Category Archives: soft jihad

Apparent Selective Application Of The Law In The United Kingdom

Posted on by

Aenaes over at ICLA did this post on selective enforcement in England, which for all practical purposes, makes it a Muslim country. Selective enforcement of the law, is perhaps the most pernicious form of deployment of tyranny. First, pass into law, a bunch of really really bad ideas that people accept because if they are enforced accross the board they are at least, equally unfair to all, and then only apply those laws to the people who you want to eliminate. This, is what Western nations are doing accross the board against secularists, Christians and Jews, and frankly all non-Muslims, perhaps even more so in Canada than in England as we saw in the case of the Montreal imam and Point De Bascule

Eeyore for Vlad:

Some Muslims appear to think that they can do just about anything in the name of their so-called god, and the British authorities seem all too willing to go along with them. The following video outlines an incident that illustrates this point rather well. The video relates to a group of Muslims going round an area putting stickers on people’s houses. The video is entitled ‘You can’t scare me into silence’:


Christians have been challenged by police when they have been handing out leaflets in so-called ‘Muslim areas’ of the United Kingdom, even though they were not defacing private property as those Muslims in the video were alleged to be doing. I would imagine that atheists would treated in the same way if they tried to encourage Muslims to leave their precious religion. Surely Muslims deserve to be made aware of the alternatives to their religion. Perhaps their lives would be improved if they ceased bowing to Allah. There seems to be a tendency in the United Kingdom to prevent people discussing the awkward truths associated with the Islamic religion. This tendency is totally inconsistent with the established customs of freedom and openness that traditionally characterise British society.

The footage also touches on the issue of Muslims apparently making false allegations and using the gullibility of politically correct authorities to intimidate non-Muslims further. Laws such as the Racial and Religious Hatred Act seem to be tools that some in the Muslim community use to intimidate non-Muslims. It also seems that this Act is mainly used in a highly selective way against white people. Since these laws do not seem to be applied evenly they should be repealed as a matter of urgency. After all, the new LibCon Government claims to be opposed to the police state that was built up by the previous Labour administration and as such should dismantle that particular part of it.

If the EDL Dudley ‘Rooftop Two’ can be tazered and locked up for practicing freedom of expression, why are Muslims allowed to deface people’s houses and intimidate them and not be subject to similar treatment. Why are the Muslim perpetrators of the incident mentioned in this video still at liberty and walking the streets? It is not acceptable for the authorities to treat Muslims more favorably than everyone else just because of a perception that Muslim communities may riot or that ‘community cohesion’ may be adversely affected. It seems that the politically correct authorities in the United Kingdom are becoming no different from sharia enforces, the sort of people who send school girls back into burning buildings because they are not properly dressed.

Of policy, trends and freedom of speech, and all which rely upon it.

Posted on by

Here are some examples which are, to the best of my knowledge, in order of oldest to newest and show a policy being enforced, or one formed from a trend, or perhaps more insidiously, from some kind of manual.

First, the Israeli ambassador to the US was shouted down, and his speech ended before it began at California Irvine.

Then, former Belgian leftist, who had seen the effects of Islam on all the things he actually cared about, changes his mind and was about to speak at a Norwegian university on Islam and the following happened, where the disrupters credited the students at Irvine of showing them the way:

Lastly, we have todays winner. In a highly calculated ploy to destroy anyone who would oppose Islamic primacy in Europe, Lars Vilks is shouted down and attacked at a university in Sweden. Lots of  information here on Vlad if you want to scroll down a bit. I just felt that this is becoming sufficiently a calculated spreading pattern that it needs to be demonstrated as such, and as such, a counter strategy had better be deployed soon, if we wish to preserve any semblance of the things that gave humanity pretty much everything we have gained since the darkest most brutal and crushingly unfair points of our history.

On bans, women’s clothing and equal rights.

Posted on by

Many nations and territories are contemplating, drafting and passing legislation to deal with the issue of women’s Islamic clothing. This is indeed a very serious issue. But one which, in my opinion, is not being dealt with at all well by any of the nations I have read about so far such as Canada, (Quebec and other provinces) France, Belgium etc.

