Showing posts with label Freedom in Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom in Europe. Show all posts

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Schietpartijen in Frankrijk te worden natuurlijk "terrorisme?" - Alleen moslims plegen "terrorisme!"

Zo zeker als de zon opkomt in het oosten, zal de moorden op kinderen in een joodse school veranderd worden in "daden van terrorisme" door de Franse autoriteiten. Omdat de dader Mohammed Merah, kunnen we verwachten dat de Franse regering om nu beweren dat deze eenzame gek is "verbonden met al-Qaeda terrorisme", net als Mohammed B. is "gekoppeld aan het internationale terrorisme", toen hij vermoord Theo van Gogh. Merk op dat alleen de Nederlandse Staat de naam Mohammed B. een "terrorist" en alleen de Nederlandse Staat heeft de naam Hofstadgroep een "internationale terroristische groepering." Er is eigenlijk geen bewijs buiten de Nederlandse Staat dat de moord op Theo van Gogh was "een daad van Al -Qaeda terrorisme "en Mohammed Bouyeri waarschijnlijk handelde alleen voor zijn eigen verdraaide redenen. Ook deze moordenaar waarschijnlijk handelde alleen voor zijn eigen verdraaide redenen, net als de Amerikaanse soldaat 16 burgers, 9 van hen kinderen die in een door Afghanistan dorp of wanneer Gianluca casser handelde alleen toen hij neergeschoten Senegalese straatverkopers in Italië in december vorig jaar. De bovenstaande handelingen niet "terrorisme" en geen van beide werd het Alphen aan den Rijn een jaar geleden aan te vallen door een native Nederlander met een liefde voor wapens.

Wat wel en wat niet "terrorisme" op basis van religieuze achtergrond van moord verdachten. Net als in een vorige post, de Orthodoxe terrorisme veld sterk verstrengeld met overheden en uitzicht deze regeringen als "onschuldige slachtoffers." De Orthodoxe terrorisme veld gebruikt slordige wetenschappelijke methoden en orthodoxe terrorisme studies ontbreekt studie kaders en over-zich overgeeft aan aanvechtbaar labels en categorieën, vaak verpakt in anti-moslim verhalen. Een van de orthodoxe terrorisme onderzoeken gebied is dat het niet is aangekomen bij een definitie van "terrorisme", dus niemand die in de orthodoxe terrorisme studies gebied, vooral als ze zijn aangesloten op de Franse Staat, heeft elk bedrijf noemen dit "het terrorisme. "

We kunnen ook zien hoe "het terrorisme" is geoperationaliseerd om te zien dat "terrorisme" geldt alleen voor geweld door moslims. Ik heb veel op gewezen dat de meest afschuwelijke terroristische aanslag in Nederland was in 2009, Koninginnedag Parade aanslag in Apeldoorn door Karst Tates tegen de Nederlandse koninklijke familie (direct de aanval op het Nederlandse volk) waarin 8 mensen omgekomen en 10 raakten gewond.

[caption id="attachment_2105" align="alignleft" width="203" caption="Tristan van der Vlies was een shooter als Mohammed Merah - maar niet van een "terrorist" omdat hij geen moslim!"][/caption]

Zowat een jaar geleden, een andere jonge man met een interesse in wapens, Tristan van der Vlies, ging op een schietpartij in een winkelcentrum Alphen aan den Rijn, een stad gelegen tussen Leiden en Utrecht. Naast het doden van zichzelf: "Tristan" doodde zes mensen en injuried 16 anderen. "Tristan" werd gezegd dat het een PVV-kiezer te zijn en had een geschiedenis van psychische problemen.

We weten ook over de dodelijke schietpartij aanval in Florence, Italië in december, door een rechts-radicale extremistische, Gianluca casser, gericht op Senegalese straatverkopers. Ook dit is niet beschreven als "terrorisme" door de Italiaanse regering of de orthodoxe terrorisme studies veld - maar deze schieten in Frankrijk zijn "terrorisme?"

So-een lange kijken naar wat is "terrorisme" en je zult zien dat verschrikkelijke crimineel geweld is "terrorisme" omdat de verdachte afkomstig is van een moslim achtergrond. Deze schietpartijen in Frankrijk als "terrorisme" betekent dat de operationalisering van het "terrorisme"-label is gebaseerd op de religieuze achtergrond van de verdachte - wat betekent dat de bestrijding van terrorisme de praktijk is partijdig en discriminerend tegen moslims.

De schietpartijen in Frankrijk zijn "jihad terrorisme" omdat "een moslim het deed." Dit zijn verschrikkelijke moorden, criminele handelingen, (geen terrorisme) en een individueel moord pleegt strafbare feiten als individu waarvoor het individu gestraft voor. Maar - u kunt wedden dat deze "daad van jihad terrorisme" zal worden, zoals in Nederland, de motivering bij het religieuze geloof en de politieke opvattingen van de moslimgemeenschap te criminaliseren. De Franse moslimgemeenschap niet heeft begaan deze aanval op een joodse school, maar Mohammed Merah alleen verantwoordelijk is. Ook - etiketteren van dit (ten onrechte) als "terrorisme" zal dan rechtvaardigt het opstellen van een profiel van dit individu en probeert te pinnen op anderen - die misschien helemaal niet zijn na te denken over moord. De meeste van allemaal, zullen deze gruwelijke moorden worden gebruikt om de voortdurende vooruitgang van de 'clash van de beschaving "als een buitenlands en binnenlands bestuur paradigma, dat zal leiden tot meer geweld en oorlogen, meer verlies van vrijheid en sociale cohesie te rechtvaardigen.

