just some attention to be given to the killing of a young innocent mother on the hands of fanatic extremist,” he wrote in his column.

An Egyptian blogger Hicham Maged, wrote “let us play the ‘What If’ game.”

“Just imagine if the situation was reversed and the victim was a Westerner who was stabbed anywhere in the world or — God forbid — in any Middle Eastern country by Muslim extremists,” he said. This scenario has come up before. Were there not just recent attacks on tourists in Egypt? All for the greater glory of Allah. And what about the 15 year old Scottish boy tortured and murdered by Muslims a couple years back.

The Egyptian Pharmacists’ Association called for a boycott of German drugs. The victim was a pharmacist.

According to numerous interviews in Egyptian local papers with el-Sherbini family, the man who stabbed al-Sherbini used to accuse her of being a “terrorist,” and in one incident, he tried to take off her headscarf. Mourners at her funeral called her the “martyr of the head scarf.”

Laila Shams, al-Sherbini’s mother, told the el-Wafd daily that her daughter said she’d difficulty finding a job in Germany because of her head scarf.

“One (employer) suggested she remove her head scarf to get a job. She said no,” she said.

Officials from a German Muslim group and the country’s main Jewish group made a joint visit Monday to the Dresden hospital where the victim’s husband is being treated.

“You don’t have to be a Muslim to act against anti-Muslim behavior, and you don’t have to be a Jew to act against anti-Semitism,” said Stephan Kramer, the general secretary of the Central Council of Jews.

Muslim prisoners demand separate cells from Infidels

Of course Britain was only to happy to appease these Muslim criminals.

I am a British citizen and quite embarrassed at the weakness of my countrymen and the government it employs.

zNEWS_MUSLIM_IN_ENGLAND_1the daily mail-A prison has agreed to give Muslims their own cells after they complained about sharing with other inmates.They were said to be unhappy at praying and eating near non-Muslims at Birmingham’s Winson Green jail.It is thought to be the first time inmates have been segregated by religion. Prison bosses have decided to place them with other Muslims, or give them single cells when space is available.

More than 1,400 inmates, including murderers and robbers, are housed at the jail.

‘So far around 15 Muslim inmates have been accommodated either by being moved to a cell with another Muslim or put on their own,’ said a prison source. ‘They initially asked for their own wing but this was turned down.’

In June 2006, a High Court judge warned that Ministers must find cash to cope with growing prison numbers and called for an end to forced cell sharing. Mr Justice Keith’s concerns were included in his report into the racist murder of Asian prisoner Zahid Mubarek by his cellmate Robert Stewart at Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution in West London.

The judge called for a new concept of ‘institutional religious intolerance’ to combat prejudice against Muslim inmates.

There has also been concern among the 200-strong Muslim contingent in Winson Green about the halal meat served there. It had been prepared on site but, after complaints, is now brought in by an authorised supplier at what is thought to be extra cost.

One prison officer said: ‘This has caused resentment because it is felt the Muslim inmates are getting special treatment.’

A Prison Service spokesman said: ‘Prisoner requests to share cells can be accommodated in some circumstances, such as prisoners sharing religious and dietary needs. All requests are subject to a risk assessment.’

About ten per cent of the 80,000-strong jail population in England and Wales is Muslim.

Mich.: Witnesses May Have To Remove Veil

Ginnah Muhammad and lawyer Nabih Ayedfrom CBS News 

The Michigan Supreme Court voted Wednesday voted to give judges authority over how witnesses dress in court after a Muslim woman refused to remove her veil while testifying in a small claims case.

A statewide court rule letting judges regulate the appearance of witnesses, such as asking them to remove face coverings, was approved by a 5-2 vote. The dissenters said there should be an exception for people whose clothing is dictated by their religion.

Justices heard last month from a Muslim woman who sued because her small claims case was dismissed when she refused to remove her veil.

Hamtramck District Judge Paul Paruk told Ginnnah Muhammad he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness. The 45-year-old from Detroit kept her niqab on during the 2006 hearing.

“If state courts can require people to remove their veils to get their driver’s license photos, they can require people to testify without a veil absent some extraordinary circumstance,” said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen.

“The reason we don’t see many of these stories is that it’s absolutely fundamental in a trial for the judge and jurors and defendants to see the facial expressions of a witness who is testifying, unless that witness is in mortal danger of being identified,” said Cohen, so I think this challenge will fail.”

