CAIR is not an organization that can be relied upon in any way to promote the moderation and modernization of Islam; rather, it is a mouthpiece for the ultra-radical sect that is the Wahhabi / Salafi Islam. If we as a people assimilate rather then challenge CAIR at every turn, then it will work a fundamental change for the worse in American values. If you wish to have an inkling of Wahhabi core tenants in action, please see this post. Additionally, search the word "CAIR" on this site, and browse through the posts on Saudi Arabia -- the birthplace of Wahhabi Islam, on the site Memri.org.
With that, let us parse CAIR's statement of yesterday issued in support of their latest cause celebre, urging Congress to become more involved in establishing peace in the Middle East. That, on its face, is certainly a noble endeavor. Though, in all honesty, the U.S. has been very involved in this for decades. But let us not prejudge, CAIR might have some ideas of which we have not yet thought.CAIR SAYS:
I am not impressed so far. Middle Eastern monarchs and governments have been blaming all of the problems of the Middle East on Israel since its inception. This has everything to do with the Wahhabi / Salafi dogma that it is the world's superior religion, destined to rule over all, as well as the Wahhabi dogma that Judaism is innately evil and must, in the end, be destroyed for Wahhabi Islam to triumph. Israel is a beacon of democracy and capitalism with a far higher standard of living for its citizens -- Jewish, Christian, AND Palestinian Muslim -- then any other Middle Eastern country. That it should be so -- without any oil or other natural resources that abound elsewhere in the Middle East -- is very telling.
In his speech before Congress, King Abdullah stated: "The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine. …I come here today, as your friend, to tell you that this is the core issue. And this core issue is not only producing severe consequences for our region, it is producing severe consequences for our world."
To the extent a problem exists, it is a problem created by the surrounding autocracies, who use Israel as a scapegoat and the Palestinians as pawns. The Wahhabi and Salafi Muslims, of which CAIR is but one tentacle, want Israel wiped from the map. If you believe CAIR, then the demise of Israel and institution of a Muslim state in formerly Israeli lands would be the end of all of the problems of the Middle East. But, given what we know of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, in reality it would only be the end of the very beginning of our problems with the Wahhabi / Salafi Muslim world.CAIR SAYS:
Given our current policies towards Israel, no reformulation is necessary. We have stepped in with an eminently fair two state solution and a road map to peace. The first step from the Palestinian side is and has been for the Palestinians to stop murdering innocent Israeli civilians. Just what about that has to be reformulated? Must we accept wanton murder and Wahhabi attempts at genocide? Or must we accept and even support a Hamas led government that has as its fundamental thesis the destruction of Israel?
It is vitally important that our elected representatives reformulate a Middle East policy based on the cherished American principles of peace and justice for all people.
In actuality, Hamas is an outgrowth of Wahhabi Islam, and several members of CAIR have been sent to jail for their support of Hamas. What you will never see from CAIR is an explicit denunciation of any atrocity committed by Hamas. The reasonable words chosen by CAIR do not hide the blood of their actions.CAIR SAYS
"For too long the plight of the Palestinians has been ignored in the halls of Congress. For too long the discussion has been one-sided. Our lawmakers have spoken out in support of Israeli rights and national security, but appear content to leave the Palestinians with neither rights nor security. To the Muslim world, this is perceived a double standard and remains the number one source of anti-American hostility.
This is so thoroughly disingenuous as to be laughable. Any cursory study of the plight of the Palestinians since the birth of Israel will show that there has been a cynical manipulation of them -- but it has been by other Middle Eastern countries who have insured their poverty and used them as proxies to attack Israel. As to the U.S. not helping the Palestinians, until the election of Hamas, we were pumping millions of dollars in aid into the Palestinian economy and attempting to build an infrastructure. We supported the unilateral withdrawal of Israel from Gaza. But what have the Palestinians made of this chance? Nothing. Actually, worse then nothing. The Palestinians are now in a true civil war, with the gangster like PA, who have embezzled countless aid funds over the years on one side, and the radical Islamicists of Hamas on the other side. And sticking their fingers into this witches brew are the various middle eastern countries playing off one side against the other to insure that there is no peace with Israel.
