Category Archives: West fights back

France follows Swiss lead. No more praying in streets.

Posted on by

Some Paris neighbourhoods have been taken over Fridays with large numbers of Muslims clearly establishing Islamic primacy by taking over huge sections of streets by ‘praying’ in them in such a manner that no other traffic is possible. (videos below) thanks to Tundra and Gaia, we have a translation of a newspaper article on a proposed referendum to end this hostile and predatory practice.

Once again, we see that this is not a religious thing, but a political practice of primacy and total dominance. Below the videos please find the English translation of the letter to President Sarkozi. Remember, this can, will, and is happening now in Canada. It is only a matter of degree and time. The more time, the greater the degree.

Mr. President

This is an appeal for help from the citizens of the 18th arrondissement. For several years now, certain of our streets have been occupied by fundamentalists who come from all over the Parisian region to practice their cult activities.

The pavement for hundreds of metres is taken over, putting pedestrians in grave danger as they are obliged to walk in the street to get past the people “praying”.

Entire streets are roped off with cars and security barriers and no entry signs, preventing the inhabitants of the area from going out or returning to their homes, the shopkeepers from working, ordinary citizens from circulating normally.

Every protest or even a simple attempt to penetrate into the zones occupied by these fundamentalists risks being met by insults, threats and aggression and for some time now no one dares to protest, such is the fear installed in our area.

Are we no longer a secular Republic?  Isn’t occupation of the public highway by unauthorized cultural activities a public order offence?  Is preventing the free circulation of citizens in public areas, by means of threats or other means, normal in our city?  Why do we no longer have the right to enter or leave our homes?  Why do we have to live in a climate of fear?

Mr. Delanöe, the Mayor of Paris, knows perfectly about our situation, as does Mr. Vaillant Mayor of the 18ème et Mr. Gaudin Préfet de Police.  All of them have abandoned our streets to Islamic fundamentalists, they have abandoned their citizens who can no longer walk around their city because certain areas are out of bounds to non-muslims during prayer times.

Mr President, you have affirmed that in France there are no No-Go zones.  So what would you call these areas or the militant fundamentalists  who shut roads for their exclusive private use for a number of years now without the police intervening to re-establish public order?

Mr. President.  Do not abandon us also.  Stop this occupation of our streets by fundamentalists.

The inhabitants of the 18ème area of Paris.

We are not able to sign this document for fear of our lives and those of our families.

Video: Nottingham EDL demonstration

Posted on by

First let me say, I always thought Nottingham was just a forest. Nice to see its a city, and better to see it is a city willing to oppose galloping Islam. They appear to have traded in the green tights for black hoodies though. You can bet the mainstream media will present this as a “riot” by the “far right” although if one compares this near perfectly violence free march with any Muslim ‘demonstration’ say, oh, during Israel’s operation cast lead this is taking your grandmother to a picnic variety. A lot of British men yelling “E E EDL” and a few of them pushing past police lines is nothing. Lets hope however, that the powers that be find it sufficiently intimidating that they balance of the decisions they make in favour of increasing Islam seemingly daily in England, with resistance to it.

Of course what would be best is if British politicians actually operated on law as established there, as opposed to who they are more frightened by. By doing so, they are demanding mob rule. That cannot end well for anyone at all.

More on the EDL:

Apparently there was a leftist march which was allowed to go on unimpeded in the city, while the EDL march was heavily constrained. Here is a comment from our youtube channel by someone who was there:

I never even saw these protestors – they were well and truely penned in. All I saw was a bunch of lefties allowed to march down angel row & across Maid Marion Way & back again (right in the centre of the city) disrupting the general public.

Below is a video made and posted by anti EDL factions. Don’t know if its Muslims or Anti’fa or whoever but click through to youtube to read the original description. Clearly they do not like the EDL. However, if you compare the behaviour of these people while the police move them into a tighter and tighter area with less and less ability to march, with how Muslim demonstrations go in the UK and the police running away from them for miles while the Muslims openly threaten the police and England as a whole, its pretty hard to find fault in any meaningful way with the defenders, and the indigenous Britons are indeed the defenders. One could make a case for the ‘white’ British people being the defenders but the EDL are not that. They are all English people of any race who believe in preserving the heritage of England and its liberal values against Islam and sharia law. Click through and read what the film makers say anyway.

Thanks to Snaphanen for some of these videos:

Turkey cries fowl on Swiss ban while Churches denied permits

Posted on by

From The Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey

Turkish Parliament speaker speaks out against Swiss ban

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

ANKARA – Hürriyet Daily News

Turkish Parliament Speaker Mehmet Ali Sahin says he opposes the minaret ban passed in Switzerland on Sunday, adding that basic freedoms cannot be put to a vote.

Parliament Speaker Mehmet Ali Sahin voiced his opposition to the Swiss ban on minarets on Wednesday, saying that it was wrong to put a basic freedom to a vote.

His remarks came during a meeting with his Finnish counterpart, Sauli Niinistö, in Parliament.

“In fact, it should have been expressed more loudly before the referendum that such a basic right cannot be the focus of a referendum. What were we going to discuss if the ‘yes’ vote emerged from the referendum instead of ‘no’ vote?” Sahin said. “Were we going to say, ‘Such a basic right cannot be the focus of a referendum’? I believe it is necessary to pursue a consistent policy toward this issue.”

The referendum put forth by the nationalist Swiss People’s Party labeled minarets as symbols of rising Muslim political power that could one day transform Switzerland into an Islamic nation. The initiative was approved 57.5 percent to 42.5 percent on Sunday.

“As far as I can see, Swiss government officials are also uneasy. The [Swiss] justice minister pointed to the European Court of Human Rights,” said ?ahin, hoping the situation, which worries Muslims living in Switzerland, would be corrected in the future.

The Finnish parliament speaker said this was not a usual issue for Finland, which believes that human rights and the freedom of expression should be respected. Such an issue cannot be submitted to a vote in Finland, he said.

In an interview with private broadcaster NTV, Swiss Ambassador to Turkey Raimund Kunz said the referendum result was a decision made by the Swiss people, not by the state. He made clear that the Swiss government was against the initiative and called on voters to say “no” in the referendum.

“This is not a vote against Islam and Muslims,” he was quoted as saying. “This is not a vote against their religion and praying. There are mosques in Switzerland. Muslims will be able to perform what their religion requires. This will not change in the future.”

The ambassador said the reactions would not cause the Swiss government to change its foreign policy, making clear that their policy of dialogue with Muslim countries would continue.

“I understand Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s reactions,” he said. “I hope we’ll continue our dialogue with Turkey.”

On Tuesday, Erdogan spoke out against the ban, calling it a reflection of increasing racist and extreme nationalist waves in Europe.

Meanwhile, as the Turkish Prime Minister likens the ban to European intolerance and extreme nationalism…………

Churches Impossible to Build or Restore in Turkey

Television debate on minaret ban with Tarek Ramadam. France

Posted on by

Tarek is truly an emetic personality. I do not think once here in this two part debate did he answer a question in any normal sense of answering one, but did walk across his own arguments several times, as clearly all that matters to him is establishing the primacy of Islam in Europe. On the one hand, he insists that a minaret is just a decorative unimportant non-political aspect of a mosque so to ban it is racist and shows European hatred of ‘visible Muslims’ and so minarets must be allowed. In other words, minarets are not important so they are really important. Get your Imodium ready, you will need it after you hear him. As to the rest of them as usual, they miss the point with a wide berth. Being opposed to Islam is not racist. A mosque is not an analogue of a Church. No church construction is permitted in most Muslim nations, ones that seem never to enter this debate. One interesting point, was that the content of the Muslim call to prayer made through these minarets five times a day, is in fact illegal content in France and many other nations, as it is a specific call not to obey the laws of the Kaffir etc. Enjoy. Thanks to Tundra Tabloid for the embed code.


Part II

For those of you unfamiliar with Tarek Ramadan, please enjoy the debate below with Tarek and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of the stunning and spell binding book, ‘Infidel’. And, for more taqiyya from Mr. Ramadan, read his latest contribution on the Canadian Islamic Congress’ site entitled ” Swiss Campaign to Ban Minarets Fuelled by Populist Party”. Continue Reading →

If Germany had a similar referendum to Switzerland…

Posted on by

Now if I understand this right, and keep in mind I do not speak one word of German:

Mail AttachmentIt kinda looks a little like Germans given the chance would back a ban on minarets as well. All accounts are, France would and probably most of Europe except maybe Kosovo and Dagestan. In fact it looks like Germans would be more adamant than even the Swiss. Kinda makes me think the Swiss referendum results might have been watered down a bit.

Mail AttachmentThis would appear to be from France. Now I don’t speak French either but….

Spain may have a different opinion. After all, Spain remembers how great things where as the BBC tells us, when Spain was under Islamic rule. It was after all the golden age of Spain so how could they want a ban on minarets….