Some Muslim leaders interpret the Quran to require that a woman wear a headscarf, veil or burqa in the presence of a man who is not her husband or close relative.

After Muhammad sued the judge, the Michigan Judges Association and Michigan District Judges Association pressed a court rule that gave judges “reasonable” control over the appearance of parties and witnesses to observe their demeanor and ensure they can be accurately identified.

“No First Amendment right is absolute,” said Cohen, “and this one bends to other amendments which protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial, which includes allowing the judge and jury to measure the facial expressions of witnesses. So this ruling is NOT a surprise, nor particularly controversial.”

The two justices who voted against the rule Wednesday said they favored a religious exception endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and religious groups.

Muhammad originally went to court to contest a $3,000 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had broken into.

The Detroit area is home to one of the country’s largest Muslim populations. Legal observers have said the veil flap is a cutting-edge issue that will arise elsewhere in the United States.


Christian Man Raped, Murdered for Refusing to Convert to Islam, Family Says

Now if the main-stream media would only start reporting on the hundreds or thousands of cases of forced convertion that happen in Islamic society all under the nose of police and government officials. I’m sure some of this will be addressed in Obamas next speech to his Muslim brothers and sisters.

Convert or Die. Infidel

Convert or Die. Infidel

FOX NEWS
  A young Christian man was raped and brutally murdered in Pakistan for refusing to convert to Islam, and police are doing nothing about it, the victim’s brother and minister told FOXNews.com.Pakistani police reportedly found the body of Tariq “Litto” Mashi Ghauri — a 28-year-old university student in Sargodha, Pakistan — lying dead in a canal outside a rural village in Punjab Province on May 15. He had been raped and stabbed at least five times.

“They have sexually abuse him, torture him with a knife on his testicle and genitals,” Ghauri’s brother, 24-year-old Salman Nabil Ghauri, said. “They have tortured him very badly, and after that they have stabbed five times with a knife and killed him.”
The family believes Litto Ghauri was murdered by the brothers of his Muslim girlfriend, Shazi Cheema, after they found him in a compromising sexual position with their sister.

The Rev. Haroon Bhatti, a Christian clergyman in the village and a friend of the Ghauri family, said Cheema’s three brothers came to Litto Ghauri’s house on May 11 and gave him an ultimatum: Marry their sister and convert to Islam.“On that farmhouse — four days there — we all, Christians and family, were searching for him,” the Rev. Bhatti said. “I was with him. I was searching for him.”

 After police discovered the body, Ghauri’s death was declared a homicide and the family filed paperwork with the Atta Shaheed police station in their small village, Adda 44SB. But Ghauri’s brother said police still have not arrested the alleged killers and have refused to meet with his family. Continue Reading →

Gag Order Issued in Army Recruiter Shooting Case

One has to wonder why this case, which has received so little coverage already, will now receive none. I guess the Americans are worried that openly discussing the facts in this case might offend the Muslim community. The same Muslim community that supplied the religious teachings responsible for this American citizen to become a Jihadist. Muhammad’s lawyer will try to convince the courts he was indoctrinated to hate during his two week incarceration in Yemen. When in fact he was turned here in America and went to Yemen to meet, greet and support Jihadist there.

[I would like to add a weird thought of my own. It seems to me that this soldier should get a full military funeral for death in action. Clearly he deserves one and not to give him one would be a crime. However, if he does get one, it would be de facto admission that the USA is at war WITH ISLAM. Now this would make a fool of Obama and waste a lot of time he spent on his reach out to the Muslim world tour, but there seems no way out of this one to me. Eeyore for Vlad]

4_64_long_william2

art_ar_suspect_katv1

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. —  A judge has issued a gag order in the capital murder case against the man accused of killing one soldier and wounding another at a military recruiting office in Arkansas.

Judge Alice Lightle issued the order Monday after prosecutors requested it to block court officials and police from discussing the case.

Jim Hensley, attorney for suspect Abdulhakim Muhammad, said last week his client was influenced by hardened terrorists with whom he was jailed in Yemen.

Muhammad allegedly wanted to kill as many soldiers as he could because of harm he believed the military has done to Muslims.