It would appear that most nations just wish to ban the garments by name or, ban them in some configurations, and still other people are arguing that Islam does not really mandate these clothes at all, so why submit to demands to allow them to be worn?

Both approaches are counter productive.

For one thing, you cannot protect the rights of women by removing women’s rights and that includes the right to wear whatever stupid burlap sack she may wish to wear on her head for religious reasons, and I say this even though I believe this has much more to do with the establishment of the primacy of Islam in ‘Dar Al Harb’ more than it has to do with any actual religious requirement. So yes, it is a political garb, and yes, we have to let them wear it or else being a free country means nothing.

So how do we fight the incursion of Islam and its draconian and misogynist rules?

Easy. We just enforce the rules we always had.

The fact is, for all of liberal democracy until the birth of political correctness as a political force within free nations it was always understood that making one choice logically precluded certain other choices. It was also understood what freedom of religion actually meant.

It meant that a person was free to practice their religion without fear of the state pounding on their doors and burning them at the stake for calling their gods by other names or denominations.

It never meant that they could break the secular laws of the state under the flimsy excuse that their religion mandates it. In fact, it should be considered a fantastic thing by most people merely that they have the choice to make the choice.

Under Mulroney, Canada made a catastrophic mistake. I said so then, and maintain it now.

We allowed a man who chose to be a Sikh, to wear his turban with the official uniform of the RCMP.

Clearly Mulroney, as much as I liked him then as now, did not get the big picture.

That Sikh had the choice in Canada of being a Sikh without fear from the state or the Muslims next door. He had the choice of joining the RCMP and not being refused because he was a Sikh. But in no way should he have not had to make the choice between the uniform and the Turban.

Religion in Canada is NOT compulsory.

As no one has to be a certain religion, then there is no need for the state to accommodate any religious practices a person may have. That Sikh could have chosen to wear the turban in off hours, to quit that aspect of his religion, (I will not accept any argument that he cannot pick and choose what aspects of his religion to follow, all religious people do this and I mean all of them and Sikh’s routinely go to war with each other in Canada over degree of observance) He could also have chosen to accept his religion over being in the police since it would not fit the uniform.

The very notion of one choice precluding another seems to have vanished from the public mind. If a persons religion requires him to stink like a skunk then I reserve the right not to hire him at my restaurant. The same goes for now several Muslim women who sued because they were denied jobs at hairdressers when they refused to remove the veil.

Once again for clarity before I move on to the next point:

Since religion is not compulsory in Canada, then no accommodation needs to be made for people’s religious choices whatsoever.

This being the case, then here is how to handle any religious clothing etc. Whether it is Muslims Sikh’s Jews or whoever.

There is already all kinds of laws governing safety. Simply do not make an exception for religious people, as if their irrational beliefs somehow gives them the right to drive with their eyes covered. Make it absolutely clear that when driving you have to have nothing on your head that might obstruct your vision and make it dangerous to drive. Easy as pie.

Next, in factories, do not make exceptions for people who claim the need for modesty when safety is the factor, as we saw in Toronto last year with the UPS depot and the Muslims who sued because they refused to wear pants even though regulations demand it on ladders. They won a settlement by the way. Clearly this kind of garb cannot be allowed in Banks or jewellery stores. We do not have to ban the head coverings, but we are under no obligation to not make it inconvenient in the interests of public health, safety and security.

“I have seen the enemy, and it is us”

One could easily make the case  that Muslims are not the problem but we are. All we have to do is say no.

We do not need one more law. Not one more regulation. We just have to stop making exceptions for Muslims to break all the laws we already have. Yes, clearly the fight about the hijab and all its various incarnations is about Islamic primacy. But look what happened in some European schools when they tried to ban it outright. All kinds of well meaning non-Muslim girls started wearing it to school to support their friends. In a way, I support them. I get it even though these girls are wrong, naive, and aiding a dangerous enemy, banning it in that way is not the answer. A school uniform might be, or a dress code that makes these things impractical most of the time. Certainly no hijab etc in:

Gym

Shop, metal, wood or any class that requires the use of dangerous tools

Home economics where cooking Etc. is involved. Religious people can have a choice. Not go to class and fail the year, or take off the damn thing when safety etc. demands it.

