Concessions to Islam

Voluntarily Giving Up Free Speech in the West

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:44:00 +0000

The following is an article from the Washington Post entitled Shut Up And Play Nice: How the Western World is Limiting Free Speech by Jonathan Turley:

Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.

In the face of the violence that frequently results from anti-religious expression, some world leaders seem to be losing their patience with free speech. After a video called “Innocence of Muslims” appeared on YouTube and sparked violent protests in several Muslim nations last month, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”

It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance. As Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, “Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.”

A willingness to confine free speech in the name of social pluralism can be seen at various levels of authority and government. In February, for instance, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin heard a case in which a Muslim man was charged with attacking an atheist marching in a Halloween parade as a “zombie Muhammed.” Martin castigated not the defendant but the victim, Ernie Perce, lecturing him that “our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures — which is what you did.”

Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people — challenging social taboos or political values.

This was evident in recent days when courts in Washington and New York ruled that transit authorities could not prevent or delay the posting of a controversial ad that says: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”

When U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer said the government could not bar the ad simply because it could upset some Metro riders, the ruling prompted calls for new limits on such speech. And in New York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority responded by unanimously passing a new regulation banning any message that it considers likely to “incite” others or cause some “other immediate breach of the peace.”

Such efforts focus not on the right to speak but on the possible reaction to speech — a fundamental change in the treatment of free speech in the West. The much-misconstrued statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that free speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is now being used to curtail speech that might provoke a violence-prone minority. Our entire society is being treated as a crowded theater, and talking about whole subjects is now akin to shouting “fire!”

The new restrictions are forcing people to meet the demands of the lowest common denominator of accepted speech, usually using one of four rationales.

Speech is blasphemous

This is the oldest threat to free speech, but it has experienced something of a comeback in the 21st century. After protests erupted throughout the Muslim world in 2005 over Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, Western countries publicly professed fealty to free speech, yet quietly cracked down on anti-religious expression. Religious critics in France, Britain, Italy and other countries have found themselves under criminal investigation as threats to public safety. In France, actress and animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot has been fined several times for comments about how Muslims are undermining French culture. And just last month, a Greek atheist was arrested for insulting a famous monk by making his name sound like that of a pasta dish.

Some Western countries have classic blasphemy laws — such as Ireland, which in 2009 criminalized the “publication or utterance of blasphemous matter” deemed “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.” The Russian Duma recently proposed a law against “insulting religious beliefs.” Other countries allow the arrest of people who threaten strife by criticizing religions or religious leaders. In Britain, for instance, a 15-year-old girl was arrested two years ago for burning a Koran.

Western governments seem to be sending the message that free speech rights will not protect you — as shown clearly last month by the images of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the YouTube filmmaker, being carted away in California on suspicion of probation violations. Dutch politician Geert Wilders went through years of litigation before he was acquitted last year on charges of insulting Islam by voicing anti-Islamic views. In the Netherlands and Italy, cartoonists and comedians have been charged with insulting religion through caricatures or jokes.

Even the Obama administration supported the passage of a resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Council to create an international standard restricting some anti-religious speech (its full name: “Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief”). Egypt’s U.N. ambassador heralded the resolution as exposing the “true nature” of free speech and recognizing that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” to insult religion.

At a Washington conference last year to implement the resolution, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that it would protect both “the right to practice one’s religion freely and the right to express one’s opinion without fear.” But it isn’t clear how speech can be protected if the yardstick is how people react to speech — particularly in countries where people riot over a single cartoon. Clinton suggested that free speech resulting in “sectarian clashes” or “the destruction or the defacement or the vandalization of religious sites” was not, as she put it, “fair game.”

Given this initiative, President Obama’s U.N. address last month declaring America’s support for free speech, while laudable, seemed confused — even at odds with his administration’s efforts.

Speech is hateful

In the United States, hate speech is presumably protected under the First Amendment. However, hate-crime laws often redefine hateful expression as a criminal act. Thus, in 2003, the Supreme Court addressed the conviction of a Virginia Ku Klux Klan member who burned a cross on private land. The court allowed for criminal penalties so long as the government could show that the act was “intended to intimidate” others. It was a distinction without meaning, since the state can simply cite the intimidating history of that symbol.

Other Western nations routinely bar forms of speech considered hateful. Britain prohibits any “abusive or insulting words” meant “to stir up racial hatred.” Canada outlaws “any writing, sign or visible representation” that “incites hatred against any identifiable group.” These laws ban speech based not only on its content but on the reaction of others. Speakers are often called to answer for their divisive or insulting speech before bodies like the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

This month, a Canadian court ruled that Marc Lemire, the webmaster of a far-right political site, could be punished for allowing third parties to leave insulting comments about homosexuals and blacks on the site. Echoing the logic behind blasphemy laws, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that “the minimal harm caused . . . to freedom of expression is far outweighed by the benefit it provides to vulnerable groups and to the promotion of equality.”

Speech is discriminatory

Perhaps the most rapidly expanding limitation on speech is found in anti-discrimination laws. Many Western countries have extended such laws to public statements deemed insulting or derogatory to any group, race or gender.

For example, in a closely watched case last year, a French court found fashion designer John Galliano guilty of making discriminatory comments in a Paris bar, where he got into a cursing match with a couple using sexist and anti-Semitic terms. Judge Anne-Marie Sauteraud read a list of the bad words Galliano had used, adding that she found (rather implausibly) he had said “dirty whore” at least 1,000 times. Though he faced up to six months in jail, he was fined.