Killed at the west Little Rock office was Army Pvt. William Long of Conway, who had just completed basic training and never saw combat.

Greek Muslims sue for alleged ‘desecration’ of a book.

From Jihad Watch:

Greece: Muslim associations sue policeman for allegedly desecrating a Koran

And “demand” an apology. More on this story. “Greek Muslim associations sue policeman,” from SETimes.com, May 26:

ATHENS, Greece — Muslim associations in Athens have filed a lawsuit against a policeman who allegedly desecrated a copy of the Koran last week, media reported on Monday (May 25th). Last Thursday, the policeman allegedly took a Koran from a customer during a police check at an Athens coffee shop, ripped it apart, threw it on the floor and stomped on it. Police say the officer did not know it was Islam’s holy book.The Pakistani community in Greece called on the government to assume responsibility for the incident and demanded an apology from authorities. The incident prompted two days of protests by hundreds of Muslims in central Athens. Violent clashes with police on Friday injured at least 14 people and damage several businesses; 46 people were arrested.

This may be the right time to announce a small project. By sometime this week I hope to have three new videos up on youtube. The question I will be asking is, what will the reaction be to these three videos, all of which will be identical in most ways yet curiously different in one.

More on that as I get closer to posting the videos.

Eeyore

Some consequences of blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

Keep in mind, Ireland is seriously considering introducing anti blasphemy laws. This would be to say the least, retrograde to liberal democracy which has as it’s very foundation the right to criticize irrational religious authority. But what may make this more dangerous than even the horrors of European blasphemy we learn about during the middle ages is the idea that Islam would be able to employ these laws. In fact, they are being instituted within Europe specifically for Muslims. This means that the least tolerant and most arbitrary interpretation of blasphemy would have criminal implications.

Islam tends to feel that it is blasphemous for non believers to disobey Koranic teachings. For an example, religious Jewish people do not eat pork but at no time do they ask non Jews to not eat pork. Muslims in the UK have already protested even images of pigs to the point where financial institutions in the UK have stopped giving the traditional piggy banks to children and UK police had to pull an add that used a puppy dog as Muslims apparently also object to the existence of dogs. When Islam is given the power of law to enforce their endless sensitivities on the general non Muslim population we can kiss arts and literature goodbye as well as necessary freedoms of speech required to maintain a culture and civilization of growth and development.

Remember, history did not start at the renaissance. Ours would not be the first modern society which fell to barbarism superstition and irrational religious authority. I’m dead certain that the ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines and even the Persians and ancient Egyptians thought exactly what you are now.

“This can never happen here”

Women of the world…..

Dear people of planet Earth who have two X chromosomes,

I have a question for you.  There is a trial going on in Ottawa and many more across the Western world. Grace has written beautifully on it here on Vlad.  The potential exists for a judge in Canada – as judges have now in Germany, England, and many European nations – to accept an argument that reduces the sentence of men who have murdered women in a premeditated fashion for failing to be obedient to tribal codes, and, more accurately, for being autonomous human beings.

To be even more clear, as in Germany and other Western nations, a judge is about to reduce the value of a woman’s life because she failed to be less than a human being. If this Sharia defense is accepted and the sentence is reduced all the gains women have made in law will be not only be destroyed, but also set back centuries and in some Western nations such as England, millenia.

My question is as follows:

Remember when you, XX people, were marching in the streets by the tens of thousands, burning bras for some slight, real or imagined, about equality in the work place, leaving toilet seats up?   How about the annual women’s marches over the Muslim immigrant known as Marc Lepine (whose father was in fact an Algerian Muslim) who shot up a women’s technical school in Montreal because he felt that women had no place doing anything other than servicing men?  (This action, by the way, was nothing less and nothing other than Canada’s first Muslim terrorist act demanding Sharia law).  Women inexplicably marched, trying to gain political advantage over men overall.

Well, here we have a situation which has already happened in Germany, etc., in which women’s lives are to be extinguished or pawned off at the whim of Muslim men and it may well happen here in Canada this month.

Why are you not marching?  Why are you not gathering en masse 24/7 in front of the federal court on Elgin St. with pitchforks and torches demanding that this man not be able to get away with anything other than two counts of first degree murder?