Somehow, Western peoples have been massaged into accepting the notion that we have to make exceptions for peoples voluntary choices of behaviour in the interests of non-racism etc. This is absurd. It is one thing to make public or government buildings handicap accessible. It is quite another when people handicap themselves by choice. We have no obligation to them whatsoever, and in fact an obligation to ourselves not to lower safety or health standards to do so.

Eeyore for Vladtepesblog after numerous conversations with Grace

Majority of Canadians support niqab ban

Posted on by

From Global News

Majority agree with Quebec’s veil law, poll finds

‘One of few times when Quebec, Alberta are on the same page’

Marian Scott, Canwest News Service: Wednesday, April 21, 2010

David G. Littman at the UN HRC. Stunning expose of the UN

Posted on by

Here is a rather amazing bit of video showing the depth of corruption of the UN-HRC, and the extent to which the OIC (organization of the Islamic Conference) basically runs an extortion racket at the UN with threats, and of course, subversion of the democratic process through voting blocks of totalitarian and Muslim states.

This is about 22 minutes, but worth watching more than once. As the guy who edited this video, I have now seen it probably a dozen times or more and each time I find something else in it which is quite startling. Littman is a brave and tenacious man for being able to deal with these people on an ongoing basis.

There is of course, a great deal of information about these exchanges which I could not possibly put in the video or it would be more of a book than a movie. So David G. Littman has written up some of the additional information in essay form.

The section where you do not hear Egypt, was redacted. We managed to get the transcription and put what he said back in. But what he did say, that he didn’t care about the results of any vote but that a discussion of sharia law was not going to happen, was such a flagrant sign of Islamic supremacy, that even he realized he should remove it from the official record.

All in all, the UN-HRC is so broken, that it should be closed down as clearly is it beyond repair. John McCain was right when he suggested abandoning the UN and creating a new thing with the G8 + India and Brazil.

The essay is below the fold:

Continue Reading →

CAIR scores. freedom of speech loses.

Posted on by

The Irony is sick. If anything CAIR said in this article was true, then they would not have felt the need to have these adds pulled. They would instead say, ‘Yes, there are some people who misinterpret Islam based on tribal rules and those people should have a place to go or call if such a threat is issued’. What are the chances of hearing that from CAIR?

No, they out and out lied about Islam while simultaneously proving the truth of these adds. If you want to even talk about leaving Islam, large, well funded and influential groups will stop you.

From The Miami Herald:

Miami-Dade Transit to remove `offensive’ Islamic bus ads

BY JAWEED KALEEM

jk*****@*********ld.com

Miami-Dade Transit is pulling advertisements from 10 buses that South Florida Muslims have said are offensive to Islam.

The ads, which went up Tuesday, said “Fatwa on your head? Is your community or family threatening you?” and directed Muslims to a website encouraging them to leave Islam.

Robert Spencer, associate director of New York-based Stop the Islamization of America, which purchased the ads for one-month as the first leg of a national campaign, said they were “offered in defense of religious liberty.”

But on Thursday, Miami-Dade Transit spokeswoman Karla Damian said that after reviewing the ads, the department decided they “may be offensive to Islam” and would remove them before the buses ran on Friday.

Damian said the ads were able to initially go up because Miami-Dade Transit has an outside company sell ad space and does not routinely review ads before they run.

The South Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations had critiqued the ads as promoting “bigotry” and making false statements about Islam.

“Islam guarantees freedom to and freedom from religion. . . . [We] reject as un-Islamic any extremist interpretation that sanctions the killing of any individual because she decided to `leave Islam,” said director Muhammed Malik.

The Miami Herald

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/16/1581903/miami-dade-transit-says-it-will.html#ixzz0lR67eaHv

Canadian takes on Islamist movement

Posted on by

By Salim Mansur, QMI Agency from The Edmonton Sun

Point de bascule, or the tipping point, is a Montreal-based French language webmagazine. It is dedicated to explore and expose Islamist activities in our midst, particularly in Quebec.

Point de bascule is the creation of Marc Lebuis, a remarkable French-Canadian with a passionate interest in global affairs and adeep concern about the dangers of Islamism to his country.

