Category Archives: Debate

Huffington Post: The real reasons why the Swiss voted to ban minarets

Posted on by

From The Huffington Post:

The Swiss voted to ban the construction of new minarets — against all expectations and although their government and most political parties had rejected a ban. But this referendum had, in truth, little to do with minarets.

The surprising vote reveals rather a growing unease in Switzerland, which traditionally has been one of the most open and most tolerant countries of the continent: Many Swiss are worried about the rise of political Islam and religious rules in Europe that are threatening hard-won rights such as equal rights for women and men, the secular rule of law above religion or the right of each individual to decide for him — or herself.

A majority of Swiss voters obviously feels that there are problems with Muslim integration into civil society at the moment. This vague sentiment was fueled by a number of incidents over the last years: The former Imam of a mosque in Geneva, Hani Ramadan, a Swiss citizen by the way, publicly justified the stoning of adulterers or the punitive amputation of the hand of a thief. Muslim parents prevented their daughters from attending swimming classes, gymnastics or summer camps in public schools because they didn’t want their girls to be together with boys. Media reports about forced marriages, female genital mutilations and “honor killings” of Muslim women – all confirmed by authorities or in court — came as a shocking surprise. A university professor even went as far as to suggest in an official publication of a federal commission to introduce elements of the Sharia, the Muslim legal system, into Switzerland.

The nationalist and conservative Swiss People’s Party knew to take advantage of the wide-spread feeling that the government, the courts and the politicians do too little to defend Western values and basic rights. The party warned — highly exaggerated — of a “creeping islamization” of Switzerland. It skillfully chose the question of minarets as a very symbolic target and demanded a ban for the construction of new ones. As it is possible in Switzerland for everyone, the party collected 100,000 signatures within 18 months from eligible voters supporting the motion to force a referendum. A clear majority of 57.5 percent of the Swiss population and 22 out of 26 cantons (states) favored the ban.

It would be utterly wrong — and dangerous — to think that this was primarily a racist vote. I’m convinced that the post-electoral analysis will show that a significant part of the (anti-racist) left and an overwhelming majority of the women supported the ban — not because they are afraid of minarets, but because they are worried about the role (some would say: about the oppression) of women in Islamic societies and about the role of religion in public life. This is, in my opinion, an entirely legitimate discussion that we have to have and must not suppress. Continue Reading →

Swiss voters do not be conned. Vote to ban the minaret today

Posted on by

Today the decision to ban the construction of minarets is before the Swiss people. Of course there are massive guilt ridden well funded campaigns claiming that to ban the minaret is racist.

Lets be clear and rational here please just for a moment then we can all go back to being creatures driven by hyperbole and rhetoric.

A building is not a race. Banning a building and in this case only part of a building cannot possibly be considered racist. Now if you decided to ban say, bricks as a building material for no reason at all except you had a pathological hatred of bricks you could be accused of being ‘brickest’ I suppose and you may have some unions come down hard on  you. But a minaret is not a building, a building is not a race and of course the central point that everyone misses each and every time this comes up is, Islam is not a race.

Now I don’t actually think banning minarets is the right solution. I think banning Islam is. There is no reason to allow Islam to continue its steady march towards supremacy in western nations unopposed that I can see. Mosques indeed are not an equivalent of a temple, church, or synagogue. They are indeed a beach-head from which supremacy is taught and greater and greater separation of Muslims from the host population until you have two solitudes and eventually the most intolerant system, Islam with it’s sharia law, will win. Just ask a Kosovar or an Egyptian Copt.

So recognizing that banning the minaret is merely a totem for what ultimately will have to be done if Swiss and indeed Western civilization has any intention of continuing its fine heritage of freedoms (leftist continual introduction of irrational crypto-environmental regulations and behavioural restrictions not withstanding) then at least making sure that Swiss mosques are not able to dominate the landscape, the actual purpose of the minaret, is a fine start. So please dear people of Switzerland; you utterly failed to assist the people of Europe from saving themselves from the Nazis, and in fact, acted out of self interest to work with them by managing stolen wealth. Let’s see if you have at least a healthy amount of that self-preservation instinct left in you. This time, you can lead Europe to self determination and save civilization.