Have women in Canada abandoned all sense of equality before the law where it actually counts: when their very lives are on the line?  Or are you more concerned about not offending the multiculti sensitivities of Afghans, Saudis, and the ‘poor,’ ‘weak,’ ‘oppressed’ 1/6th of the world’s population that controls over a third of its land mass and a disproportionate amount of its oil?

I wish I had the words to express the rage I feel at this time, to have grown up seeing women protesting against every conceivable slight and win the points. Things as absurd and impossible to define as demanding ‘equal pay for work of equal value’ yet failing to make a peep to stop it from being ok to just slaughter women and little girls for picking their own friends and lovers.

I am apoplectic.

Ladies, this is it. If you fail yourselves now, you may have to wait a thousand years before you can begin to worry about whether or not you have a right to sue for sexual harassment at the workplace because the geeky guy in the cubicle next to you asked you out in exactly the manner you wished the hot guy down the hall would. Before you get to concern yourselves over why the city of Ottawa allows men to go topless and women must cover up – a stupid fight, which, by the way, women sort of won (I say sort of because women are in fact now allowed to go topless in Ottawa unless they actually do, as happened at Ottawa football games a few years ago when city council decided Mardis Gras nights where exploiting women and made it illegal again) – you need to fight for your right to bare your face in public, because that’s what Sharia has in store for you, girls.

Ladies, march now or forever be cut into pieces.

Eeyore for Vladtepesblog.com

Ireland, Blasphemy and freedom of Speech

Thursday, May 07, 2009 Gates of Vienna:

How Are Things in Éirestan?

by Dymphna

Gates of Vienna received several confluent emails today, all of them focusing on Ireland. None of them had any good news, and some of the bad news appears to this outsider to be a distraction from worse reports.

Most of the news concerned the new blasphemy laws being considered by the Irish government. After doing a bit of research, it’s still confusing, so perhaps our Irish readers can chime in with some clarifications on this.

If I have it right, there is a rule in the Irish Constitution banning blasphemy. Given that the Constitution was written when the Republic of Ireland was largely (and repressively Jansenist) Roman Catholic, one can see why such a rule might have appeared on the books at the time.

Up to now, there’s been no legislation enacted to enforce this part of the Constitution. Reports I’ve read and listened to say that the one time a case appeared before their Supreme Court, no ruling was able to be made because no one could adequately define “blasphemy”.

However, this hasn’t stopped the enthusiasm for tough legislation. From the Irish Times:

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern has said he is not trying to create a new law to criminalise blasphemy in new proposals he believes will clear up rules already on the books.

Mr Ahern has tabled an amendment to the Defamation Bill 2006, which defines blasphemy and threatens fines of €100,000 for those who commit it.

This will hit a person who intentionally produces material “grossly abusive” to anything held sacred by any religion.

I smell a burning Motoon here. If this law (being pushed by what group??) is enacted, cartoonists are on alert: be careful what you draw. Writers beware what you write. Theatre producers and film directors: self-censor or you’re in gaol.

They seem to have pinned down the meaning of blasphemy now. It is no longer ephemeral. Instead, it has been transformed into something completely subjective, to wit:

“Blasphemous matter” is defined as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

Got that? Blasphemy has to be “grossly abusive”- so would someone define the standards of “grossly”, please? What if it’s only a little bit abusive? And who decides the gradient here, the abuser or the rager? Is this akin to being a little bit pregnant versus being very pregnant?

Which brings up the next airy-fairy part of this proposed piece of legislation. What constitutes a “substantial number of adherents” to a religion? Ten percent? Twenty? A large-ish crowd breaking windows in their rage? Is that really “a substantial number of adherents” they’re describing or merely thugs bent on acting out because the aggrieved ones like to smash things?

Lastly, we have that old bugaboo, intention. What if the cartoonist mentioned above had no intention of offending anyone? What if the actions of the ragers and flag burners take him totally by surprise? What if his intention is solely to amuse and he is affronted by the attempt to besmirch his art?

What if his drawings amuse a larger, even more substantial number of the populace than those who are outraged? Is blasphemy to be decided on a case-by-case vote? Those who thought it was funny, raise your hand. Those who thought it was blasphemous, break something.

The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, the tea being furiously brewed by the left multi-culti who demand free expression for everyone they decide is worthy of same. The philosophical contortions these folks engage in are fascinating…kind of.