We moeten werken om dit en eisen dat de "jihad terrorist" label niet worden gevestigd op alle gewelddadige crimineel met een moslim achtergrond weerstaan. We moeten werken tegen de gekke neiging om niet alleen deze moorden te bestempelen als "terrorisme", maar de neiging om deze daad wegwaaien in geen verhouding tot andere soortgelijke handelingen of slechter werkt gepleegd door niet-moslims.

Regeringen, vooral westerse regeringen, hebben veel te winnen door "met daden van Al-Qaeda gelinkte terrorisme" op hun grondgebied, en ze kunnen winstgevend zijn. Voor de Nederlandse Staat, de moord op Theo van Gogh als 'terrorisme' gerechtvaardigd is de criminalisering van het religieuze geloof en politieke overtuiging tot een systeem van "moslim control" in Nederland. Het heeft ook geleid tot een geheel "jihad in Nederland 'genre van boeken en papieren - die allemaal een echokamer voor claims van de Nederlandse Staat dat Mohammed Bouyeri was een" Al-Qeada terroristen "en Hofstadgroep een' al-Qaida terroristische cel . "de Nederlandse Staat van de betrekkingen met de Verenigde Staten en andere landen zijn nu gedefinieerd op" het voorkomen van radicalisering "uitsluitend gericht op religieuze radicalisering van moslims.

De moord op Theo van Gogh is nu het visitekaartje voor de Nederlandse staat en zijn onechte "veiligheidsbelangen" op het internationale toneel. Yep - het doden van "Theo" is de aflossing voor de Nederlandse Staat.

Dit is geen "terrorisme", maar een enkele, misschien wel zeer verstoord, mensen die graag Karst Tates, Tristan van der Vlies, Gianluca casser - Staff Sgt. Robert Bales-- behoefte hebben aan een aantal ingrijpen voordat je op een Schietpartijen. Deze interventie moet ook niet gericht zijn tegen religieuze geloof of poilitical meningen. Een killing spree heeft echte slachtoffers, ongeacht whet de motivaties van de moordenaars zijn - maar voor de behandeling van het doden van sprees door verdachten op basis van de religieuze achtergrond van de verdachte is discriminerend en worden gebruikt om dan te rechtvaardigen collectieve straffen en schendingen van de mensenrechten van hele gemeenschappen.

Dus - zien we "terrorisme" geoperationaliseerd als "iets wat alleen moslims doen." Dit is de reden waarom de ergste terroristische-type aanslag in Nederland, de 2009 Koninginnedag aanslag in Apeldoorn tegen de koninklijke familie (8 doden, 10 gewonden), noch de Alphen aan den Rijn winkelcentrum aanval vorig jaar. Omdat noch de aanvallers waren moslims - dit zijn geen terreur aanslagen - en dit geeft ons een goed idee van hoe 'terrorisme' wordt geoperationaliseerd in Nederland.

Om nu te labelen deze afschuwelijke moorden 'terrorisme' zal bouwen steeds meer aanwijzingen dat "terrorisme" is iets dat "alleen moslims doen." Dit betekent dat westerse regeringen (Frankrijk, Nederland, het Verenigd Koninkrijk, de Verenigde Staten) op het etiket "terrorisme" te gebruiken wanneer een persoon doodt voor zijn eigen persoonlijke redenen is een moslim. Dit betekent dat de westerse regeringen bezighouden met discriminerende praktijken in de strijd tegen het terrorisme - en dat schendt de verschillende internationale en Europese mensenrechtenverdragen en conventies.

We moeten werken tegen de demonisering en criminalisering van religieus geloof en politieke standpunten. We moeten een soort van pushback tegen het discriminerend gebruik van het "terrorisme"-label lijkt alleen worden toegepast om gewelddadige handelingen door mensen met een moslim achtergrond. Deze zaak uit Frankrijk zullen worden behandeld als "terrorisme" als andere soortgelijke misdrijven door niet-moslims zijn geen "terrorisme" en worden steeds meer bewijs dat de westerse strijd tegen het terrorisme studies en de praktijk een vooringenomen tegen moslims hebben - en we moeten werken tegen deze anti -moslim, terrorismebestrijding bias.