Vote to ban the minaret. Then later, you can ban Islam altogether.

Eeyore for Vladtepesblog

Lord Pearson and UKIP?

Posted on by

A Millar sent me this link to the BBC site which has the whole video of this interview with Farage who discusses the future of the UKIP and Lord Malcolm Pearson’s place in it. It is a little long and dry so I took out the bit I liked below.

To save the trouble of finding the links, I’ll re embed the video here below as well for those who have not seen the International Free Press Society’s interview with Pearson:

Lots has happened to this poor little video above. Several sites have embedded parts of it and The News of the World, a large British tabloid that typically doesn’t show a lot of men and certainly not fully clothed ones, downloaded it, edited it (So far I can’t complain I do a fair amount of that myself) and then re-uploaded it claiming it was their own original footage! Anyway enjoy.

Stratfor: Deciphering the Mohammed Trial

Posted on by

Deciphering the Mohammed Trial

November 16, 2009 | 2035 GMT


Graphic for Geopolitical Intelligence Report

By George Friedman

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in federal court in New York. Holder’s decision was driven by the need for the U.S. government to decide how to dispose of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. Naval base outside the boundaries of the United States selected as the camp in which to hold suspected al Qaeda members.

We very carefully use the word “camp” rather than prison or prisoner of war camp. This is because of an ongoing and profound ambiguity not only in U.S. government perceptions of how to define those held there, but also due to uncertainties in international law, particularly with regard to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Were the U.S. facility at Guantanamo a prison, then its residents would be criminals. If it were a POW camp, then they would be enemy soldiers being held under the rules of war. It has never really been decided which these men are, and therefore their legal standing has remained unclear.

War vs. Criminal Justice

The ambiguity began shortly after 9/11, when then-U.S. President George W. Bush defined two missions: waging a war on terror, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice. Both made for good rhetoric. But they also were fundamentally contradictory. A war is not a judicial inquiry, and a criminal investigation is not part of war.

An analogy might be drawn from Pearl Harbor. Imagine that in addition to stating that the United States was at war with Japan, Franklin Roosevelt also called for bringing the individual Japanese pilots who struck Hawaii to justice under American law. This would make no sense. As an act of war, the Japanese action fell under the rules of war as provided for in international law, the U.S. Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Japanese pilots could not be held individually responsible for the lawful order they received. In the same sense, trying to bring soldiers to trial in a civilian court in the United States would make no sense. Creating a mission in which individual Japanese airmen would be hunted down and tried under the rules of evidence not only would make no sense, it would be impossible. Building a case against them individually also would be impossible. Judges would rule on evidence, on whether an unprejudiced jury could be found, and so on. None of this happened, of course — World War II was a war, not a judicial inquiry.

It is important to consider how wars are conducted. Enemy soldiers are not shot or captured because of what they have done; they are shot and captured because of who they are — members of an enemy military force. War, once launched, is pre-emptive. Soldiers are killed or captured in the course of fighting enemy forces, or even before they have carried out hostile acts. Soldiers are not held responsible for their actions, but neither are they immune to attack just because they have not done anything. Guilt and innocence do not enter into the equation. Certainly, if war crimes are in question, charges may be brought; the UCMJ determines how they will be tried by U.S. forces. Soldiers are tried by courts-martial, not by civilian courts, because of their status as soldiers. Soldiers are tried by a jury of their peers, and their peers are held to be other soldiers.