Last Thursday, Point de bascule held a press conference open to the mainstream media and public to discuss the latest lecture tour of Tariq Ramadan in Montreal and Ottawa sponsored by Islamist organizations, such as the various chapters of the Muslim Association of Canada, for fundraising purposes.

In making full disclosure here, I was invited by Marc Lebuis to join four other individuals in exploring the ramifications for us of the transnational political movement that Tariq Ramadan represents, and how Quebec is exceedingly vulnerable in the systematic penetration of Canada by Islamists.

Joining me were Tarek Fatah, the well-known author and journalist from Toronto, and Ariless Bouktit, a Canadian of Algerian origin. By webcast Zuhdi Jasser from the U.S. and Naser Khader from Denmark joined us in Montreal.

Retired officer

Jasser is of Syrian-Arab origin and a retired officer from the U.S. Navy practising medicine in Arizona. Khader is also of Syrian-Arab origin and a member of the Danish parliament. All five of us are of Muslim faith.

Tariq Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan al-Banna (1906-49), the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. MB is the oldest and most powerful Islamist organization in the Arab world with deep pockets — resources donated by followers and petrodollar rulers in the Middle East. Continue Reading →

Canadian Islamic Congress’ regional director slams Quebec’s niqab ban as ‘inflammatory’ to Muslims

Posted on by

The following is an article written by the regional director of the Canadian Islamic Congress on Quebec’s legislation forbidding Muslim women from wearing the niqab while requiring public services. The CIC (Mohamed Elmasry’s old stomping ground), continues to work diligently to ensure sharia law finds it’s ‘cultural’ place in Canada.

From The Saskatoon Star Pheonix

Quebec decision on niqab sends troubling signal

By Dr. Ahmed Shoker, The StarPhoenix

April 8, 2010

Following is the viewpoint of Shoker, a professor of medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, past-president of the Islamic association of Saskatoon and regional director of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Premier Jean Charest’s government in Quebec recently announced its commitment to secularism and gender equality, and proposed legislation that essentially bans the niqab — a full-veil covering worn by a few Muslim women — from all government bodies.

Under common Islamic interpretations this bill is unnecessary. The government’s move is inflammatory, and let me tell you why.

In Islam, it is a divine inscription that adult women should, as do Muslim men in other ways, exercise modesty in public places. They are expected to cover their beauty, which includes either wearing the commonly seen veil that covers the hair but not the face, or (in accordance with a minority of scholars) a niqab that covers both the hair and face. Continue Reading →

The Myth of ‘stolen Palistinian Land’

Posted on by

It is my opinion that, as it has been said in the past, “Truth is the first casualty of war.” as such, the current war on the Jews waged world wide and especially hard at Western universities, it is widely accepted that the ‘Jews’ have perpetuated some kind of injustice on the Arab or Muslim peoples of the general area of Israel. Below, is a trailer for a fantastic documentary on exactly this subject. I post this as a kind of preview, as it is my expectation, that tonight or tomorrow, I will be uploading a documentary from French CBC in Canada, about the ‘Israel Lobby’ and how disproportionately powerful it is.

I have not yet seen it, but from what I have heard, it is the kind of ‘gas-in-the-truck on the way to Chrystal Nacht’ one would expect in pre war Germany.

This was shown on Canadian State TV, although granted, the sitting government does not directly influence what CBC shows when it is a conservative government.

In any case, its good to post a little truth now and again, and while we are still allowed to.

More trailers from the same director can be seen here at Pierre Rehov’s site

Important video on Islamic organizations in Germany, then and now.

Posted on by

And below, a letter from a ‘Muslim Insider’. This should probably be treated with healthy suspicion. It could be a forgery of course.


Translations: Green Politics – Open Letter From a Muslim

The below text is a translation I made of a somewhat mysterious open letter which has been circulating in different versions for at least eleven years. It was recently reposted on Rheinische Post under the alias “Soist” and rediscovered today by PI-News, the largest Islam-critical blog in Germany. It was written by someone claiming to be a Muslim insider and it contains some interesting details about subversive efforts of radical Muslims in Germany.
Translation Frank Kitman
Proofed by Jdamn!

NHS sharia compliant; Muslims exempt from hygeine rules in hospitals

Posted on by

From The Telegraph U.K.