From the Irish Times again:
– – – – – – – – –

However, a spokes-man for the minister [Ahern] said he was merely acting on the advice his department received from successive attorneys general and was solving a long-standing legal problem. This was because the Constitution already demands that there be a law against blasphemy. Article 40 says either publishing or speaking in a blasphemous way would be an offence.

While the 1961 Defamation Bill included a provision to jail those who committed blasphemy, this was compromised by a Supreme Court ruling in 1999 which said it was impossible to define what the offence was. This effectively meant that without a definition no charges could stand up.

Mr Ahern’s spokesman said: “This is the elephant in the room, because it has to be sorted out one way or another. The people could decide to change the Constitution by way of Referendum, but without that there has to be some law.

“The minister has been given advice that this has to be addressed . . . [besides] with this amendment you cannot be jailed for the charge,” he said.

The amendment will leave it at the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions whether or not to press charges.

The “article 40”of the Irish Constitution mentioned above is found here (scroll way down). This is the relevant part of the text of Article 40:

6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law”

For better or worse, the Republic of Ireland has largely abandoned its Roman Catholic identity. So what religion could possibly be in a dither about getting this new law enacted? Occam’s Razor would tell you the leaders of the influx of Muslim immigrants into Ireland are most likely behind the push for a blasphemy law.

If you think Ireland isn’t struggling like the rest of Europe to avoid sliding down the dhimmitube, see this old post from 2007.

As Maire says, if the point is to modernize the laws of Ireland, why not just repeal this one? I’m not sure, but it may be that if it’s part of the Constitution itself, repeal would be a long, difficult process. However, just as she is, I am suspicious of this attempt to shut people up so the Rageboys won’t be offended.

We’re not the only ones who find this offensive. Here’s Kevin Myers, in the Irish Independent, with his view:

Blasphemy Law Only Panders to the Deranged Instincts of an Intolerant Immigrant Minority

How very thoughtful of Dermot Ahern to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the proclamation of the fatwa on Salman Rushdie for blasphemy by introducing our very own blasphemy laws.

Not merely will this enable any group of nutters to claim their religion has been insulted — well, by whom? Kevin Myers? Ian O’Doherty? — but it will also enable our many Muslim immigrants to feel thoroughly at home.

Because that is a defining feature of every Islamic society throughout the world: an intrusive and punitive legal code which destroys the lives of those adjudged guilty of insulting the Prophet or Allah. In Afghanistan, it is the death penalty. Pakistan too. Egypt as well. And so on. Why not the same, sooner or later, in dear old Eirestan?

Christianity as a potent, political and legal force is dead in Europe. Islam is not. Christians do not expect their religion to be protected by law from religious insult. Muslims do. A blasphemy code will, in effect, turn out a new variant of a local shop for local people: but here in secular/Christian Ireland, it will become a Muslim law for non-Muslim people.

Mr. Myers continues at eloquent length on this subject. I urge you to open the link and read the rest of his excellent polemic because I am leaving out the meat in the middle of the essay. But here is the conclusion:

We all know it. We just don’t say it. So I can call the Virgin Mary, who most Irish people believe to be the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of Mankind, a whore, and no-one will open my carotid. But were I to make any such remark about Mohammed’s wives, which is what Rushdie was accused of doing — and I wouldn’t: O believe me, I wouldn’t — then at best, I would be spending the rest of my life under armed guard, or at worst, I would be strumming my harp alongside Theo van Gogh. He was, remember, killed without fatwa, and his murderer, Mohammed Bouyeri, is now an Islamic hero.

That doesn’t mean we should corrupt our legal code in order to propitiate Islamicists. Yet all media discussion on this and related topics is dominated by state-subsidised bodies — the intercultural this, and the multi-ethnic that. The primary function of these quangos is apparently to be gravely insulted whenever their quivering multicultural sensibilities are offended.

And then they can institute legal action to silence — or even imprison, which was the threat hanging over me last year — those whose voices they disapprove of. These arms of the State now constitute a cultural Fifth Column, possessing a clear and dangerous agenda. [my emphasis – D] The minister’s proposed blasphemy law can thus only pander to the deranged instincts of an absolutist, intolerant immigrant minority, and its politically-correct, pseudo-liberal native allies: Lenin’s useful idiots, yet again.