International law is actually not particularly ambiguous about the status of the members of al Qaeda. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them because they have not adhered to a fundamental requirement of the Geneva Conventions, namely, identifying themselves as soldiers of an army. Doing so does not mean they must wear a uniform. The postwar Geneva Conventions make room for partisans, something older versions of the conventions did not. A partisan is not a uniformed fighter, but he must wear some form of insignia identifying himself as a soldier to enjoy the conventions’ protections. As Article 4.1.6 puts it, prisoners of war include “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.” The Geneva Conventions of 1949 does not mention, nor provide protection to, civilians attacking foreign countries without openly carrying arms. Continue Reading →

Italian TV show dares to spout a little truth

Posted on by

Not sure what the context is here exactly. It would appear that an Italian TV show, debating something about the decision to remove crosses from schools in Italy, has a panelist who states some things about Islam the muslims in the audience do not like. The funny thing is, she is wrong on her facts. Mohamed did not marry a nine year old. He married Aisha when she was six, and had sex with her often but did not have genital to genital sex with her till she was nine. The host mistakenly says he married her when she was nine.

Some great comments on this which I have moved here into the body of the post:

First a note from the translator, jdamn:

Here’s your context: http://theforceofreason.com/2009/11/09/movement-for-italy-leader-daniela-santanche-calls-muhammad-a-pedophile-on-canale-5/
Then, a comment from HellenoChristian (Thank you by the way)

  1. The translation doesn’t accurately report what the Islamic speaker said, which is – while Daniela Santaché told him about Muhammad’s poligamy, and Aysha’s age -: “shut up you don’t know anything. We are talking about serious things here, not about disgusting things like you are” then very summarized that “man” says that Daniela Santaché – which is simply reporting the Reality of Islamic History – is an ignorant (I guess: either this man is an ignorant or he is a practitioner of taqiyyah – he scruplelessly and publically lies ).

    Then the Islamic fundamentalist bearded of the public aggresses Daniela Santaché saying that Islam recognize all the Prophets (well: who cares? Prophets do not need Islam’s approval to exist!), Jesus included, and this is pure taqiyyah in action, since Islam curses every Religion which is not his (own Cult which he called) Islam, and it denies Jesus’s crucifixion which is a very central event in Christianity, both symbolically for Aesotherical Christianity and practically, because it shows TRUE MARTYRDOM and Jesus’s crucifixion exposes the FAKE ISLAMIC MARTYRDOM, which first of all a MURDER, sometimes combined to suicide, too [even Japanese kamikazes feel very offended when people calls Islamic murders a kamikaze – Japanese followed an ethical Code before sacrificing their lives, while Islamic people are Ethicless and murder innocents in the name of their Mafiaboss Muhammad and his fake god Allah -]. I personally wonder: do all Islamic fundamentalists move to the West and Europe?!

    Anyway this pseudo Debate makes me understand something: Islam really is taqiyyah, and the way it calls itself is the perfect example and evidence of it, since Islam publically calls itself “a Religion” and “of Peace”. It actually is EXACTELY THE OPPOSITE

I would add, that Muslims frequently make the claim that they respect the other prophets as a way of making it appear they are being treated asymmetrically at that level. But they rewrote the nature of other religions so as to make their principle symbols unrecognizable. To Muslims, Jesus was a Muslim for example. So they do not respect him, other than their own sort of, ‘fun house mirror’ version of him. Much like everything in Islam actually is a warped mirror of things with actual value or decency. They often attempt to stop any discussion of Mohamed however by claiming that they treat the symbols of other religions with respect.

Thanks again to jdamn for the translation and KitmanTV for subtitling

From the comments,

A true horror movie

Posted on by

This video is the most frightening thing I have seen since the exorcist was re released with new footage.

Here, the psycho-left does every conceivable thing to detract from the raw facts of the matter. A Muslim goes and kills a bunch of people in the name of Islam after saying that is what they intend to do, and a group of leftists attempts to spin it as anything but. Here, the narrative is at its loudest. There is only one sane person on this panel and it is most certainly not doctor Phil, a man who actually places his own blinders on in the morning. The one sane person is pilloried and on national TV. That is what courage of your convictions really looks like.
This video thanks to Weaselzippers and www.gatesofvienna.blogspot.com

Video of the author of the Danish cartoon book, which Yale censored.