Muslim staff escape NHS hygiene rule

Muslim doctors and nurses are to be allowed to opt out of strict hygiene rules introduced by the NHS to restrict the spread of hospital superbugs.

Published: 12:30AM BST 11 Apr 2010

Muslim doctors and nurses are to be allowed to opt out of strict hygiene rules introduced by the NHS to restrict teh spread of hospital superbugs.

Photo: MARTIN POPE

Female staff who follow the Islamic faith will be allowed to cover their arms to preserve their modesty despite earlier guidance that all staff should be “bare below the elbow”.

The Department of Health has also relaxed rules prohibiting jewellery so that Sikh members of staff can wear bangles linked with their faith, providing they are pushed up the arm while the medic treats a patient.

The Mail on Sunday reported the change had been made after female Muslims objected to being required to expose their arm below the elbow under guidance introduced by Alan Johnson when he was health secretary in 2007. Continue Reading →

Muslims Are Content Only With Victory; No Matter How it Was Obtained

Posted on by

Canadafreepress… In typical fashion; sneaky underhanded infiltration, then slow but steady rebellion against established authority, the always dangerous and always deceitful followers of Allah, are causing trouble once again in America, the country they love to hate.

In an American Vision article from posted by Gary DeMar on March 31, 2010 titled, “Muslim Students Want to Take Over Christian College, it was made known that these ever-complaining, never satisfied, ready to move in and try to take over where they’re not wanted; not welcomed because of their nasty habits and traits, these bad tempered malcontents were offended by seeing the words, “in the year of Our Lord” on their diplomas and they want them removed.

Ignorance and bad manners are surely at play here; well mannered guests do not make public displays or demands for changes in rock-bedded traditions that have years of standing.  Trinity University has been in existence for close to a century and one half and is a secular school belying its name that suggests perhaps a connection with a holy Trinity.

In this case the Trinity comes from the merging of three educational facilities that were facing grave financial difficulties following our Civil War and in similar fashion to our own national motto, ‘E pluribus unum’ – “out of many, one”; Trinity chose ‘E tribus unum’ – “from three, one” established in 1869.  Its secular status is the most probable attraction for the Muslims to come to the school.  Its small size, approximately 2,500 student body may have been another incentive.  Muslims prefer odds to be in their favor, as smaller campuses are easier to infiltrate and to practice ‘divide and conquer tactics.’
According to Gary DeMar, this rebellion against authority at Trinity began when a Muslim student, ironically not of Middle Eastern extraction, but from nearby Mexico and a convert to Muslim took exception after seeing the “our Lord” inscription while at the University bookstore.

As DeMar stated, “Muslims have been attacking Christianity since the inception of their religion. They’ve spotted a weakness in our system, the attempt to be diverse at any cost, even if it costs us the one thing that made this nation great—its Christian foundation.”  He goes on to explain, “Muslims understand this; many Christians don’t. Muslims call for diversity as a wedge to get in the door, open it wide enough for others follow behind, then once in pool their collective energies and force Christians out.”

So in typical American fashion, Trinity University accepted these Muslim student applicants for admission to their school unquestioningly and in good faith; those high ideals however, don’t apply equally in the reverse direction.  And again in typical Muslim fashion they seized upon the opportunity to become troublesome and disruptive in early and preliminary steps for eventual complete takeover and rule.

We in this country have witnessed such conduct before in what I consider repulsive and antagonistic behavior with the same goals in mind.  It also manifests itself in other arenas where the ultimate objectives are not as clear but it is unquestionable that they are not of a friendly nature.  Fort Hood is one example of this sort of treatment towards an American host where U. S. Army Major Malik Nidal Hasan, of Muslim faith, openly killed 13 American citizens.  The investigation is ongoing at this time.

Perhaps the Muslims do not need a reason to be so vicious and extermination-minded; just accomplishing the elimination of Christians is sufficient to placate their warped minds.  Their holy book calls for extermination of “infidels” and to them, all Christians are considered to be of that characterization.  So we should forever be cautious and on the alert for abnormal behavior patterns emanating from Islam/Muslims.