Maire, our tipster, included some You Tube videos about the blasphemy debate. I haven’t embedded them as they are long, and probably require some context to understand completely.

Part 1 is here.

Part 2 is here.

They’re both excerpted from Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE), which is Ireland’s state television.

I will be posting about Ireland again in the near future. Things don’t look good for the Emerald Isle.

British hospital bans paintings of churches.

Please England give up the charade. You are a Muslim nation now. Stop pretending you are a secular state which allows freedom and liberal values but are retending to reasonable accomodation to Islam. You shame yourself twice by pretending.

The hospital that banned paintings of churches

By Lucy Ballinger
Last updated at 2:43 AM on 05th May 2009

It was supposed to be a kind gesture to brighten up a hospital for patients.

But a council managed to enrage local artists when it asked them to contribute their paintings to hang in wards.

In an unsolicited letter, Havering council in East London made it clear it would accept pictures of any subject – except churches.

St Paul's Cathedral: Images of this iconic London church would not have been permitted at the Queen's Hospital at Romford

St Paul’s Cathedral: Images of this iconic London church would not have been permitted at the Queen’s Hospital at Romford

The explanation given was that the hospital had to be ‘mindful of all religious denominations’.

Many artists could not understand why images of Christian buildings were banned, but those of other religions were welcome.

Jo Delaney, the council’s arts development officer wrote to art groups in Havering about hanging paintings in Queen’s Hospital, Romford.

She wrote: ‘Whilst the building is spacious, it has many plain black walls which are crying out to be brightened up!

‘The matron of patient environment is keen for local artists to use the space as a gallery.

‘The hospital has asked artists not to submit paintings of churches as they have to be mindful of all religious denominations.’

Artist Roy Storey said that when he phoned the council to complain he was told it was the matron’s decision if she did not want pictures of churches.

Local painter Beryl O’Brien, 71, said: ‘There are so many religious beliefs, why would they pick on churches?

‘What about synagogues? A painting is a good picture because it is a good composition, not because of the religion.

‘It seems ridiculous to try to be so inclusive, and by doing that exclude people who are tolerant to some extent.’

Mrs O’Brien said the hospital had tainted what was a ‘lovely idea’. She did not know anyone who had submitted a painting yet.

A Havering council spokesman said the terms of the initiative were set by the hospital and the council had only been asked to pass on the information.

A spokesman for Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS trust said its director of nursing had no knowledge of the letter’s content and therefore it had no comment.

Geert Wilders speech in L.A. Spanish subtitles

[kaltura-widget wid=”fsl2rl07zo” width=”510″ height=”439″ addpermission=”3″ editpermission=”3″ /]

A special thanks to many people who did very hard and laborious work to make the Spanish subtitles possible. First, AMDG from “La Yijad en Eurabia” and ‘Montcalm’ who clearly understands the urgency and severity that Geert Wilders Message gets out to the Spanish speaking world. Thank you both for your efforts. I pray this achieve our common purpose.

Islam a political target in Norway

islam46

from the BBC April 22, 2009

With less than six months to go until Norway’s general election, increasing tensions over immigration and Islam appear likely to play a significant role in the vote.

The leader of the country’s main opposition party has warned that it is facing “sneak-Islamisation”, while some prominent Muslims say they face growing “persecution”.

The heated debate is a sign that Norway, renowned as one of the most peaceful and tolerant nations in the world, is facing the same issues with its Muslim minority as are now familiar in other parts of Europe.

Siv Jensen, the 39-year-old leader of the opposition Progress Party, has objected to moves to introduce special measures in order to accommodate Muslims’ religious sensitivities, traditions and rules.

“The reality is that a kind of sneak-Islamisation of this society is being allowed,” she recently told a Progress Party conference. “We are going to have to stop this.”

Opinion polls suggest the party could win as much as 30% of the vote in the election for the national parliament, the Storting, in September.

“If the Progress Party gets to govern Norway, we will enforce Norwegian law and Norwegian rules. We are not going to allow special demands from any single group in society,” Ms Jensen added. Continue Reading →

Bus driver fired in Niqab passenger controversy

What was this driver thinking. Everyone knows that the laws the rest of us obey do not apply to Muslims. Sheesh, when we we ever learn?

pakistan

the Copenhagen Post April 14-2009

Union to challenge dismissal of bus driver fired in Funen case of niqab wearing passenger

A 41-year-old bus driver who made headlines two weeks ago after refusing to let a woman wearing a niqab onto his bus was fired on Tuesday by his employer, Fynbus.