 

 Zie:

Dutch Mall Shooter Fired More Than 100 Times

7 killed, 15 wounded in Dutch mall shooting

'No contact' with French shootings suspect

Florence street vendors shot dead by lone gunman

Merah: From petty criminal to killer

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Protection of Human Rights from Tyranny of the Ballot Box

The Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) was to incorporate the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, making all Member States parties to the Treaty. The passage of the ToL was to mean a stronger and more vigorous European Union and it was hoped that the EU would also develop more meaningful EU citizenship conceptions and institutions.[caption id="attachment_793" align="alignleft" width="168" caption="Romani at a Nazi camp. Is this to happen AGAIN in Europe because of the ballot box? "][/caption]While all people, EU citizens or not, are supposed to have basic human rights in the Europe - the enforcement of human rights is tragically lacking. The evidence of this can be view by the recent weakness of the European human rights institution, the Council of Europe (CoE), when it issued a statement requesting that Member States review legislation for conformity to European human rights standards. This statement appeared to be pointed at Member States that were considering burka bans against Muslim women, which the CoE has stated violate the European Convention of Human Rights. The defense of the rights of people depends upon swift-acting, strong and vigorous courts and legal institutions capable of putting its foot down against governments and their policies that seek to take away the rights of especially minorities.Election laws across Europe have few protections against want-a-be tyrants. We see a single crackpot, Geert Wilders, with his own personal political party and 24 seats in the Tweede Kamer - because the Netherlands has NO laws regarding political parties or prohibiting threatening persons and groups from being part of the Dutch government! It is more important to be able to cast a ballot for a hate group turned "political party"  - than to take measures to ensure that all can live in safety and security, have absolute human rights, and that Srebrenica is never repeated.This situation described above leaves Europe wide-open for the coming to power of another European dictator and/or government which could bring a wave of persecution, especially against Muslims and especially in the Low Countries. There has been government-advocated violence against the Roma people by the Italian government for at least two-years.  France now wants to join in persecuting the Roma people.  A dictator and PVV radical-extremist government could still be a reality in the Netherlands. All of these dangerous prospects can - now - occur no matter how far along implementation of the Lisbon Treaty is and no matter what the CoE and the Court of Human Rights have to say or do about these situations.The United States has effective means with to protect minority rights against popular wills. Notice the Proposition 8 in California, the referendum to ban gay marriage, got to the court on the appeal by its opponents and how quick action was taken (less than two years) to strike it down. There was then respect paid to the court's decision by the State of California, and all parties in the process as appeals were filed and other actions taken. There was NO thought by anyone anywhere of ignoring the court's ruling, such as French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, ignoring the legal opinions of the CoE and the Treaties regarding burka bans and the Roma people.The protection of the rights of the Gay minority is, rightfully, more important than the popular will expressed by passage of Proposition 8 referendum. In Europe, human rights and EU citizens’ rights are held hostage to the ballot box because of this imbalance imposed by weak courts and legal institutions.  A news channel takes a poll and states that "70% of Americans oppose the building of a mosque near 'ground zero.' "' The rebuttal is: so what?Freedom and human rights must not be subject to either popularity contests, nor ballot box votes. Human rights, such as religious freedom, must be placed above and beyond the search of popular will.  Freedom of religion, like other human freedoms, are never decided by opinion polls, referendums, outcome of election - and human freedom must be absolute regardless what a referendum result is, who is prime minster, what is the largest party in the parliament or what is popular opinion. Freedom and human rights need protection from tyranny of the ballot box.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Will Freedom win in the Netherlands?

[caption id="attachment_40" align="alignleft" width="108" caption="Will religious freedom be safe in Holland?"]Will religious freedom be safe in Holland?[/caption]We could have predicted the headlines: “Dutch anti-Islam party makes gains in Dutch elections.” This headline would have been printed even if Geert Wilders would have won one more seat in the Tweede Kamer.The reality is that the Wilders’ “impressive gains” were actually protest votes of CDA supporters that are angry at their party’s  performance and the Afghanistan affair.  The CDA’s large gains in 2006 were the PVV’s gains yesterday. This is classical protest voting – and not some “mandate from the voter” to “do something” about the non-existent problem of Islamification. Most Dutch people are well aware that Islamification of their country is not happening and that Dutch Muslims are not a threat to their society!The major parties of the VVD and Pvda probably know that the PVV’s gains are the results of protest voting and not the honest wishes of voters. The PVV’s radical agenda is simply not acceptable to the Dutch people and the PVV has little compatibility with larger Dutch society. There is no compatibility (except that Rutte and Wilders are Thatcherites) between the major political parties and the PVV. No party, as well as the Dutch people, really accept that oppression and exclusion of Dutch Muslims as a necessary part of Dutch society. No party wants to be a part of coalition, or even be associated, with a party that calls on the open persecution of the Muslim population in contradiction to Dutch culture and national character. No party wants to be associated with the destruction that the PVV and Wilders would bring to the Netherlands.In the end, Wilders and his 24 seats will be left out in the cold…This would assure us that freedom and liberty for all in the Netherlands would be the bigger winner in the Tweede Kamer elections! It is hoped that the major parties can see that the freedom and liberties of of all, including Muslims, is a very important part of Dutch national identity and excluding the PVV will serve to preserve it. I restate my call for the Netherlands to rediscover its history and national character grounded in being a beacon of religious freedom and human rights!  While the gains by Wilders is nothing but a protest vote – the Netherlands needs to do what Job Cohen states: Rebuild a society of civility and inclusiveness for all who live in the Netherlands – along with a deep respect for freedom, including religious freedom.Dutch national elections: What they mean for Europe - At Home in Europe blog

Monday, May 10, 2010

No Sharia law courts in the Netherlands

According to those that believe in the Islamification myth, one of the “dangers” of “the growing Muslim population in Europe and America” is the idea of “creeping Sharia.” Sharia, the Islamic law code, is portrayed in Islamification mythology as harsh and brutal, calling for women to be treated as animals and a criminal code that calls for limb amputations and beheading.