Posted on by

h/t Snaphanen

El Inglis: On the Failure of Law Enforcement

Posted on by

by Baron Bodissey  Gates of VIenna

Hanging at Tyburn
From our regular contributor El Inglés comes the first in what will be an ongoing series of essays taking as their core subject matter a) the mechanics of the Islam-induced breakdown of law and order in European countries and b) the likely nature of the response.


On the Failure of Law Enforcement
by El Inglés

Introduction

I will argue in this essay that there are a number of mechanisms and tendencies in place in European countries that make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to control or restrain the burgeoning criminality of their Muslim populations under extant political paradigms. Readers of certain of my other essays will be familiar with the type of argument I advance here, though I apply it in this essay to new subject matter.

It should be understood that this text is essentially a piece of analysis, an attempt to rigorously frame and discuss one large and important piece of the problem we face thanks to Islam. Though it does not attempt to formulate a response, it is written in the hope that those keen to defend their countries and peoples from the depredations of Muslim colonization will find it useful in clarifying their own thinking.

The Human Substrate Problem

First, it is necessary to discuss what I have chosen to call the Human Substrate Problem. Though this part of the analysis may seem slightly esoteric, I ask that readers bear with it, as its relevance will become clearer later on.

The Human Substrate Problem derives from the historically irrefutable observation that racially and/or culturally different groups in a given society tend to have very different statistical properties with respect to crime and other forms of deviance. Note that the causes of these differences are not of any particular importance here. I myself believe that both racial and cultural factors play important roles in creating these disparities, but for the purposes of this essay, it suffices to ignore the question of causality and focus on the mere existence of the differences and their persistence with respect to time.

Here, we will create a conceptual model simple enough to be easily grasped, but complex enough to capture some of the intricacies and seeming paradoxes of crime and criminality in our societies.

Imagine a society in which only two racially and culturally distinct groups exist: the Blues and the Greens, who exist in equal numbers. The Blues are relatively law-abiding and the Greens relatively criminal, a state of affairs that we describe by creating a composite index of criminality, C, for all individuals in our societies. This is plotted on the x-axis of a graph that has number of individuals, N, plotted on the y-axis, with the stipulation that C is normally distributed for both Blues and Greens, with the same standard deviation but with the Green mean being higher than the Blue mean. Individuals are not necessarily fixed in place within these distributions. Law-abiding folk can drift toward crime, and those with criminal backgrounds can, in principle, go straight. However, this Brownian motion of individuals around the distribution does not alter its statistical properties; it is merely a reshuffling of components within a persisting whole. This state of affairs is represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Law Enforcement
Now we must imagine an addition being made to our graph: an incarceration point. The incarceration point, as its name suggests, marks that degree of criminality which will result in the incarceration of the criminal in question, which is to say that everyone to the right of the line is incarcerated. This oversimplification (some criminals will escape detection, and criminals newly released from prison will be at large even if they are, strictly speaking, to the right of the incarceration point) could be overcome by refining the model further, but we need not concern ourselves with that at the moment. Figure 2 shows the Blues and the Greens as they appear on the graph, the incarceration point, and the incarcerated and non-incarcerated fractions of the Blue and Green populations. It is clear that a greater fraction of the Greens than of the Blues is incarcerated at any given point in time; this is precisely what we would expect on the basis of their higher criminality. But this simple model implies certain other things too.

Figure 2 Law Enforcement Continue Reading →

Diana West speaks to IFPS-Canada

Posted on by

The post below ripped word for word from IFPS.org

I had the opportunity to have a conversation with Diana West at a conference on freedom of speech and religion in Washington D.C. last week. To make the conversation short enough for the youtube limit, I removed most of my end of it. I opened by asking Diana about what she thought of the fellow from Harvard un-inviting the founder of the Minute Men to a debate at the last moment. The Fox video interview of that student is here.

Hopefully that makes her answer a tad less cryptic.

The rest of my chat, I replaced with single line questions in text.

Comments welcomed.

James