According to the bus driver, the woman showed him a monthly pass, which has a photograph of the pass holder on it. When he asked her to lower her veil so he could be certain she was the woman pictured on the pass, she refused, whereupon he told her she could not ride on the bus.

The woman attempted to re-enter the bus four times and was removed on each occasion.

The driver’s labour union, 3F, indicated that they believed the firing to be a political statement and are therefore challenging the dismissal.

Iran complains to UN about Israeli “threats”

Oh, the hypocrisy.

_40806272_president_afp203bodyTue Apr 14, 2009  UNITED NATIONS,  (Reuters) – Iran on Tuesday called on the United Nations to respond firmly to what it described as Israel’s “unlawful and insolent threats” to launch an attack on Tehran’s nuclear installations.

Israeli officials, including President Shimon Peres, recently have suggested that the Jewish state could use military force to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, as the West suspects it is doing.

Iran insists it is only interested in building reactors that peacefully generate electricity.

Its U.N. ambassador, in a letter to Mexican U.N. Ambassador Claude Heller, said Israel was violating the U.N. charter and urged the international body to respond clearly and resolutely. Mexico holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council.

“These outrageous threats of resorting to criminal and terrorist acts against a sovereign country and a member of the United Nations not only display the aggressive and warmongering nature of the Zionist regime, but also constitute blatant violations of international law,” Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee wrote.

The letter came two days after Peres told Israel’s Kol Hai radio that Israel would respond with force if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refused to soften his position on proceeding with an uranium enrichment program.

“We’ll strike him,” Peres said in the interview.

An aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted last month by Atlantic magazine as saying the government was weighing the military option.

Khazaee said the remarks were “unlawful and insolent threats” based on “fabricated pretexts.”

OBAMA WORRIED

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has said that Israel should be “wiped off the map,” has vowed to continue his country’s nuclear program. Continue Reading →

Pakistani Cleric: Swat Deal Gives Taliban Immunity

[kaltura-widget wid=”iy0n2ukur4″ width=”410″ height=”364″ addpermission=”3″ editpermission=”3″ /]

Of course the murders and other crimes committed by the Taliban, including selling and profiting from drugs, are all part of jihad so are legal under Islamic law.

From ABC News

Pakistani cleric claims deal imposing Islamic law in troubled valley grants Taliban immunity

Asked Tuesday in a television interview if the new courts would hear complaints from Swat residents about Fazlullah or his followers, Muhammad said they could not.

“We intend to bury the past,” Muhammad told the ARY channel, sitting off-screen because he considers photographic or TV images to be against Islam. “Past things will be left behind and we will go for a new life in peace.”  I’m amazed there is room what with all the heads buried both figuratively and non

Asked if the Taliban would enjoy such immunity, a provincial government minister only pleaded for calm so that peace could take hold.

“Everyone should understand what we have gone through and what kind of hardship people in Swat have suffered,” Wajid Ali Khan said. “We can look into any disputes and controversy at some later stage.”

After weeks of foot-dragging, Zardari approved the Sharia regulation late Monday only after Parliament voted unanimously to adopt a resolution urging him to sign it.

His apparent reluctance has fueled doubts about whether the pact will hold. Few of the estimated 500,000 people displaced by the fighting have felt confident enough to return.

The resolution also diluted Zardari’s personal responsibility for a pact that has drawn fierce criticism from rights groups as well as Pakistan’s foreign backers, who are pumping billions of dollars into the country in hopes of stabilizing its pro-Western democracy.

Federal Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said Tuesday that the pact was little more than a tactical maneuver in the country’s “long war” with extremists.

“Those people who want to hijack Pakistan and destabilize Pakistan, they used (the demand for speedy justice) as a propaganda tool,” Kaira said. “We have taken that idea out of the hand of the exploiters.”

He insisted the Sharia legislation would not introduce a version of Islamic law like that introduced by the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

“It is a misconception that we are going to enforce Mullahism,” he said.

A spokesman for the Taliban said the militants would cooperate. If the law is quickly implemented, “the world will see how much peace and prosperity comes to this region,” Muslim Khan said.