In Canada, comedian Guy Earle was charged with violating the human rights of a lesbian couple after he got into a trash-talking session with a group of women during an open-mike night at a nightclub. Lorna Pardy said she suffered post-traumatic stress because of Earle’s profane language and derogatory terms for lesbians. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled last year that since this was a matter of discrimination, free speech was not a defense, and awarded about $23,000 to the couple.

Ironically, while some religious organizations are pushing blasphemy laws, religious individuals are increasingly targeted under anti-discrimination laws for their criticism of homosexuals and other groups. In 2008, a minister in Canada was not only forced to pay fines for uttering anti-gay sentiments but was also enjoined from expressing such views in the future.

Speech is deceitful

In the United States, where speech is given the most protection among Western countries, there has been a recent effort to carve out a potentially large category to which the First Amendment would not apply. While we have always prosecuted people who lie to achieve financial or other benefits, some argue that the government can outlaw any lie, regardless of whether the liar secured any economic gain.

One such law was the Stolen Valor Act, signed by President George W. Bush in 2006, which made it a crime for people to lie about receiving military honors. The Supreme Court struck it down this year, but at least two liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, proposed that such laws should have less of a burden to be upheld as constitutional. The House responded with new legislation that would criminalize lies told with the intent to obtain any undefined “tangible benefit.”

The dangers are obvious. Government officials have long labeled whistle blowers, reporters and critics as “liars” who distort their actions or words. If the government can define what is a lie, it can define what is the truth.

For example, in February the French Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that made it a crime to deny the 1915 Armenian genocide by Turkey — a characterization that Turkey steadfastly rejects. Despite the ruling, various French leaders pledged to pass new measures punishing those who deny the Armenians’ historical claims.

The impact of government limits on speech has been magnified by even greater forms of private censorship. For example, most news organizations have stopped showing images of Muhammad, though they seem to have no misgivings about caricatures of other religious figures. The most extreme such example was supplied by Yale University Press, which in 2009 published a book about the Danish cartoons titled “The Cartoons That Shook the World” — but cut all of the cartoons so as not to insult anyone.

The very right that laid the foundation for Western civilization is increasingly viewed as a nuisance, if not a threat. Whether speech is deemed inflammatory or hateful or discriminatory or simply false, society is denying speech rights in the name of tolerance, enforcing mutual respect through categorical censorship.

As in a troubled marriage, the West seems to be falling out of love with free speech. Unable to divorce ourselves from this defining right, we take refuge instead in an awkward and forced silence.

jturley@law.gwu.edu

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

Welfare For Multiple Wives

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:39:00 +0000

In Britain, husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review. Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognized formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law (Shari'a). Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

Britain's concession is helping Jihadis fulfill one of their most important goals: To gain a numerical advantage. (Read more about their goals.)

Read more on that: Multiple Wives Mean Multiple Benefits.

Blasphemy and Free Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 02:03:00 +0000

PAUL MARSHALL, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, delivered a lecture at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., on February 3, 2012. Below are some excerpts:

A growing threat to our freedom of speech is the attempt to stifle religious discussion in the name of preventing “defamation of” or “insults to” religion, especially Islam. Resulting restrictions represent, in effect, a revival of blasphemy laws.

Few in the West were concerned with such laws 20 years ago. Even if still on some statute books, they were only of historical interest. That began to change in 1989, when the late Ayatollah Khomeini, then Iran’s Supreme Leader, declared it the duty of every Muslim to kill British-based writer Salman Rushdie on the grounds that his novel, The Satanic Verses, was blasphemous. Rushdie has survived by living his life in hiding. Others connected with the book were not so fortunate: its Japanese translator was assassinated, its Italian translator was stabbed, its Norwegian publisher was shot, and 35 guests at a hotel hosting its Turkish publisher were burned to death in an arson attack...

Western governments have begun to give in to demands from the Saudi-based OIC and others for controls on speech. In Austria, for instance, Elisabeth Sabbaditsch-Wolf has been convicted of “denigrating religious beliefs” for her comments about Mohammed during a seminar on radical Islam. Canada’s grossly misnamed “human rights commissions” have hauled writers—including Mark Steyn, who teaches as a distinguished fellow in journalism at Hillsdale College—before tribunals to interrogate them about their writings on Islam. And in Holland and Finland, respectively, politicians Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho have been prosecuted for their comments on Islam in political speeches.

In America, the First Amendment still protects against the criminalization of criticizing Islam. But we face at least two threats still. The first is extra-legal intimidation of a kind already endemic in the Muslim world and increasing in Europe. In 2009, Yale University Press, in consultation with Yale University, removed all illustrations of Mohammed from its book by Jytte Klausen on the Danish cartoon crisis. It also removed Gustave Doré’s 19th-century illustration of Mohammed in hell from Dante’s Inferno. Yale’s formal press statement stressed the earlier refusal by American media outlets to show the cartoons, and noted that their “republication…has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world.”

Another publisher, Random House, rejected at the last minute a historical romance novel about Mohammed’s wife, Jewel of Medina, by American writer Sherry Jones. They did so to protect “the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel.”

The comedy show South Park refused to show an image of Mohammed in a bear suit, although it mocked figures from other religions. In response, Molly Norris, a cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly, suggested an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” She quickly withdrew the suggestion and implied that she had been joking. But after several death threats, including from Al-Qaeda, the FBI advised her that she should go into hiding—which she has now done under a new name.

In 2010, Zachary Chesser, a young convert to Islam, pleaded guilty to threatening the creators of South Park. And on October 3, 2011, approximately 800 newspapers refused to run a “Non Sequitur” cartoon drawn by Wiley Miller that merely contained a bucolic scene with the caption “Where’s Muhammad?”

Many in our media claim to be self-censoring out of sensitivity to religious feelings, but that claim is repeatedly undercut by their willingness to mock and criticize religions other than Islam. As British comedian Ben Elton observed: “The BBC will let vicar gags pass, but they would not let imam gags pass. They might pretend that it’s, you know, something to do with their moral sensibilities, but it isn’t. It’s because they’re scared.”

Read the whole lecture here.

France Allows Itself to Become a Muslim Country

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:26:00 +0000

A video shows Friday in Paris. A hidden camera shows streets blocked by huge crowds of Muslim worshippers and enforced by a private security force.

This is all illegal in France: the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security. But the police have been ordered not to intervene.

It shows that even though some in the French government want to get tough with Muslims and ban the burqa, other parts of the French government continue to give Islam a privileged status.

An ordinary French citizen who has been watching the Islamization of Paris decided that the world needed to see what was happening to his city. He used a hidden camera to start posting videos on YouTube.

Master List of Concessions

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:12:00 +0000

IN THE SIDEBAR of Islamist Watch is a list of links by topic, each of which goes to another page full of links to articles on concessions made to Islam. What a resource!

When you're talking to people about "the Islamization of Europe" or "stealth jihad" and they look at you blankly and have no idea what you could mean, start reeling off the items from this list. This is how the West is being conquered — one small concession at a time. Each concession is the establishment of one aspect of Sharia law. Here's the list from the sidebar:

Creeping Sharia in the UK

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 16 May 2011 19:06:00 +0000

We received the following message from a doctor in the UK. He was having trouble posting a comment on Citizen Warrior, and we asked him to email the comment to us so we could post it. Here is his reply (printed with his permission), which is a personal perspective on the experience of living in a country in the process of Islamization:

I'm sorry, but my PC deletes immediately messages I send, in case anyone catches me maligning Islam (it is actually against the law here to malign Islam, and folks get fined or jailed for it).

The Organisation of Islamic Conference demanded that Western countries make it illegal to offend "religions", but by that they meant Islam so Holland and France and the UK set up laws to protect Islam. We are forced to eat halal food, for there is only ONE supermarket chain (Morrison's) that sells non-halal and if you don't live near one, it's tough luck.

All our schools, hospitals, supermarkets, takeaways, sandwich shops are halal (acceptable to Muslims) food. I will die before I eat food offered to a false God, and when an animal has suffered to give me meat.

Our police dogs have to wear special "booties" before going in a Muslim's house, and the police have to give the imam notice so he can meet them and escort them around the Muslim's home, but by then all the evidence is gone because the Imam has warned the Muslim.

They are walking over us all here in England. We even have to clear the pool because Muslim days are given priority, and one council in London "Tower Hamlets" is run by Muslim councillors who fiddled the postal voting system and piled in countless false votes from dead Muslims and those who live in Pakistan to cheat us. Our government was too afraid to cancel the election, and the Muslims "won".

They are the most dishonest, vile people you can imagine when they are in their masses...don't let them do this to USA.

Sharia in America

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:46:00 +0000

THE FOLLOWING is an excerpt from an email by Guy Rogers, the executive director of Act! for America:

In a September 21st column, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson belittled Newt Gingrich for painting “Islam as the new Red Menace.” He dismissed any concern about a “stealthy insinuation of sharia into America’s legal system because no such thing is happening.”

And the kicker: “The ‘stealth jihadis,’ I suppose, must be like the ‘known communists’ on the list in Sen. Joseph McCarthy's hand.”

Robinson claims there is only one example of sharia here in America, the case of the New Jersey judge who ruled that a Muslim man committed no crime while beating and raping his wife, because he was acting consistent with his Islamic “practices.”

Robinson’s arrogance is exceeded only by his ignorance.

* Sharia has penetrated our financial system, in the form of sharia-compliant financial instruments offered by the likes of Citi Group and AIG. In an example of government accommodating sharia, Minnesota offers sharia-compliant mortgages for Muslims.

* Muslim prison employees, law enforcement officials, and even a Disneyland employee, have sued for the right to wear the hijab as part of their uniforms.

* Muslim parents in New Jersey are demanding private prayer rooms for their children in the PUBLIC elementary schools.

* According to a National Public Radio report in 2007, as many as 100,000 Muslims are living in polygamous marriages here in America.

* Harvard provided women-only gym hours to accommodate the demands of Muslims.

Of course, I could go on and on.

The Ground Zero Mosque imam was touted by politically correct elites as a paragon of interfaith tolerance. Now America knows Imam Rauf believes any government that does not practice sharia law is “unjust.”

Twenty years ago, those in the UK who spoke out against the coming of sharia were also ridiculed. Today there are some 85 sharia courts in the UK.

The playground antics of enablers like Robinson, who insist on calling names, conjuring up the demon of McCarthyism, and engaging in a foolish “see no sharia, hear no sharia, speak no sharia” will not change these facts nor diminish the threat.

But every time they launch into their sanctimonious condemnations of anyone who dares to expose the threat of stealth jihad, Islamists laugh at them behind their backs for being such dupes.

TIME Magazine Submits to Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:39:00 +0000

In an article entitled, Is TIME a Muslim Magazine?, Phyllis Chesler writes about "the pro-Muslim/pro-Islamist and anti-Western propaganda" in a recent popular news magazine article. She writes:

Time magazine has an August 30 cover story titled “Is America Islamophobic?” Within, the article is titled: “Islam in America: It’s part of the fabric of life, but protests reveal a growing hostility to the religion of Muslims.”

One might wonder why any “hostility” to a productive, historically significant Muslim presence in America exists. Time magazine does not tell us.

The article portrays Muslims as innocent victims and American non-Muslims as prejudiced racists who, historically, once banned Catholicism, tried to limit immigration, burned African-American churches, passed anti-Chinese legislation, criminalized certain Native-American rituals (polygamy, rejection of modern medicine), spawned the Ku Klux Klan, failed to elect a Catholic president until 1960, allowed Father Coughlin’s anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi rants to appear over the airwaves, and interned 120,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans during World War Two. This is all contained in Time’s “Brief History of Intolerance in America.”

This article could easily appear in an Egyptian or Syrian magazine; however it would be Israel that would be blamed for various alleged atrocities, and Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and even al-Qaeda who would be seen as the innocent victims.

Time magazine does not balance out their history of American intolerance with a history of American tolerance, which included separating the state from religion, reforming religions, instituting a tradition of free speech, fighting a bloody Civil War in order to free the slaves, giving women the vote and educational opportunities, freeing Europe from Nazi fascist rule and waging a Cold war against Soviet totalitarianism.

Also missing in the Time magazine article is the fact that Muslim leaders, in the name of Islam, have behaved very badly and for a very long time. Missing is an equal history of Muslim countries which have practiced colonialism, imperialism, forced conversions, slavery (which is still practiced), and a far more barbaric mistreatment of non-Muslims infidels.

Recently, Muslims, in the name of Islam, have hijacked planes, blown themselves and other people up, flown planes into tall buildings, plotted bomb attacks in New York City’s Times Square and over Detroit, shot American soldiers down on a military base in Texas, and plotted to do so on military bases in New York and New Jersey. In addition, mosques everywhere, even in the West, have been preaching death to the Jews, death to Zionists, infidels, and Jihad Now! These mosques and their imams or mullahs have been funded by Arab and Muslim pro-jihad financiers.

Read the whole article>>

What a pathetic display of ignorance on the part of TIME Magazine. Ignorance or dhimmitude or taqiyya. Whatever it is, this is outrageous for such a mainstream magazine with a staff of fact-checkers at their disposal.

Free Speech: Use It Or Lose It

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:57:00 +0000

In 2005, Lars Vilks penned the infamous “Danish” cartoons. In 2006, global, choregraphed Muslim riots ensued, people died, newspapers boycotted the cartoons.

Publishers and authors began self-censoring, changing or backing out of contracts in order to avoid expensive lawsuits. Or worse.

In 2006, Palgrave-Macmillan reneged on its promise to publish "Quran: A Reformist Translation."

In 2007, the Cambridge University Press published "Alms for Jihad" but then immediately pulled books off the shelves to avoid a libel action lawsuit filed by the same sheikh who had sued Ehrenfeld.

In 2007, Canadian author Mark Steyn and his magazine, MacLeans, were summoned before the Canadian Human Rights Commission on charges that Steyn had “subjected Canadian-Muslims to hatred and contempt” and for “being flagrantly Islamophobic.”

Eventually, the Commission condemned Steyn but dismissed the charges for jurisdictional reasons. However, legal costs still had to be paid.

In 2008, Random House reneged on its contract to publish "The Jewel of Medina," a novel about Mohammed’s wife Aisha—and all because a single professor suggested via e-mail that the book “might lead to violence.”

Also, in 2008, Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, made a documentary, "Fitna," (translation: Strife), about Islam and anti-Western terrorism. Although Wilders’ just won a great electoral victory, he is currently facing government charges as a “racist” and purveyor of “hate speech.”

In 2009, ironically, Yale University Press published a book about the Danish cartoon controversy—but omitted the cartoons themselves without telling the author.

In 2010, the American author, Bruce Bawer and his Norwegian colleagues were accused of “racism” and “Islamophobia” by Norwegian leftists and Islamists; in June, 2010, the Norwegian government de-funded their excellent online website Human Rights Service which published work about Islam and women’s rights.

Finally, in June, 2010, the Public Prosecutor for Copenhagen charged the International Free Press Society and its president, Lars Hedegaard, with “racism.” Hedegaard dared to critique certain Muslim practices.

It is urgent that the West revamp our understanding of “hate speech” and “racism.” If we fail to do so, we will lose our right to free speech

The above is excerpted from Phyllis Chesler's article: How to Keep the USA From Becoming the United States of Arabia.

Hollywood Concedes to Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:01:00 +0000

IN AN ARTICLE entitled CAIR'S Hollywood Crusade, author Mark Tapson writes:

Since long before 9/11, CAIR has worked hard to steer Hollywood productions toward more and more sanitized depictions of Islam and Muslims, most famously in the 2002 film The Sum of All Fears, in which the filmmakers were convinced to swap out the original novel’s Islamic bad guys for a less politically insensitive choice, neo-Nazis (yawn). And yet CAIR was initially frustrated with Hollywood’s progress; at a White House rally almost exactly a year prior to the 9/11 attacks, Awad asserted that “Hollywood has not been our ally. Hollywood has distorted the facts. Hollywood has shown freedom fighters as terrorists. Hollywood has done the work that Zionists could not done [sic]...”

CAIR and pro-Islamist academics aren’t the only ones keeping up the pressure on Hollywood. Another Muslim Brotherhood front group, MPAC, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, even has a busy Hollywood Bureau, which educates (indoctrinates) filmmakers about Muslim customs and issues, offers script consultation (approval), and hands out awards to Hollywood people and projects whose work depicts Muslims and Islam in a favorable light (past winners have included Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin). The Bureau also seeks to “connect aspiring Muslim filmmakers, writers and actors to Hollywood professionals...”

Why is any of this important? Because while violent jihad is a serious issue, the cultural front is where this Clash of Civilization and Barbarism will be won or lost. Islamists who are patiently but assiduously working to tear down Western civilization are shrewdly crafting Hollywood’s subversive messages to the world. Is Hollywood as diligent in propagating a pro-American, pro-Western, anti-sharia narrative to export to the world?

Read the whole article: CAIR'S Hollywood Crusade.

An American Judge Applies Sharia Law

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:20:00 +0000

IT IS A Muslim's religious duty to strive to bring the whole world under the subjugation of Sharia law. Devout Muslims will continue to press for this until the end of time. One of the most common responses I get when talking to people is, "It can't happen in the United States."

It can and it does. Here is a good example.

An American judge in effect upheld Sharia law because a Muslim man under Sharia is allowed to force his wife to have sex with him. In American law that is rape. But the judge ruled otherwise, allowing Sharia to override American law.

Read the whole story: Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge's Ruling.

Paying the Jizya With Willing Submission

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:44:00 +0000

The following is an excerpt from the article, How the Failure to Understand Jihad is Costing Americans Trillions:

There is the $75 billion that has been given to Egypt by the American government — for what, exactly? For continuing to give lip service to its "Peace Treaty" with Israel, while Egypt has steadfastly refused, once it had recovered the entire Sinai, to observe its solemn undertakings to end hostile propaganda and acts against the Jewish state. In fact, the government-controlled media in Egypt broadcast programs based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as well as non-stop anti-Israel and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Egyptian public opinion is as anti-Israel, and in addition as anti-American, as any country could be — despite those $75 billion.

There is also the nearly $35 billion that is the true amount sent, as economic and military aid and debt forgiveness, to meretricious Pakistan. Pakistan for decades has been playing the Americans, since the heady days of the Dulles brothers who believed that Islam was "a bulwark against Communism."

Then there are the billions that have gone to Eastern Palestine, that is, Jordan, and to those Arab-occupied parts of Judea and Samaria, renamed by the Jordanians as "the West Bank." There the IDF helps maintain Arafat's successors, formerly his henchman, in pretend-power, so that they can continue to help themselves to a goodly portion of the billions in aid that the Americans and the Europeans continue to give, for some reason that is difficult to understand, to the most spoiled set of fake "refugees" in the world, the "West Bank" Arabs.

And other moneys have gone in the past to the Gazan Arabs, the other wing of the "Palestinians" who form the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel.

Read more: Western Nations Paying the Jizya to Muslim Nations.

UK Allows Unfair Treatment to Women if They're Muslim

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 21:27:00 +0000

PRACTICING MUSLIMS constantly push for concessions. In the UK, officals have capitulated by allowing Sharia courts within the UK to function, but "only" for domestic issues (marriage, divorce, inheritance, child custody, etc).

But a new report, Sharia Law in Britain, shows that family law is strongly biased against women. In Sharia's civil code, "a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters." This is standard Sharia law.

The UK Sharia courts "operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act, making their rulings binding in UK law."

"Sharia councils will frequently ask people to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions. Councils call themselves courts and the presiding imams are judges. There is neither control over the appointment of these judges nor an independent monitoring mechanism. People often do not have access to legal advice and representation. Proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements. Nor is there any real right to appeal.

"In this way, these privatised legal processes were ignoring not only state law intervention and due process but providing little protection and safety for the women."

Read the whole story: Sharia courts in the U.K.

Muslims Demand it and Europe Concedes to Limits on Free Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 03:13:00 +0000

IN EUROPE, the proportion of the population following Islam is fairly large. And as usual, demands for accomodating Muslims are increasingly urgent. Here are some examples of freedoms given away (from an article in Reason magazine):

In January, the World Culture Museum in Gothenburg, Sweden, took down a painting, Scène d'amour, described by its artist, Louzla Darabi, as a "response to Muslim hypocrisy about sexuality, above all women's sexuality"; in October, London's Tate Gallery removed John Latham's God Is Great, a work that incorporated copies of the Bible and the Koran. (Latham accused the gallery of cowardice.)

In May, ruling on a petition by the Muslim Union of Italy, a magistrate in the northern Italian city of Bergamo ordered writer Oriana Fallaci to stand trial for vilifying Islam in her book The Force of Reason. (She had previously been acquitted on a similar offense in France.) In September, the European Court of Human Rights affirmed a Turkish court's conviction of a publisher for issuing a novel, Abdullah Riza Ergüven's Yasak Tümceler, that purportedly "insulted the Prophet and religion."

In April, after virtually no public discussion, Norway's Parliament passed a law that punishes offensive remarks about any religion with up to three years' imprisonment — and places the burden of proof on the accused. Three months later, Britain's House of Commons approved a bill that would criminalize "words or behavior" that might "stir up racial or religious hatred."

For some Europeans in the expression business, government limits haven't been necessary: they've opted for self-censorship. After being "warned by Muslim friends" shortly after van Gogh's murder, Dutch movie director Albert Ter Heerdt decided to "postpone" a sequel to his "multicultural comedy" Shouf Shouf Habibi! And in January producer Gijs van de Westelaken canceled a screening of Submission at the Rotterdam Film Festival, whose theme was "censored films." (Instead, the audience saw two pictures sympathetic to suicide bombers.)

Read the whole article: Tolerance or Death!

Muslim Ghettos Funded By U.S. Taxpayers

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 05:50:00 +0000

IN PHILADELPHIA, Kenny Gamble, the author of such hit songs as “Love Train” and “Me and Mrs. Jones,” and a convert to Islam, has managed to collect the $1.6 billion through Universal Company, a so-called “charitable organization,” which he formed in 1993. The money has come from federal grants, loans, and “charitable” gifts.

Gamble and his spokesmen say that the non-profit company provides a public service by cleaning up a blighted section of the south Philly, but local residents say Universal used the $1.6 billion to create a Muslim ghetto. The allegation is supported by Gamble, who said to his fellow Muslims: “We are not here for Universal, we are here for Islam.”

The 800 block of South 15th Street now contains an Islamic center and a madrassah, created and sustained by Universal Company. A local says: “You look up and down the street and see men, women and children in traditional Muslim dress everywhere; you see the (Islamic center) right across from Kenny's house and security guards on the corners in kufis (Muslim brimless hats).”

On the website , the directors of Universal Company betray their true intent by saying: “By the Blessing and Mercy of Allah (SWT), the efforts of Universal Companies serve as a national model for what can be done with commitment, compassion, focus and careful planning and execution.”

Gamble is affiliated with the National Ummah Movement which seeks to establish sovereign Islamic enclaves ruled by Shariah law within major cities throughout the U.S.

Read more: ‘Muslims-Only’ Enclave Thrives In Philadelphia.

Muslims in Hospitals Don't Have to Follow Rules of Cleanliness

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:50:00 +0000

MORE POWERFUL in the long run than bombs and terror, waging jihad by gaining concessions is designed to gradually establish Sharia law everywhere on earth. Here's yet another concession Islam has won from non-Muslims: As of two months ago, female Muslim staff in British hospitals are now allowed to cover their arms to preserve their modesty despite earlier guidance that all staff should be "bare below the elbow."

This change has come about because "female Muslims objected to being required to expose their arms below the elbow."

The purpose of the original rules was to "reduce the number of patients who were falling ill, and even dying, from superbugs such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile." Oh well, people may get sick and die, but at least the Muslims are happy. It will be mostly infidels getting sick anyway.

Read the story: Muslim staff escape NHS hygiene rule.

Less Freedom For Muslim Women in Britain

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:53:00 +0000

AN INFLUENCIAL group of Muslims in Great Britain have been pushing for concessions to Islam, and getting them, to the detriment of women.

Women’s rights campaigner Yasmin Rehman said: "We Muslims have been a part of the UK for many, many years but the generations before me did not feel the need for or call for segregation in the way that is being demanded now.

"At the beginning of my career as a women’s rights advocate there was no need to apply for a certificate of Khula in divorce cases. Muslim women are now being told that divorces under the English legal system are not valued or recognised without a certificate of Khula – and should they remarry without this they will be committing Zina – a 'crime' punishable by death in many Muslim countries. This is not a view shared by all Islamic scholars but a view that is being pushed through the Islamic councils and tribunals across the UK."

Read more: Hundreds Join London Protest Against Religious Laws.

Penn Will Not Criticize Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:08:00 +0000

In an interview with Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller), he says something interesting about Islam:

Interviewer: Are there any groups you won't go after?

Penn: We haven't tackled Scientology because Showtime doesn't want us to. Maybe they have deals with individual Scientologists—I'm not sure. And we haven't tackled Islam because we have families.

Interviewer: Meaning, you won’t attack Islam because you’re afraid it’ll attack back.

Penn: Right, and I think the worst thing you can say about a group in a free society is that you’re afraid to talk about it—I can’t think of anything more horrific.

Interviewer: Of course, it might please some Islamic fundamentalists to hear you say that you won’t talk about them because you’re afraid.

Penn: It might, but you have to say what you believe, even it if pleases somebody you disagree with—that issue comes up all the time in moral discourse.

Read the whole interview: A uniquely Weekly ranking of the personalities who define Las Vegas.

Concessions Run Amuck

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:53:00 +0000

"PROGRESS COMES from challenges. Challenges demand that you overcome the obstacles holding you back. The Muslim world no longer has challenges. Instead the door has been thrown open for them with no demands or expectations. Islam is not held accountable in the way that other religions are. Muslims are not held accountable for one of the world's largest and longest ongoing killing sprees. Muslim countries are not held accountable for everything from the genocide of millions to barbaric acts of torture and mutilation.

"This is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Nothing is expected from Muslims, which only helps the Islamists make the case that Western civilization is hopelessly decadent and weak, and that imitating it would be a mistake. All the fawning praise directed at the "Religion of Peace" feeds that cycle, reaffirming the Islamists' arrogance and sense of destiny as those they think of as enemies foolishly give way to them. That is the attitude Hitler had as he realized that the nations that seemed overwhelmingly powerful were not going to stop him. It is the same attitude you can easily see among Islamists, whose sense of cultural invulnerability is running at an all time high.

"Build a mosque near Ground Zero, and you prove that the West does not even value the graves of its martyred dead. Set off a bomb in a crowded cafe and snicker as the governments of the dead rush to assure you that they hold no ill will toward the same ideology responsible. Cover your wife from head to toe on pain of death and watch feminist organizations assure the public that it is the feminist thing to do. To Muslims, Western civilization has gone from a bogeyman to a pathetic joke."

The previous is an excerpt written by the Sultan Knish. Read the whole article here: How European Tolerance Islamized Turkey.

Update on PayPal Versus Atlas Shrugs

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:09:00 +0000

PAYPAL ORDERED Atlas Shrugs to remove PayPal from her site or it would shut her down. See the story here.

An update on this story is here: PayPal Relents and Apologizes to Pamela Geller.

On Monday, after what Geller says was a storm of protest, PayPal backed down.

Geller said she received a phone call from PayPal early Monday morning informing her it had all been a “misunderstanding.”

“They called me back and said it was a misunderstanding and we’re all good,” Geller said. “They obviously received an overwhelming response.”

Geller decided to drop PayPal anyway and is using a service called Gpal, which does not discriminate as long as what you're doing is legal. Chalk up one victory for freedom.

PayPal Cuts Off Atlas Shrugs

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:05:00 +0000

FROM CREEPING SHARIA: PayPal is yet another Sharia-compliant dhimmi of an American company. Exposing and challenging Islam’s violent, supremacist and imperialist nature is considered blasphemous under Islamic Sharia law, and Muslims will not allow U.S. companies to expose their objectives.

The author of Atlas Shrugs, Pamala Geller, wrote: "PayPal is calling Atlas a 'hate' site and will close my account if I do not remove the PayPal option from my website. Accurate reporting and news is hate.

"Truth is the new hate speech."

Read more about this story and what you can do to fight it here: Ebay’s PayPal cuts off anti-jihad sites Atlas Shrugs, SIOA, FDI.

Atlas reader Jon points out that inciters to violence and Jewish genocide, Revolution Muslim, has a PayPal button. (Islam in Action has the videos of their calls to jihad slaughter.)

PayPal also has no problem with the militant Islamist group linked to terrorism and led by the Sheikh Gilani who has been caught on video calling for Muslims to kill Americans in the U.S. PayPal details in this post.

And finally, Muslims in the U.S. have been raising money for terror-run Hamas via PayPal for some time as we pointed out here and here.

Update: PayPal Versus Atlas Shrugs.

How You Can Fight

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Tue, 11 May 2010 20:25:00 +0000

The fight to stop the spread of orthodox Islam is something we cannot leave to military and intelligence agencies. We need them, of course, and they play a vital role in dealing with physical threats, but this is an ideological battle as well. That is, part of the battle — maybe even most of the battle — is taking place in our own heads. We will win or lose depending on what is in the minds of most of our fellow citizens.

If most non-Muslims believe Islam is peaceful or that all religions are basically the same, we will be vulnerable to the relentless Islamic pressure to yield concessions, orthodox Muslims will exploit our Achilles' heel, and we will lose. If enough non-Muslims know what it says in core Islamic texts, the relentless drive of orthodox Muslims to gain political power will be thwarted at every turn and the threat will be contained. We will consistently win those battles.

But so far, schools, politicians, and media are all failing to fight this battle. That leaves ordinary citizens to do what needs to be done. You and me.

So the biggest task ahead of us is educational. No, it's more than education. It's persuasion. It's influence. People need to be reached. People need to be informed about Islam's basic principles. But many resist and reject the information. That's why this is not a simple educational project for most people. We need to find ways around the resistance. We need to get through.

The first and most important principle of influence is to gain and maintain rapport. When you lose rapport, you lose the ability to influence.

In a communication discipline called Neuro-Linguistic Programming, otherwise known as NLP, you can find lots of good books, DVDs, seminars, and audio programs about gaining rapport.

"Try a brief experiment to demonstrate the importance of rapport for yourself," wrote Andreas and Faulkner in their book, NLP. "Think of a communication situation in your life where you were unsuccessful at getting what you wanted with another person — whether it was characterized by conflict or just frustration. Now think of another communication situation where you did get what you wanted — both you and the other person were satisfied with the result of the interaction. Now compare the two for the presence or absence of rapport. When people make this comparison repeatedly, they find that their communication successes are characterized by rapport and their failures by a lack of rapport. Rapport is a fundamental prerequisite for all effective communication. If you don't have rapport, you simply will not be effective with other people."

Our number one task is to get more people to accept the facts about Islamic texts. This is how you can fight. We must be effective with people. So the first skill to master is gaining and maintaining rapport. Start here:

Gain Rapport to Help Get Through to Them
Rapport Comes Before Influence
The Magic of Rapport

When you are good at keeping rapport with people while talking about Islam, please share with us what works. Help other counterjihadists succeed in this vital task. Share your discoveries here: Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims.

How to Achieve Energy Security and Lower Gas Prices

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:28:00 +0000

THE FOLLOWING email was sent to ACT! for America members by Kelly Cook, ACT's National Field Director. We at No More Concessions to Islam fully support ACT's commitment to this issue, and we urge you to help make this happen. The stakes could not be higher. And now, Kelly Cook's message:

Face it. We’ve been played.

OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) is playing a deadly game with America. Their oil price fixing mechanism is legendary in the unjust world of anti-trust schemes.

The fact is that oil prices in the $15 to $20 a barrel range provide plenty of fair and reasonable profits for any oil exporting nation. Then why are oil prices today over $100 per barrel? OPEC is laughing all the way to the bank.

Here’s the game: OPEC, through the willingness to price fix among its 12 nation partners, gradually ratchets up the price of oil through secretly agreed-to reductions in supply. They don’t care if they’re not producing as much oil. The skyrocketing prices on the oil they do produce are more than enough to provide for their lavish lifestyles and...their generous donations to worldwide Islamic jihadist operations.

As soon as the American public starts to really feel the pain at the pump and begin to lobby their members of Congress to do something about it, oil supplies “magically” increase and the price of gas settles down just enough to prevent the outrage that was about to boil over. And so the cycle goes — by design!

We at ACT! for America are tired of being played in this deadly game of supplying the enemy with the resources to attack us. This is why we are fully supporting the Open Fuel Standard ACT of 2011. We are calling for Members of Congress to enthusiastically co-sponsor this vital legislation.

Why the Open Fuel Standard Act? Imagine you’ve got a flex fuel car — a car that has been retro-fitted to accept at least 2 different kinds of fuel. You notice the price of regular gas just hit $4.10 per gallon. Because you can also run on methanol (or electricity, natural gas, etc), you check the current price for methanol which is approximately $1.65! Now that you’ve got “Fuel Choice,” you fill up with methanol! Methanol can be produced from natural gas and biomass (common trash, plant wastes, landfill materials, etc). Therefore, it’s a potential environmental winner as well.

What happens when tens of millions of consumers start taking advantage of fuel choice and switch to other fuels? OPEC is forced to bring down its prices in order to compete. Game over. The price of oil per barrel would plummet down to its natural market trading range of $10 to $25 per barrel.

How can we be so sure of this? Brazil has already done it — back in the 80’s and it’s still working for them! Do you know that two of the major car suppliers to Brazil’s flex fuel market are GM and Ford? Brazil’s proven success demonstrates that a single nation can employ this strategy successfully as a solitary nation against the forces of worldwide markets.

Why shouldn’t the U.S. and other major oil consuming countries follow suit? The transition costs are minimal when compared to the tremendous savings and security we all will enjoy through fuel choice!

I know some of you are asking: “What about Drill Baby Drill”? We are enthusiastically in favor of developing all strategies to disarm OPEC and their deadly allies. We need to develop all forms of energy, especially our unfathomable supplies of oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy technologies. Encouraging fuel choice through the Open Fuel Standard ACT of 2011 will only enhance these and other needed developments.

***Action Items***

1) Invest 5 minutes to support fuel choice for your gas tank and for the nation! Contact your member of Congress and urge them to be a co-sponsor for H.R. 1687, the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011. We are starting to pick up real momentum in this process! Please make sure your member of Congress is a co-sponsor. Click Here to complete this simple process.

2) Check out the amazing new website dedicated to the passage of the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011. Please sign up for email updates and find out the many reasons we need to actively promote this bill. The resources this site has amassed are considerable. There are many factors involved that we just don’t have the space to cover in a single email. Please avail yourself to this vital information. Click Here for this creative new website!

Russia Concedes to Islamic Pressure

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:39:00 +0000

Islamic supremacists around the world maintain a continuous pressure to impose Shari'a law everywhere a crack appears. Recently a crack appeared in Chechnya, and Islamic law forced its way in.

Ramzan Kadyrov, the Chechnya president, knows Moscow wants to keep Islamic rebellions at bay, and their desire is a weakness that can be exploited. So Kadyrov is imposing Shari'a, and Moscow is allowing it, even though it violates the Russian constitution. For example, Kadyrov agrees that the seven victims of honor killings were "loose women" and deserved what they got.

Kadyrov describes women as the property of their husbands and says their main role is to bear children. He encourages men to take more than one wife, even though polygamy is illegal in Russia. Women and girls are now required to wear headscarves in all schools, universities and government offices.

These are all manifestations of Shari'a law. Read the whole story: Islamic Law Allowed In Chechnya.

U.S. Government Allows Muslims to Determine What American Textbooks Are Allowed To Say About Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Citizen Warrior) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:45:00 +0000

I'm sure it sounded reasonable in the beginning — history book publishers of U.S. textbooks should consult with Muslims when they write anything about Islam, just to make sure it is correct. Check with the experts on the subject.

But the Muslims involved in influencing what is being taught to junior high and high school students in the United States are first of all, not history experts, and second of all, they are deliberately editing the information to give a falsely positive view of Islamic doctrine and history. In the interests of multiculturalism, some schools go much further and actually insist their students practice Islam!

Looking at the long term, if you were an Islamic supremacist and you wanted to soften up Americans for an eventual takeover, and if you wanted to keep them from stopping you until it's too late, you would be hard pressed to find a more promising project than influencing school children to think Islam is benign. These future American leaders and voters will not be very willing to learn about the real nature and scope of the third jihad.

This astonishing situation in our school system is documented thoroughly in a new investigative report produced by a partnership of the Mission Viejo chapter of ACT for America and the United American Committee. Read the whole report here: Islam in America's Classrooms: History or Propaganda? (PDF document).