Yes, in some Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia and in parts of Nigeria, these practices are, indeed,  taking place.  In Nigeria, there is an atmosphere of corruption and abuses of the government that have absolutely nothing to do with Islam in the North. The abuse of the human rights of women is a concern addressed by Human Rights Watch toward the Saudi government - gay rights is a pressing need too. However, the Saudis recently took a recommendation from HRW and created a public defender system.We should push for reforms in places like Saudi Arabia, but the harshness of Sharia in Saudi Arabia and the brutality in parts of  Nigeria are not stiff models. The truth about Islamic law is that there are vast differences in its interpretation, and debates and discourse about the law code are happening in Islam, like in every other area of the faith.The polling of Muslims living in Muslim countries shows that Muslims believe that Sharia can be practiced in a democratic society, with respect for freedom of speech. The practice of Sharia in Morocco is described as a just that, in contrast to the practice in Saudi Arabia.  Morocco is democracy and it also practices Sharia lawSharia practice applies to Muslims only, and not non-Muslims.The interpretation of Sharia law is as diverse as Islam itself, reflecting the diversity of Muslim communities – and the Islamic law code applies only to Muslims. There is simply no evidence of a wide-spread, mainstream call by either European or American Muslims, to force a harsh version on the US and European nations. Sharia Law is only for Muslims, like the canon law of the Catholic Church is just for Catholics.

[caption id="attachment_40" align="alignleft" width="117" caption="No Sharia law in the Netherlands"]No Sharia law in the Netherlands[/caption]

This is now apparent in the Netherlands. In a little covered story (I always watch Dutch news) we find the release of a study by Radboud University of Nijmegen for the Scientific Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Dutch Justice ministry on Sharia in the Netherlands. According to Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin:
The Netherlands has no sharia courts. Due to the ethnic and religious diversity among Dutch Muslim groups, the existence of an official lawgiving institute for all Muslims in the Netherlands is equally unlikely.“Many Muslims in the Netherlands ask within a small circle or among Islam experts about questions in which Islamic views and living in Dutch society make choices necessary. Together they seek the best solution under the given circumstances: How can an individual Muslim live according to Islamic rules in a non-Islamic country?” 

Nope – and there are NO attempts by “Muslims” to “force” harsh forms of Sharia on the rest of the Dutch population. This sounds more like religious counseling that other faiths offer to believers, and there’s is nothing wrong with that…While I’m not a Muslim, there should not be anything sinister about a Muslim wanting to consult an imam for a religious view on conflict resolution, or banking, or marriage counseling.Now – let’s look at this report, shall we?The research report focuses on conflict resolution among “those concerned.” We find that Muslims have different views about Sharia, some believe that it is a legislative system, some see it as religious rites of Islam, others see it as a system of broad norms and values. The researchers found the Sharia is an abstract concept of “proper Islamic behavior” for the respondents  (p. 2-3).  What is also stated in this report is that Dutch Muslims don’t want Sharia Law as the law of the Netherlands (p.3):
Respondents did not express a concrete desire to have sharia introduced in an official capacity in the Netherlands, as many of the sharia rules which respon‐dents deemed of importance can already be carried out within Dutch law. More‐over, a majority of respondents maintained that sharia decrees that Muslims must follow the law in force where they live or, should this pose insurmountable problems, move away (emphasis mine).Nonetheless respondents perceived a normative and regulating role for sharia in the Netherlands. Government, some respondents feel, is missing out by not using the opportunities sharia offers to, for instance, safeguard the position of Islamic women who divorced their husbands according to Dutch law, by also arranging a divorce according to sharia. Also, religious authorities could assist by confronting criminal Muslims over the latter’s behaviour and fear of God (emphasis mine). 

So, Dutch Muslims would find it helpful to use  Sharia to confront Muslims that have fallen into criminality- using the “fear of God.” Some in the Moroccan community as I have written here are doing some of that. What we hear widely called for by Wilders is to “shoot them in the knees,” take their citizenship and deport them (all illegal under international law -btw) when the ethnic communities should be involved in crime reduction, as well as counter-radicalization efforts and conflict resolution.Sharia based conflict resolution in the Netherlands. Those Muslims that seek conflict settlement are likely to consult friend and family first.

Sometimes, one might seek council over the internet, but there is a question of the expertise of the information, and this is viewed as a problem. Failure to get an acquit resolution can lead a Muslim seeking the advise of a expert for a decision. Sharia rules are used to find a religiously appropriate direction, provide normative practices, and serve as an “official” decision. The decisions are not legally binding, but family, friends and other members of the group put pressure on those involved for compliance (p. 6-8).NO – there is NO clamor by Dutch Muslims to force the adoption of  Sharia Law as the law of the Netherlands. Respondents to this study have pointed out that they must follow the laws of the country that now live in (p. 8). There is nothing wrong with the ability for Muslims in any country to consult religious imams and experts for conflict resolution and other advise. This is what Sharia in the Netherlands is: It’s an informal method for Muslims in very diverse Dutch Muslims communities to seek resolutions  of conflicts within the practice of their faith. The notion that this will – in some crazy thought – lead to oppression of non-Muslims, forcing women to wear veils, and cutting people’s heads off is silly and  part of the insanity and ignorance that comes with the blind belief in the Islamification myth.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Dutch Patriots fight to keep the Netherlands free

Repost from April 24, 2010The importance of the upcoming Tweede Kamer elections in June is partly, but also literally,  about defending freedom in the Netherlands more so than even most Dutch voters know. One Dutch patriot who appears to be aware of this freedom fight is former Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen, who now heads up the Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA).   It is well-known that the PVV of Geert Wilders would seek to bring about the persecution of Muslims in policies based exclusively on the Islamification myth, and this will result in a serious challenge to freedom in the Netherlands and its international standing.Job Cohen knows this, as the other mainstream Dutch parties probably do, and has framed part of his party’s campaign of a society where “everyone counts.”  While Geert Wilders would like to limit schools where Dutch Muslims are educated, Cohen believes that a good education is for all children, no matter the religious or ethnic background. (So do some of his fellow country-men and party members, see below!)Cohen said that “in our Netherlands, everyone has rights and opportunities, and one should be left out.” This is reflected in the party’s list for the June elections, unveiled under the ‘Dit is Nederland‘ (This is the Netherlands) slogan – and containing the names of 70 people who have “a heart and zeal … for our country.” In a free country everyone has rights and opportunities- and the idea that people should be measured by their ethnic and religious background first is unacceptable in a free country.One such servant of his country is Ahmed Marcouch, who appears as Number 15 on the PvdA’s list. Marcouch was born in Beni-Boughafer in Morocco in 1969. Shortly after arriving in the Netherlands at the age of 10, he spent two years working hard to learn the Dutch language, which served as a motivator to work hard in everything else too.Marcouch spent ten years as a police officer and has given out some tough love to the minority young people in his community. This has gotten him viewed as a “traitor” to some minority youth, but for other minority residents, he has given them a sense of belonging. He says that good schools are needed to help bring poor minority youth out of poverty and to keep a permanent underclass from growing. Education also helps Muslim youth learn to think independently, which helps fend off radicalization, and to grow up to be good Dutch Muslims. See more about  Ahmed Marcouch.Happy Day – the PvdA leads the polls!We should take a happy note that most Dutch voters prefer Job Cohen as their prime minister by a wide margin.  Since stepping down as Amsterdam’s mayor and taking up the lead of the PvdA,  Job Cohen has very much taken Wilders out of the picture as a serious PM contender. The competition is between largely the PvdA and the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) with the Christian Democrats of current minister president Jan Peter Balkenende (CDA).  The VVD and the CDA, along with Cohen’s PvdA, make -up mainstream parties that are a part of the rational and legitimate discourse about the Netherlands’ future policies in a future government.  Serious issues, like the economy and education, need to have serious discussion in the Netherlands, like every place else in the civilized and democratic world.And – silly myths about a religious group and placing limits on freedom of religion and expression – don’t appear to be a part of legitimate discourse in Dutch politics (…and in the Netherlands, the most non-religious place on Earth?). It should appear to us that most Dutch voters are rational and really not Islamophobic and believers in the Islamification myth. They believe that patriots like Ahmed Marcouch should be regarded as full citizens – regardless of their ethnicity and religion background. This is what defines a nation that is based in liberty, with freedom and justice for all - and most Dutch appear to know this!

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Islamophobia and Islamification myth hit Poland

Poland has a tiny Muslim minority of only 48,000 out and less than one-percent of the population (Pew center map – the article states 15,000-30,000), but now they would like a mosque, house of worship, a larger one. There is one converted villa mosque for 10,000 people in Warsaw, but this facility can only accommodate 200 people .As in EU Member States in the west of Europe – there are now objections with the building of the mosque and the open presence of Muslims- 150 protested  at the site – and these protesters expressed the same nonsensical reasons that come with the belief in the Islamification myth. “I don’t want my daughter to be forced to wear a burqa!” (Well don’t force her to wear one – its should be considered abusive to force her to wear something she does not want …) There was also the usual reference to “radicalism” and, in another article, the sharia disease that ALL Muslims carry. We can’t build churches in Muslim countries!  After all, one lady stated, she cannot even wear a Catholic medallion in Saudi Arabia!Here’s one that comes from the American conservative movement (and also shows their bigotry), the slogan that expresses the desire for more INtolerance in the world:“Let’s not repeat Europe’s mistakes -blind tolerance kills common sense -  Muslim countries respect women’s rights and religious freedom.”

Yes – let’s fight the human rights abuses of Muslims countries with with human rights abuses of our own!  We need less tolerance and more intolerance of the freedom of worship and freedom of expression of the Muslim Folk Devil! Yes – brother, you are sooo right!  Hate, discrimination and denying the religious freedom of others are “common sense!”Well the frightening Islamification presence that this  Muslim community center will offer is an art gallery, a library and a restaurant. It will host classes for children and religious dialogue meetings.  The Muslim cultural center will benefit both Muslims and non-Muslims of the local community. Gezzz- Poland needs to stop this Islamification now, before more carriers of the dreaded sharia disease show up.  “Religious dialogue meetings?”  For radical imams to preach jihad? The Koran is a violent book, you know! This kind of presence in Poland sounds like a serious threat to the Poles’ superior Christian culture! That also sounds like there it just too much mindless tolerance in Poland (sic!) But – how could the Poles forget how “They” want to “get stronger and take over.”

Ohhh – the mindless silliness of Islamophobia that comes with the belief in the Islamification myth ! It’s truly delusional !Now – according to Kuwaiti -Polish citizen, family man and child doctor, Samir Ismail – - the reality in the real world and not the Islamification mythological world will continue through the construction of this wonderful cultural asset. Good for him.  Stand up – like the rest of us should – to the ignorance and silliness of the Islamification myth. What is nice to read, also at the end of this article, is that many Poles, both Muslims and non-Muslims, Ismail in support of the community and even offered money:
“Absolutely not. There is no need to feel bad. After this dispute we received calls from Poland, also from non-Muslims, wanting to send us money to support the construction.” 

Good for them - as this community center sounds like it will be a great asset for the larger Warsaw community and contribute to greater value to Poland as a nation. A real sense of living in a free nation – with a wide religious diversity that comes with living in liberty in a free nation! Tolerance for religious expression by especially the government powers is part of living in a religiously free nation. 

Welcome to reality!  Welcome to REAL religious freedom and liberty! Article:  Mosque building brings Islam fears to PolandThis is also the first post under the tag of Islamification Myth WATCH. If it was not the dangerous threat to Europe and European counties that it is, the aspects of the Islamification myth, such as the “don’t force my daughter to wear a burqa” rubbish – those that believe in the islamification myth would be worthy of a few laughs. But — these people, in their silly ignorance, can vote, even for myths and fairy-tales about “Eurabia”  put out by dangerous characters running phony political parties, like Geert Wilders’ and his PVV. The problem is that Wilders could be the next PM of the Netherlands – and that’s why it’s not a laughing matter.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Some of Geert Wilders American right wing supporters are exposed

Last week, while I was busy working on my working paper – a few of my prayers were answered. It is a constant prayer of mine that the Geert Wilders never becomes the next prime minister and that he goes quietly into retirement without further damage to the Netherlands’ national identity.Well – Wilders is in politics for himself – and for his American conservative follower. If the Dutch actually install Wilders as their next prime minister – they will get a tsunami of American Conservatives, the most nasty bunch of riff-raff on Planet Earth!It seems that one of these numerous riff-raff elements that support Wilders, the Christian Action Network, headed up by Martin Mawyer, did a one-hour movie celebrating Wilders (who may turn out to be the Slobodan Milosevic of the Netherlands someday) – and wanted to preview it with Wilders in Hollywood on May 1st. Wilders was happy and honored – and all set to come, until the real story about CAN came to light in a Dutch newspaper.It seems that Martin Mawyer is a homophobe freak-nutcase that has some rather ranting types of fund-raising letters about “TV coming out of the closet.”Well – the Netherlands is not the place to be a homophobe or associated with homophobic freaks like Mawyer. It’s the kiss of death for a political career. Gay people are totally accepted in the Netherlands – which is a great thing – and Wilders bases his Islamophobia platform of “protecting gays from Islamic fundamentalism.” Wilders had to back out, but not after trying to explain that “yes we have different views” and tried to downplay the association with the CAN and Mawyers.You can read the article from the Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State – which turned over information about Mawyers and his homophobic antics which has tainted Wilders and his election bids. Americans United said in their blog:
“Let this be a lesson to political leaders here and abroad: Be careful whom you call your allies; there may be disturbing skeletons lurking in their closets.”
The problem with Geert Wilders is that much of his American support base is this nutty and freakish!It is hoped that this revelation to the Dutch people about the questionable nature of some of Wilders American fan-base will cause further inquiries by the Dutch and European media into Wilders’ associations on the Western side of the Atlantic.  It is hoped that enough damage can be inflicted on Geert Wilders and his one man PVV party that it keeps him out of  a Parliament coalition altogether.The reality that the Dutch people should find out is that the “islamification of the Netherlands” is a myth and a hoax. Voting for a myth and a hoax should be viewed with disdain and laughter if it wasn’t a serious threat as it now is in the Netherlands.  The other reality is that Wilders is probably NOT friendly to Gays and is probably lying to them, as George W. Bush lied to the American people during his 2004 campaign about the “threat of gay marriage.”  This ilk that Wilders is celebrated by will surely put pressure on him to clamp down on Gays. The other grim reality is that if Wilders gets to be PM – it won’t be Dutch people running the Netherlands anymore.Can one join Wilders’ PVV party or is there democratic voting in it? NOPE!The future and freedom of the Dutch people and the Netherlands rests on keeping out and eliminating Geert Wilders from government power where he can cause perhaps murderous trouble against his own people and fellow citizens.

Hollywood: Geert Wilders Movie Aborted: Yes We CAN!

A Geert Wilders Jingle: “Our Geert

Thursday, March 11, 2010

The Eurabia myth – are Europeans waking up?

Eurabia follies and European dupes. The myth of “Eurabia” has caused considerable damage to the European political arena, mainly in individual European nations and countries. We now have a full -fledged Islamophobic government running things in Switzerland. We have the prospect of Geert Wilders as the next PM of the Netherlands. We have a number of MEPs that are rabid Islamophobes. The Swiss minaret ban has indirectly destroyed the good relations that were being established between Libya and European nations. The banning of the headscarf worn by Muslim women – even in in the street – along with criminalizing Islamic dress – are sweeping Europe. These awful developments in Islamophobic government policies are probably being poked on by a spat of books published largely in 2006 about the so-called “islamification of Europe” and, along with it, the notion of “Eurabia.” These books, written mostly on the Western side of the Atlantic, appear to be effective in frightening the begeevers out of Europeans.

In an article called What the Eurabia Authors Get Wrong About Islam in Europe, Justin VaÏsse describes how the Eurabia genre are written by Anglo-American conservative writers and rehash the old Cold War lingo that was used to describe communism or that Europeans as “in denial of their problems,” or course, the presence of Islam. Muslims have now replaced the Soviet communists as the enemies.

I have been saying for a few years that especially the American conservatives and neoconservative hybrids want to undermine and destroy the European Union. They are especially mad the most European countries rejected the invasion or Iraq and the notion of “war on terror.” In the course of the current research project on the “islamification of Europe” moral panic and the Euro-American right wing, we will see if the anger over Europe’s rejection of the Iraq War have anything to do with the attempts to get Europeans to abandon their human rights institution and conventions for the myth of “Muslim invasion.” Who is writing these books and why are they trying to re-infect Europeans with the murderous nationalism of the past? The Justin Vaisse article leads down this road of research inquiry:
In this sense, many of these books offer a variation on the conservative Cold War vision of Europe as vulnerable to the spread of communism — only now, Muslims have replaced Soviets and Euro-communists as the enemies. The continuity in clichés with the Europhobic literature of the 1970s and 1980s is striking: In both periods Europe is described with terms like appeasing, impotent, asexual, feminine, post-nationalistic, irreligious, apologetic, self-loathing, naive, decadent, and so forth.Despite their Europe-focused content, these books are a largely North American phenomenon. Bat Ye’or (or Gisèle Littman), an Egyptian-born British author, wrote one of the first of the genre in 2005 … which argued that political subservience to a Muslim agenda was turning Europe into an appendage of the Arab world. But most of her recent followers, including Caldwell, the jocular and hyperbolic Mark Steyn, the shallow Bruce Thornton, the more serious Walter Laqueur, and the high-pitched Claire Berlinski and Bruce Bawer, write from the other side of the Atlantic. 

The twin pillars of the Eurabia myth.First – demographics and making babies. This is the most dehumanizing portion, but studies by REAL scientists reveal the the most Muslims in Europe live in Russia. Most migrants to the UK come from Poland – and only about 500k per year come to Europe from Muslim countries.Second – “Muslims ain’t like us.” Here is the other form of dehumanization in that Muslims are also not European. “European” is incomparable with “Muslim.” A PEW study from 2006 indicated the European Muslims have the same economic concerns as most other people. A Gallop 2007 survey indicated that European Muslims have no problem with their faith and national identity.Both of the above are highly bigoted arguments that are designed to dehumanize European Muslims in the first place – and the ethics of this type of “social science” need to be brought into question.

The Eurabia myth – are Europeans starting to wake up? In a recent post, this author pointed out how the German interior minister, Thomas de Maiziere, questioned the banning of Islamic headscarves for teachers and the other ramifications of such a ban. While Europeans appear to be dupes for the Eurabia scare books – at least the Council of Europe is now coming to its senses. The Eurabia myth and the moral panic of “Muslim invasion” and Islamophobia that is manifesting itself in the attempts to suppress Islamic culture, mainly the headscarf, but – here is a hopeful sign of a wake-up! This wake up is coming from the Council of Europe and this is the absolute right place for this wake-up call! As Thomas Hammarberg correctly calls out the folly of oppressing Islamic headscarves to liberate oppressed women also said this:
Those who have argued for a general ban of the burqa and the niqab have not managed to show that these garments in any way undermine democracy, public safety, order or morals. The fact that a very small number of women wear such clothing has made proposals in such a direction even less convincing.The fact that the public discussion in a number of European countries has almost exclusively focused on what is perceived as Muslim dress has been unfortunate and created the impression of targeting one particular religion. Some of the arguments have been clearly Islamophobic and that has certainly not built bridges or encouraged dialogue.It is likely that more issues of this kind will surface in the coming years and, on the whole, it is only healthy that they should be discussed – as long as Islamophobic tendencies are avoided. However, attempts should be made to broaden the discourse to cover essential matters, including how to promote understanding of different religions, cultures and customs. Pluralism and multiculturalism are essential European values and should so remain. 

The Commissioner’s post also challenges the hypocritical arguments that have been made for the reasons for banning minarets and oppressing Muslims: Well – if we can’t build Christian churches in Saudi Arabia, let’s ban minuets here in Europe. If we can’t read the Bible in Saudi Arabia, let’s ban the Koran in Europe. These arguments, in human rights law, are not acceptable excuses – and it is, again, a hopeful sign that Europe is waking up to the destructive power of Eurabia moral panic and throwing out important freedoms. It is only a matter of time before the Swiss are told to remove the minaret ban from their constitution.

What may occur, hopefully, is that the Eurabia myth can be exposed and the course of this moral panic stopped before it does any more damage. However, we may have to yet experience yet more social, legal and moral damage to European society and order before the Eurabia moral panic runs its course. This includes the frightening prospect of a Prime Minister Wilders of the Netherlands and the damage that will do to both Dutch national identity and the country’s long-standing place as a human rights champion. However, voters often don’t care about the damage they do to their own countries, most especially in a climate of moral panic brought on by “Muslim invasion” books.We must work to expose the “Eurabia” myths, who the Eurabia myth-makers are and reclaim the European psyche.

Also see :Islam in the West – Johann Hari – Dissent Magazine – Winter 2007http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=752Amid all this panic, we must remember one simple fact: Muslims are not all the same – Johann Hari -http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-amid-all-this-panic-we-must-remember-one-simple-fact–muslims-are-not-all-the-same-412756.htmlStudy dispels myths on Muslim population – Olivia Ward http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/711744–study-dispels-myths-on-muslim-populationIn spite of numbers, Dutch Muslims are political non-entity – http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2476660.ece/In_spite_of_numbers,_Dutch_Muslims_are_political_non-entity

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Geert Wilders as a threat to Dutch freedom

While the so-called “gains” made by Geert Wilders so-called “Freedom Party” (de Partij voor de Vrijheid [tegen vrijheid!]) in the March 3 elections were acutally mininal, these advances made by the radical right in European elections is a grave and growing threat for European security.This author is currently working on a paper regarding the radical right and their advances in Europe – which will focus on Geert Wilders. There are some authors that blame the fragmentation of national identities in the era of globalization and European integration.  Some authors blame bad economic times. There is evidence that what is called “Euro-American” radicals and their communications through the Internet are a major source of the problem. What ever the source (probably all of the above) - the growing  radical right is a threat to freedom and democracy in Europe like no other since Adolf Hitler. Geert Wilders is himself a proud Thatcherite and, like most of the radical right, vigourously opposed to the European Union – so it is no surprise that Wilderspraat (Wilders talk) is laced with American conservative language (ex. “less taxes, less Islam”). It is no wonder that his film Fitna has been shown to largely Euro-American radical right audiences and the House of Lords. We should also become concerned with just who is funding the so-called “Freedom Party” as we questioned who funded Declan Ganley and the Irish, Lisbon Treaty “no” vote. We need to be concerned of the prospect of funding for Geert Wilders’ one man show coming from the Western side of the Atlantic, where he is most popular among American conservatives.

If the Dutch are stupid enough to actually vote this party in and Wilders gets to be PM, you can best bet that the Koran will be banned and Dutch Muslims’ freedom of religion will be oppressed. The Dutch intelligence and police services will be turned against innocent Dutch Muslims and those that oppose Willders. Terrorist acts that occur (rightfully) – will be a self fulfilling prosperity and blamed on “radicalized Muslims.” Those that will struggle for freedom in the Netherlands will be branded as a “threat” and “dangerous.” This will be celebrated as a “great victory” among the American radical right as darkness descends in the Netherlands.

To oppose Geert Wilders no matter how far he gets in politics is a great and worthy struggle - as it is a struggle for freedom for both the Netherlands and for Europe.  We must be prepared for being labeled “threatening” and “dangerous” – as those that want to “Stop Wilder Nu” are being labeled as “threatening.” All those that oppose Wilders will be described as “threatening” – even as it is actually Wilders that poses the greatest danger.  I also intend to join the great and coming struggle against Wilders and the Muslim-hating, Euro-American radical right.To the Wilders-Thatcher-Reagen -American conservative ilk – “freedom of speech” applies only to their speech. Those that oppose the Wilders ilk and like-minded travelers – well their speech are “threats” and must be suppressed.For the claims that those of us that oppose Wilders are elitists – please note that Wilders himself is an elitist – just as Wilders is actually anti-freedom!  You can’t join this party or influence its policies and is, therefore anti-democratic!According to DutchNews:
The reasons why the Freedom Party are only standing in these two municipalities are in themselves worth highlighting. The Freedom Party is difficult to define. It is not a ‘party’ in the conventional sense of the term. You can donate to it, but cannot join it, nor influence its policy forming. It has no internal democracy. Its sole purpose is to serve as a platform for the ambitions of Geert Wilders and his brand of anti-Islamic populist nationalism; accurately described in a recent New York Times editorial as ‘hate spewing’ and ‘xenophobic ’. 

Now – why was Wilders’ criminal trial postponed? One explanation was to “not upset the electorate before the March 3 elections. Well – what should be noted is that the Dutch government and its prosecutors offices appear to be giving more “freedom of speech” to Wilders that to the rapper Mo$heb – who was punished for a song that was taken as “threatening to Wilders” for saying “bam bam.”   My, my – so – a song that “threatens Wilders” is “more dangerous” that the prospect of Wilders becoming the next Dutch PM and taking away the freedoms of a religious minority and  damaging the international relations of a country that has a proud  human rights and rule of law tradition?The prosecution (persecution) of Mo$heb and not Geert Wilders  indicates that the Netherlands has already lost its rule of law orientation.  Just who is being defined as a “threat” in the Netherlands has been turned on its head … this, and any connections to the Reagen-Thatcher – American conservative ilk will be exposed to the disinfection of sunlight.