Mail AttachmentWoops. Stupid Spaniards don’t know when they had it good I guess.

Below, a screen shot from a Swedish paper courtesy of Snaphanan:

ScreenShot001If I read this right it would appear that the Swedes may have had enough Islam for one century by a factor of about 9:1

H/T AA with thanks.

Sharia smackdown in Stockholm

Posted on by

From The Local: Sweden’s News/ English

Muslim dentist loses discrimination suit

David Landes

Published: 30 Nov 09 17:39 CET

A Muslim woman from Kista north of Stockholm who was denied a job as a dentist after refusing to wear short-sleeved work clothes for religious reasons has lost her discrimination case against the Swedish Public Dental Service (Folktandvården).

“It’s incomprehensible,” the woman told The Local following the ruling by the Stockholm District Court.

Following the completion of her dental studies in January 2008, the now 29-year-old woman applied for a position with the public dental service in Stockholm.

During the hiring process, she was informed that the dental agency requires personnel to wear short-sleeved gowns when treating patients.

But the rules, put in place for hygiene reasons, came into conflict with her Muslim faith, which requires that she show as little skin as possible in public.

Looking for a solution, she said she would be willing to wear disposable arm sleeves over a long-sleeved gown.

“We presented evidence from Socialstyrelsen (National Board of Health and Welfare) that showed that using these disposable arm sleeves has the same level of hygiene,” she said.

After Folktandvården rejected the compromise, she sued the dental service for 150,000 kronor ($21,500) in damages alleging the organization’s refusal to accommodate her request to avoid short-sleeved work clothes amounted to discrimination.

But the Stockholm court sided with the dental service, finding that the decision not to hire the woman did not amount to discrimination.

In its ruling, the court cited health board regulations which recommend healthcare personnel use short-sleeved gowns when examining patients.

“Even it if means a disadvantaging of Muslims […], Folktandvården is required to follow the current guidelines for basic hygiene for the healthcare system,” the court wrote in its judgment.

The court also ordered the woman to pay 250,000 kronor to cover the dental service’s court costs, something which she said is not going to be easy.

“It’s pretty unacceptable. I’m not working right now and have no income,” she said, adding that she is currently supported by her father.

The 29-year-old told The Local she is considering an appeal, but has yet to make up her mind.

Swiss voters right to crush the architecture of dominance

Posted on by

From The National Post.

Barbara Kay: Swiss right on minarets

Posted: December 02, 2009, 9:24 PM by Matt Gurney

Switzerland’s official ban on the construction of new minarets has naturally elicited the usual reflexive cries of “Islamophobia” amongst multiculturally correct commentators, not to mention fears of Danish-cartoon style blowback fomented by excitable Islamist demagogues.

These emotional reactions obscure a crucial point about minarets, and all other tall, pointy architectural symbols that draw the eye upward. Like the Twin Towers for example. Whether they are religious or secular in conception, structures that physically dominate the landscape by means of height send a message to observers – and nobody can choose *not* to observe them – that what the structure stands for is a dominant cultural force in people’s lives. The twin Towers stood for the dominant role of capitalism and commercial hegemony that is a point of pride for Americans. That is precisely why they were chosen as targets for destruction. Continue Reading →

Hertz sued by non muslims for un-equal break times.

Posted on by

Hey atheists like time off too! I was waiting for this. Sooner or later someone had to realize that Muslims get several more paid breaks in the day than we infidels and this is to say the least, a little unfair. While the rest of us may not want to lift our arse away from Mecca, all people do have something they would rather do than work and be paid for it. h/t Solstice:

Hertz sued over Muslim prayers

Katie Barkley and Shirley Harris, who worked as part-time drivers moving Hertz cars from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to other locations, claim Muslim employees were given as many as three paid, 15-minute prayer breaks each shift while non-Muslim employees were denied equal time off, according to the suit filed Nov. 30 in federal court in Atlanta. Continue Reading →

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 →

Europe unites to deplore Swiss ban on minarets

Posted on by

TIMESONLINE…The Swiss and European establishment united today in deploring yesterday’s decision by Swiss voters to outlaw the construction of minarets but conservative leaders warned that the referendum showed genuine fear over Islam on the continent.

Swiss officials, media and business leaders voiced shame over a vote that they say will stigmatise the country’s 400,000 Muslims and stain Switzerland’s name in the Muslim world. In contrast, hard right leaders in France, Austria, Italy and the Netherlands hailed what they depicted as a triumph for the people against the elite.

Le Temps, Geneva’s establishment newspaper, said: “The vote was inspired by fear, fantasies and ignorance.” Damage to the country’s international standing would be spectacular, it said. “Vengeance [ aka fear], boycotts [ aka fantasy], retaliation [aka ignorance] … this clash with Islam could cost dearly.”

Tagesanzeiger, the Zurich daily, said that the vote, staged on the initiative of the nationalist Swiss People’s Party (SVP), showed the country’s deep division between outward-looking modernisers and a traditionalist backlash. The 57 per cent approval of the minaret ban would “strengthen the international isolation of Switzerland even among western nations,” it said.

The Swiss Government, which opposed the vote, reassured members of the faith that “this is not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.” The Conference of Swiss Bishops also criticised the result, saying that it “heightens the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures.”

Amnesty international and other rights organisations said that the change to the Swiss Constitution breached guarantees on religious freedom in the European Human Rights Convention. The Swiss Green party said that it may lodge a complaint at the Strasbourg court of Human Rights.

Swiss Muslims, who come mainly from the Balkans and Turkey, reacted with sorrow. “The most painful thing for us is not the ban on minarets, but the symbol sent by this vote,” said Farhad Afshar, leader of the Swiss Coordination of Islamic Organisations. “Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community,” he said.

Anger was swift from more militant wings of the Muslim world. “This is the hatred of Swiss people against Muslim communities. They do not want to see a Muslim presence in their country and this intense dislike has made them intolerant,” said Maskuri Abdillah, the head of Nahdlatul Ulama, Indonesia’s biggest Muslim group. He urged Muslims not to take “revenge” for the decision.

Egypt’s Mufti Ali Gomaa denounced the ban on new minarets as an insult to all Muslims. “This proposal … is not considered just an attack on freedom of beliefs, but also an attempt to insult the feelings of the Muslim community in and outside Switzerland.”

Beyond Switzerland, the vote was criticised by centre and leftwing leaders. Bernard Kouchner, a leftist who is French Foreign Minister, said that he had been shocked. Switzerland should reverse the decision quickly, he said. “If you are not allowed to build minarets, that means that religion is being oppressed.” Can someone please show me an Muslim dominated country where religions other than Islam are not oppressed?

However spokesman for Mr Sarkozy’s centre-right Union for a Popular Majority, took a different line, saying that the vote showed the degree to which radical Islam was alarming Europe’s citizens. Xavier Bertrand, the party leader, said that he was “not sure that minarets are needed in order to practise Islam in France”.

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrat (CDU) party reacted with similar caution. To criticise the Swiss ban would be counterproductive, said Wolfgang Bosbach a senior CDU MP. It reflected a fear of growing Islamisation “and this fear must be taken seriously,” he said.

France’s far right National Front welcomed the outcome, saying that the “elites should stop denying the aspirations and fears of the European people, who, without opposing religious freedom, reject ostentatious signs that political-religious Muslim groups want to impose.”

In Italy, the anti-immigrant Northern League, said: “Switzerland is sending us a clear signal: yes to bell towers, no to minarets.”

In Switzerland, Yvan Perrin, vice-president of the SVP, the largest party in the federal Parliament, said that the vote was a lesson to the elite. Swiss companies should not worry about suffering from a backlash from Muslim countries, he said. “If our companies continue to make good quality products, they have nothing to worry about.”

Statement on ban of minarets in Switzerland

Posted on by

The Rights of Freedom Consolidated

The Egerkinger Commitee who launched the minaret ban initiative, welcomes the vote in favour of a minaret ban by the Swiss Sovereign.

It was decided, that no further minarets are to be build in Switzerland. And the call of the muezzin is not to be heard.

With the “Yes!” to a ban on minarets the people confirmed that Swiss Law also applies to all immigrants without any curtailments. And any attempt to implement parts of sharia law in Switzerland has thereby been uncompromisingly rejected. Forced marriages – also if carried out during a stay on foreign ground – have no validity for persons with legal residence in Switzerland. And the same applies to other elements of sharia. The basic rights of freedom which are mandatory in Switzerland have been consolidated.

The “Yes!” to the minaret ban by the Swiss sovereign – our highest political entity – is now to be implemented in its exact wording. The Professorial ideas about undermining its actual implementation by filing a complaint to the European Courts of Justice, which were aired during the campaign, are unacceptable and a breach of constitutional law. Officials of the law, who are reluctant to enforce the expressed will of the Swiss Sovereign are to be discharged.