I could be very suspicious of, yet trust, an American Muslim; but I would be very suspicious of and NEVER trust a Muslim American.  The former is doing his inbred religious obligation of hating the United States, but the latter is nothing more than a treasonous traitor who has betrayed his country for selfishness.

Benno Barnard, shouted down at Antwerp U, speaks about his new politics

Posted on by

Ripped wholesale from the Gates of Vienna, this is an important post. A Belgium leftist who openly called Philip Dewinter a racist for years, sings in a different key and a different mode now.

First, the video of his lecture:

Now, the post from Gates of Vienna:

by Baron Bodissey

“I have called Filip Dewinter a fascist for twenty years. I was wrong. The fascists are with the Muslims. Dewinter thus had always been right. And this is from an old leftist boy such as myself.”

— Benno Barnard


Benno BarnardOur Flemish correspondent VH reported on Thursday about the silencing of Benno Barnard at the University of Antwerp. Dr. Barnard was about to give a lecture on the differences between Islam and Christianity, but loud shouting and threats from a crowd of young Muslims forced the cancellation of his talk.

VH has compiled a follow-up report about the incident from miscellaneous Dutch-language sources. First, a translated interview with Benno Barnard from De Standaard.

“This was the best lecture I ever could have given”

by Nikolas Vanhecke

Q: The title of the lecture that you intended to give in the University of Antwerp reads “Long live God, down with Allah.” The lecture is primarily about the Judeo-Christian tradition. Why did you choose that title?
A: Obviously, in the title I make use of the rhetorical technique of the provocation. A characteristic of the Judeo-Christian tradition is debate. This interaction goes back to the Old Testament and led to the Enlightenment, humanism and democracy. Provocation is the clearest form of disagreement. Our entire culture exists because of that.

Islam does not know that debate. To clarify the difference, I switch on the metaphor of Allah.
Q: In other words, the Islam is an undemocratic religion.
A: The real Islam does not know the possibility of democratization. There are democratically sound Muslims, but they do not stick to the strict rules of Islam. Sharia is described in the Quran, and it is those laws the real Islam preaches.

There is a quote from Kemal Ataturk: “Islam, that absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives.” And I can give you still more such as this from unexpected sources who criticize Islam. Secularization is in violation of Islam, as it emerged from Mecca and Medina.

And all that nonsense about the real Islam, you can study at the University of Antwerp in the context of active pluralism. Some of the members of Sharia4Belgium are studying at the UA. That way they also found out about the lecture. Or did you think it is followed outside the university?
Q: Would you have preferred to have given your reading or do you find the incident stronger than your lecture?
A: That was the best lecture I could give. I speak two sentences and get no further because they start roaring ‘Allahu akhbar’. Welcome to the future! By their action they have formulated a part of my thesis.
Q: In 2004, along with other writers, you called on people not to vote for the (then) Vlaams Blok. Last year you agreed with Filip Dewinter in his criticism of Islam. What has changed you?
A: “I have studied Islam thoroughly, by reading the Koran but also by reading other books. Nowadays I think Filip Dewinter is a prophet. I always called him a racist, but had blinders on then. He understood very early what the true nature of Sharia is. As a Belgicist, though, I am not a lover of Vlaams Belang [VB strives for an independent Flanders—translator].”
Q: What are you then?
A: I have often called myself a left-wing conservative. I advocate a leftist emancipation. Many leftist people are actually right-wing without knowing it. From a misunderstanding of social reality they support Muslims. Then at a certain point you get feminists who defend the burka. Education has been ruined by a mistaken equal opportunities policy of the Social Democrats. I am the opposite of a racist.

This whole story is in theory the most harmful of all for moderate Muslims. One of the police officers yesterday [Wednesday March 31] was a Muslim, and he was abused as a traitor.
Q: Were you actually warned beforehand that protection would be needed?
A: The police had contacted the university. Their safety unit had noticed messages on the website Sharia4Belgium and also knew that the group “Youth for Islam” was calling via SMS for the boycott.
Q: Were you still shocked by the incident?
A: What do you think? At that moment it seems so unrealistic that it is exactly as if you are watching yourself on television. In retrospect it only begins to dawn. Luckily I had bodyguards, otherwise I would not be able to speak to anyone today.
Next, an article from Nieuwsblad: