► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Human Rights’

« Older Entries

Geert Wilders: No distinction between Islam and Islamism

by 1389AD ( 34 Comments › )
Filed under Canada, Free Speech, Hate Speech, Islam, Islamic Supremacism, Islamists, Koran, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness at May 10th, 2011 - 11:30 am

I had it figured out quite some time ago: Human rights is the new race card. The notion of “human rights” is a self-righteous Orwellian lie. It is nothing more than a tool of the leftist/jihadist convergence to attack what’s left of Judaeo-Christian civilization, and to take away our rights to speak up on our own behalf.

Jonathan Kay is to be commended for revealing what he has had to do to protect his columnists from the depredations of “human rights” tribunals. Geert Wilders refuses to water down and disguise his message to conform to this modern-day liberal fascism, and he continues to pay a heavy price for that.

Jonathan Kay: Geert Wilders’ problem with Islam

Thumbnail photo of Geert Wilders - click for original

Jonathan Kay May 8, 2011 – 7:48 PM ET | Last Updated: May 9, 2011 10:54 AM ET

As an editor at the National Post, I often rely on three letters to protect my columnists from human-rights tribunals: I-S-M — these being the difference between spelling Islam and Islamism.

The former is a religion — like Christianity or Judaism. The latter is an ideology, which seeks to impose an intolerant fundamentalist version of Islam on all Muslims, and spread the faith throughout the world. Declaring Islamism a menace isn’t controversial. Declaring Islam a menace is considered hate speech.

Geert Wilders’ refusal to deploy those three letters is the reason that the 47-year-old Dutch politician travels with bodyguards, and cannot sleep in the same house two nights in a row. For Mr. Wilders, the problem plaguing Western societies is Islam, full stop. Terrorism, tyranny, the subjugation of women — these are not perversions of Islam, as he sees it, but rather its very essence.

“The word ‘Islamism’ suggests that there is a moderate Islam and a non-moderate Islam,” he told me during an interview in Toronto on Sunday. “And I believe that this is a distinction that doesn’t exist. It’s like the Prime Minister of Turkey [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, said ‘There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.’ This is the Islam of the Koran.”

“Now, you can certainly make a distinction among the people,” he adds. “There are moderate Muslims — who are the majority in our Western societies — and non-moderate Muslims.”

“But Islam itself has only one form. The totalitarian ideology contained in the Koran has no room for moderation. If you really look at what the Koran says, in fact, you could argue that ‘moderate’ Muslims are not Muslims at all. It tells us that if you do not act on even one verse, then you are an apostate.”

Unlike most critics of Islam, who tend to shy away from the explosive subject of Mohammed himself, Mr. Wilders forthrightly describes the Muslim Prophet as a dictator, a pedophile and a warmonger. “If you study the life of Mohammed,” Mr. Wilders told me, “you can see that he was a worse terrorist than Osama bin Laden ever was.”

It is an understatement to call Mr. Wilders a divisive figure in the Netherlands. On the one hand, he is the leader of the PVV, the country’s third most popular political party — which currently is propping up the ruling minority government. And Mr. Wilders has been declared “politician of the year” by a popular Dutch radio station, and come in second in a variety of other mainstream polls.

On the other hand, the Muslim Council of Britain has called him “an open and relentless preacher of hate.” For a time, Mr. Wilders, even was banned from entering the U.K. A popular Dutch rapper wrote a song about killing Mr. Wilders (“This is no joke. Last night I dreamed I chopped your head off.”)

Before meeting Mr. Wilders on Sunday, I knew him mostly from his most inflammatory slogans — such as his comparison of the Koran to Mein Kampf — which his detractors fling around as proof of his narrow-minded bigotry.

Yet the real Geert Wilders speaks softly and thoughtfully. It turns out that he’s travelled to dozens of Muslim nations. He knows more about the Islamic faith and what it means to ordinary people than do most of Islam’s most ardent Western defenders.

Nor do I believe that Mr. Wilders is a bigot — a least, not in the sense that the word usually is understood.

“I don’t hate Muslims. I hate their book and their ideology,” is what he told Britain’s Guardian newspaper in 2008. Mr. Wilders sees Islam as akin to communism or fascism, a cage that traps its suffering adherents in a hateful, phobic frame of mind.
[…]
Of course, in the modern, politically correct Western tradition, hatred expressed toward a religion typically is held on the same level of human-rights opprobrium as hatred expressed toward a race or an ethnicity. But Islam is not really a religion at all, as Mr. Wilders sees it, but rather a retrograde political ideology with religious trappings.

He notes that while other religions draw a distinction between God and Caesar, between the secular and the spiritual, Islam demands submission in every aspect of human existence, both through the wording of the Koran itself and the Shariah law that has developed in its shadow. The faith also supplies a justification for aggressive war; vilifies non-believers; and pronounces death upon its enemies. In short, Mr. Wilders argues, it has all the ingredients of what students of 20th century history would recognize as a fully formed totalitarian ideology.
[…]
National Post
jkay@nationalpost.com

Read it all.

Also published on 1389 Blog.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Canada, Free Speech, Hate Speech, Islam, Islamic Supremacism, Islamists, Koran, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness | 34 Comments »

American Sovereignty Under Attack By U.S. State Department

by Kafir ( 184 Comments › )
Filed under Blogmocracy, Guest Post, Politics, United Nations at August 31st, 2010 - 11:30 am

Blogmocracy in Action!
Guest post by: Huckfunn!

AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY UNDER ATTACK BY U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

This is a topic that has gotten very little play in the media or blogosphere. On August 20th, the U.S. Statement Department issued a report to the U.N. which detailed the State Department’s view of human rights issues in the United States. While many countries around the world annually submit such a report to the U.N., this is the first time the United States has ever done so.

The entire report can be found here:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf

What initially brought this matter to my attention was Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s letter to the State Department demanding a retraction of this part of the report which discusses Arizona’s recent passage of S.B.1070:

“A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world,” the report says. “The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.”

Governor Brewer wrote to Hillary Clinton:

“Simply put, it is downright offensive that the State Department included the State of Arizona and S.B. 1070 in a report to the United Nations Council on Human Rights, whose members include such renowned human rights ‘champions’ as Cuba and Libya.” Governor Brewer additionally stated, “The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional. Human rights as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions are expressly protected in S.B. 1070 and defended vigorously by my Administration.”

Governor Brewer’s entire letter can be found here:
http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_082710_LetterSecretaryClinton.pdf

Of all of the obominations heaped upon our nation by the Obama regime (high taxes, huge deficits, record spending, endless apologies to the world, Obamacare, etc…), this has got to be one of the worst. The notion that the sovereignty of The United States, her laws and her people, could ever be subordinated to the dictates of the U.N., or any other law save the U.S. Constitution, is as close to treason as anything I have ever seen. However, the idea of transnationalism (or treason for that matter) coming from the democrats should come as no surprise to us. During the 2004 election campaign would-be POTUS John Kerry famously talked about the U.S. needing to “pass a global test” prior to taking pre-emptive military action against foreign threats. Further, in 1970 Kerry told the Harvard Crimson, “I’m an internationalist, I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

Joe Wolverton, II of the New American says that following the submission of this report to the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights, “U.N. Human Rights Council will conduct a final audit of the current state of the promotion of human rights in the United States. Then, it will recommend a slate of necessary reforms to the laws of the United States.” His article can be found here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4411-state-department-submits-to-un-human-rights-review-for-the-first-time

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton submitted this vile piece of excrement to the U.N. Anyone who ever had the faintest idea that she is a “moderate” or “centrist” needs to get their mind right. When she runs for POTUS in the 2012 election this issue needs to be front and center.

-Huckfunn

Tags: , ,
Posted in Blogmocracy, Guest Post, Politics, United Nations | 184 Comments »

My response to those who claim it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest mosques.

by Delectable ( 195 Comments › )
Filed under Free Speech, Islam at July 23rd, 2010 - 4:30 pm

I wrote the following in response to a terribly misguided post, written by Jeffrey Imm, of the group Responsible for Equality and Liberty (R.E.A.L.). A related post was linked to (and praised) by a certain husky pony-tailed blogger, which should tell you all you need to know about it! To boil it down, Mr. Imm believes that it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest religious institutions, including those run by the Muslim Brotherhood. So he, in response, affirmatively defends the right of Muslims (including extremist Muslims, such as the Muslim Brotherhood) to worship wherever they want, including at Ground Zero. Below is an email I wrote in response. Please use the content in this email as helpful information whenever these topics come up with friends, colleagues, and/or family.

———————

To R.E.A.L.,

You are seeking to deny the legitimate moral and constitutional right that I and others have to protesting hate mosques being in our neighborhoods.
 
I have the first amendment right to protest, including protesting religious institutions. The problem is not that SIOA, Westboro Baptist Church, or MAS (the Muslim American Society, an organization that is considered a Muslim Brotherhood front group) protests a synagogue, mosque, or church. “Holy places” are not beyond reproach, and there is just as much a right to protest a church, synagogue, and/or mosque as there is a right to protest a community center. This is simple and basic American constitutional law that you (as a former FBI agent) were sworn to uphold.
 
Certainly, no one has the right to use intimidation tactics to block a mosque that include violence and/or threats of violence. I never said otherwise (and no one of merit would). However, I have every right to lobby a public official, or private individuals, and express displeasure about a new church, mosque, and/or synagogue being built. This is a basic American right that I enjoy as a citizen of this country. Yet you oppose any and all protests against mosques – even peaceful ones using no intimidation tactics.
 
When al-Awda/Code Pink/MAS/Adalah/etc protests outside synagogues and/or Jewish events (as they have done), I never think that the mere act of their protesting outside a house of worship is itself violative of human rights and decency. If in fact Judaism were a human rights violating faith, then perhaps Jews would deserve to be picketed! (but obviously, since the opposite is true, al-Awda/Code Pink/MAS/Adalah/etc are the haters) No, my problem with these organizations is the message found within their protests. In contradistinction, you appear to believe that simply protesting a house of worship is ipso facto evidence of a “human rights violation” (and/or hate speech) taking place. That is not only absurd and offensive, is the sort of reasoning that ultimately advocates on behalf of blasphemy laws.

This is not about whether or not the government is or should banning the building of a new mosque/synagogue/church. No – that is a separate matter altogether (and oddly enough, we may be in agreement on that matter).

The problem in China, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, et. al., is not one of protests of churches and/or synagogues. It is that the governments themselves ban churches/synagogues, and/or that the citizens themselves are violent towards certain religious and ethnic groups.

In fact, I believe that the USA needs to expand the definition of “terrorist organization” to include the Muslim Brotherhood and MAS. This would be most accurate, in light of Steve Emerson’s extensive work (as well as the body of evidence uncovered in the Holy Land Foundation trial), and then apply those laws when/if MAS wants to open a new mosque. But until then, I don’t think there is a way of writing a law that could survive constitutional protection that would be narrowly tailored enough to simply block MAS from opening a mosque, simply due to the fact that it is MAS, without then preventing me from building a synagogue. (Don’t believe me? Check out Geert Wilders’s trial in Holland for “hate speech,” to see how hate speech laws can go awry.) If you want to stop a mosque, you can do so legitimately due to zoning concerns and/or the loudness of the Shahada (call to prayer five times a day). However, if the zoning checks out, I believe you are really out of luck if you seek to have the government prevent a mosque from being built.

However, it is ludicrous to claim that somehow when Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer/SIOA protest a mosque, this is leading us down the path of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. No, it is R.E.A.L. that is leading us down the path of China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc, by claiming that SIOA and others should be condemned (and/or prevented) for simply exercising their first amendment right to lobby and protest mosques.

This is about the right of individuals to protest a religious institution, which you impliedly – from all you have written in the past few weeks – believe they do not deserve.

After all, Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer, and SIOA are not the government. They have no ability to prevent a mosque from being allowed in one place or another. What they are doing is ultimately lobbying to prevent future mosque building – which is their right. If you have a problem with the message they have (i.e., if you disagree that MAS is a bad organization, or that Islam is a bad religion), then feel free to explain why you disagree with them. Otherwise, even Dove Church has the right to say “Islam is of the Devil,” just as Westboro Baptist Church has the right to say “Judaism is of the devil.” And I have that same right to say that Westboro Baptist Church and Dove Church are hateful institutions, due to the messages they convey. It’s called a marketplace of ideas and freedom of speech – something I thought R.E.A.L. stood for.
 
In fact, I thought R.E.A.L. stood for human rights, consistency, and the constitution. However, your abject rejection of freedom of speech shows that R.E.A.L. is not consistent in support for universal human rights.
 
I am disappointed with what you have turned R.E.A.L. into. This is no longer a human rights organization when it does not stand for basic freedom of speech.
Rodan Update: In related news, a massive blow to the Islamic Imperialist Colonization of America has been dealt.
The board of trustees of a Staten Island Catholic Church have rejected the controversial sale of a church building to a Muslim group looking to open a mosque.
 
The collapse of the deal – which would have transferred the vacant convent of St. Margaret Mary Church to the Muslim American Society for $750,000 – came amid a national controversy over efforts to construct a mosque near Ground Zero.
Americans finally have stood up and said no to Islamic Imperialism!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Free Speech, Islam | 195 Comments »

Obama’s diplomatic war with Israel (and American allies)

by Delectable ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Dhimmitude, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives at April 8th, 2010 - 4:00 pm

ObamaChamberlain

In what can only be described as the middle finger to Israel, reliable sources have said that Obama seeks to “impose,” (via his “diktat”) a “peace plan” upon Israel, against its will.

This is a total disaster. But it does remind me of a horrific conversation I had when Obama was elected. I was at the “election party” held by a leading Jewish organization, which was a joint Jewish-diplomat party. 95% of the attendees adored Obama, and were cheering when he was elected. I, of course, was vomiting. In any case, I ended up speaking to an Israeli diplomat who works for the consulate. I told her my distress over Obama’s election, and she told me how happy she was. When I told her my fears, and of my rejection of the “two state solution,” she said that I don’t believe in “peace and hope.”  When I said that I believed in security now, peace later, she said that “this will lead to the end of Israel, which cannot survive just like that.” She then said that she sees “peace” as a “two state solution,” with NATO troops in the West Bank. I literally laughed in her face and walked away when she said that.

But it seems she will have her way, as will all the J-Streeters, who believe in similar delusions, that somehow you can appease the Jihad-minded ‘Palestinians’ by giving them land, vital to Israel’s security, and ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Jews from our homeland (while allowing Arabs to live wherever they want). This somehow is meant to lead to “peace, peace in our time!”

Please read this column in Commentary.

According to Cooper, the trigger for this latest instance of administration hubris was a recent gathering of former national-security advisers including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Samuel Berger, and Colin Powell, who were called in to consult with the president and his adviser General James L. Jones. The consensus (only Powell seems to have dissented) was that Obama must put forward his own scheme that would state exactly what the parameters of a peace deal would be. The idea is that peace can only be obtained by the United States imposing it on the parties. The plan is, of course, along the lines of past Israeli peace offers rejected by the Palestinians, plus extra Israeli concessions. The Palestinians give up their “right of return,” and Israel “would return to its 1967 borders,” including the one that divided Jerusalem, with only “a few negotiated settlements” as an exception. The supposed sweetener for Israel is that the United States or NATO, whose troops would be stationed along the Jordan River, would guarantee Israeli security.

Cheering from the sidelines is former Clinton staffer Robert Malley, who advised Obama on Middle East issues during the 2008 campaign until he was put aside to reassure Jewish voters worried about the Democrats having a man on staff who had served as an apologist for Yasser Arafat in the aftermath of the 2000 Camp David talks. For Malley, the logic of an American diktat is simple: “It’s not rocket science. If the U.S. wants it done, it will have to do it.”

Read it all.

And I have another comment to add.

Obama is so damned arrogant! He just thinks he can impose his “diktat” upon a sovereign ally, against its will, and just get whatever he wants, because he is Obama. Yet somehow, he doesn’t seem to want Iran to be de-nuclearized enough to “get it done.” The same logic of “well, the USA wants it, so it will happen,” doesn’t seem to apply to America’s enemies. Only its friends.

It will take a long time to recover from the sheer arrogance and audacity of the Obama administration. Why should anyone want to be an American ally again?

Between this, and the leak that Obama is not letting Israeli nuclear scientists travel to the USA, as well as an alleged arms freeze imposed upon Israel, it is clear that Obama is in diplomatic war with a strategic ally. This is a pattern of Obama’s, as we see how “well” he treats other allies, such as the UK (returning the Churchill bust), India (pressuring India and doing little about Pakistan), Honduras, Colombia, and Eastern Europe (reneging on middle defense), amongst so many others.

My humble proposal is for all of the USA’s former allies to work around the Obama administration while he is in office, as Obama is clearly hostile to human rights. I suggest forming a coalition of human rights-supporting countries (as well as semi-free countries under siege), such as Israel, India, certain European states (that are not totally dhimmified, such as Italy and France under Sarkozy, or Spain if it has Partido Popular, and Eastern European countries such as Poland the Czech Republic), countries in Africa battling Jihad, such as Ethiopia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia/New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Honduras. These countries will need the safety of a nuclear umbrella, and so they will sadly likely have to go to Putin’s Russia. Hey, this is already happening, as Avigdor Lieberman (born in Moldova) is reaching out to Russia. Heck, there are even efforts by Israel to reach out to China.

I foresee a realignment of world alliances due to Obama’s choice of foe over friend. It is the only way our former allies have a chance to battle against Jihad and its Progressive allies (Chavez/Castro/et. al.).

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Dhimmitude, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Progressives | 102 Comments »

« Older Entries