The Egerkinger Commitee observes with content that the public debate about the minaret ban – contrary to all the biased doomsaying of the opposition – has been passionate indeed, but orderly and our direct democracy worthy. The ones who went out of line, were the people who attempted to halt free speech regarding the issue, at times even through use of illicit means.

The role played by church-officials during the debate has been alarming. The neglect of their duty to counter the persecution of Christians especially in muslim lands, stands in disquieting contrast to their hasty partisanship against a ban on minarets

The Egerkinger Commitee

Walter Wobmann, National Council of Switzerland

Dr. Ulrich Schüler, National Council of Switzerland

29. November 2009

(Many many thanks for the Translation: Frank Kitman)

Switzerland: majority voters back nationwide ban on minarets

Posted on by

From The Telegraph U.K.

Switzerland appears to have backed minaret ban

Voters in Switzerland appeared to have backed a call to ban minarets from mosques, according to early exit poll results.

By Alexandra Williams in Geneva and Bruno Waterfield
Published: 10:16AM GMT 29 Nov 2009

A pedestrian walks past a display advertising the initiative against the construction of new minarets in Switzerland, in Geneva A pedestrian walks past a display advertising the initiative

Thirty minutes after the referendum finished at midday, Swiss television reported: “The initiative would appear to be accepted. There is a positive trend. It’s a huge surprise.”

According to the respected gfs.bern polling institute an estimated 59 per cent of voters backed the ban. A majority of cantons were also in support of the initiative.

“A majority have voted for a nationwide ban on the construction of minarets,” said the institute’s director Claude Longchamp, speaking on Swiss Radio DRS.

For the Swiss constitution to be changed, the majority of the electorate and a majority of the cantons are required to vote ‘yes’.

A survey two weeks ago showed 53 per cent said they would reject it. Both the government and parliament had rejected the initiative.

Commentators had said the country risked international pariah status and a backlash across the Muslim world if a ’yes’ vote was achieved.

If the exit polls prove correct it will be a huge shock and Switzerland risks international pariah status and a backlash across the Muslim world.

Sunday’s vote was forced by members of the far-right Swiss People’s party (SVP) which has provoked a national debate over immigration with powerful billboard images.

The stark “stop” posters depicting a Muslim woman in a burka against the backdrop of a Swiss flag studded with missile shaped black minarets have been banned in many towns.

Hanspeter Rentsch, an executive director at the watch company Swatch, has warned that the referendum, and the poster propaganda, could damage Switzerland in the eyes of the world.

“The ‘Swiss’ brand must continue to represent values such as openness, pluralism and freedom of religion. Under no circumstances must it be connected with hatred, animosity towards foreigners and narrow-mindedness,” he said.

Campaigners demanded the referendum to halt “political Islamisation” by amending the Swiss constitution to add a clause stating “the construction of minarets is prohibited”.

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the Swiss justice minister, has suggested that a vote for a ban could fuel Islamist radicalism and violent protests, such as those that greeted Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2006.

“This is not an appropriate instrument for combating religious extremism. It risks the opposite, of serving the cause of fanatics,” she said.

But Oskar Freysinger, an SVP MP, compares warnings of anger in the Muslim world to the arguments used by “appeasers” of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

“It is what Chamberlain thought in Munich in 1938. If these are the consequences, it is the proof that what we are doing to defend ourselves is legitimate,” he said.

The vote is required because campaigners got over 100,000 signatures on a petition against minarets triggering a vote under the Swiss constitution.

The campaign followed a row over a minaret in the tiny town of Langenthal, in the Bern canton of Switzerland.

Earlier this year Langenthal’s 750 Muslims asked for planning permission to add a minaret, 30 feet high, to their mosque in a town with 11 churches and 14,500 inhabitants.

The reaction to the apparently harmless request has polarised Switzerland and crossed borders to feed into British, French, Dutch and Austrian fears over Islam and national identity.

“This minaret is a symbol of conquest and power which marks the will to introduce Sharia law as has happened in some other European cities. We will not accept that,” said Ulrich Schueler, an SVP politician and leader of the “stop” minaret campaign.

Muslims have rejected the argument that a minaret symbolises Muslim power. Mutalip Karaademi, leader of Langenthal’s Muslim community and of Albanian origin, accused Mr Schueler of telling “dirty lies”.

“A minaret is a symbol nothing more. It s nice to see a house of god with a minaret or a church steeple or cupolas on a synagogue,” he said.

“They call us terrorists. They call us Taliban, so many labels all wrong. They insult us. We love this country, almost more than our own. Our children were born here.”