The statement that our mistreatment of Palestine is the source of anti-American hostility is a giant canard. Wahhabi Islam has been described as more racist then the KKK -- there is both a hatred infused in true believers from childhood against anyone who is not a Wahhabi Muslim, and a sense of superiority to anyone not a Wahhabi Muslim. That exists wholly separate and apart from the question of Israel. And what CAIR and other Wahhabists want is U.S. support for a plan that will eventually lead to the destruction of Israel. Never, never be fooled by the lies of CAIR.CAIR SAYS
I agree, it is a tremendous tragedy. For those Palestinians who live at peace in Israel and who flatly refuse to have anything to do with the PA and Hamas, their standard of living is the highest among any Palestinians living in any state in the mid-East. At this point, Palestinians in Gaza are out of control. While there is no butter, money for guns and militias seems to flow like water. So how is that the responsibility of the West to fix? There is a problem, but it is not one caused by the U.S., nor can it be fixed by the U.S. without simply giving more support to the ever growing civil war. Further, while we may choose to give aid at times to Palestinians, that aid is a gift, it is not a right which they -- or CAIR -- can demand. The Palestinians portray themselves as perennial victims -- a choice of roles vigorously supported by CAIR and other Middle Eastern countries. When will the Palestinians ever take responsibility for their own actions?
"A tragedy is unfolding in Palestine with 70 per cent of the population now living below the poverty line. Unemployment is nearly 40 percent and expected to rise to more than 70 percent.CAIR SAYS
Isn't it nice to see CAIR and the Wahhabi's pick up on the language of Jimmy Carter? We have long attempted to convince Israel not to expand settlements, and indeed, Israel has given essentially the entire Gaza Strip to Palestinians, and has pulled back from many of its settlements in the West Bank. As to the buzz words "Apartheid-like," there is nothing stopping the Palestinians from setting up an orderly and productive society in Gaza. The solution begins there -- not with the United States kowtowing to the demands of Wahhabi Islamists.
"The choices that Israel makes have implications for the United States. It is time for America to use its power to influence counterproductive Israeli policies such as building illegal settlements on confiscated Palestinian land and subjecting Palestinians to Apartheid-like existence.CAIR SAYS
If no other sentence by CAIR gives away their true intent, this one certainly does. CAIR is asserting an innate right to claim Jerusalem for the Muslim world. The fact that Jerusalem is the most holy site in the world for Jews and Christians is not mentioned -- nor, I doubt, did it ever enter the author's mind. Why is that? This goes to the ultimate intent of the radical Wahhabi Islamists -- to wipe Israel from the map, and indeed, reinstitute claim to all lands that were ever in Muslim hands historically. That is step one.
"Any real and lasting resolution to the Middle East conflict will also have to address Israel's brutal occupation, the Palestinian right of return and the holy status of Jerusalem for Muslims worldwide.
Israel is a state with both a legal and historical claim to the land on which it sits, including Jerusalem. Israel is not an occupying entity. As to brutality, Israel's hands are not clean. But, in comparison to the brutality of the Palestinians and other Islamists, with the slaughter of women and children applauded by the Arabs, there is no comparison whatsoever. To call Israel brutal while ignoring the actions of Palestinians and their radical Muslim supporters goes beyond hypocrisy. They think we are guilt ridden idiots to be manipulated.
I could go on listing what CAIR says, but much of what I would say in response is already set forth above. The bottom line is that CAIR is a viper in the midst of our secular liberal democracy. While I, like Voltaire, will defend CAIR's right while in this country to say what they want, I will, and urge you to join me, in doing everything possible to thwart CAIR from taking their twisted messages into the acceptable mainstream of American thought.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Keeping an Eye On CAIR: Part III - CAIR & "Middle East Peace"
Hillary & FDR: Inviting An Unfavorable Comparison
Senator Hillary Clinton is in an unenviable position. She is having to stake out positions ever further left in order to placate the highly vocal, take no prisoners far left who seem be in control her party (see here). Nonetheless, she is simultaneously making a desperate effort to maintain a patina of credibility with the moderates and conservatives who form the bulk of the electorate - and without a portion of whom she has no chance of winning the Presidency.
The irreconcilable tension between those two goals was on evidence the other day in Senator Clinton's remarks to an audience from the Center for American Progress. As part of her remarks, she chose to quote from a speech made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt just days following the onset of hostilities in World War II:
"We are now in this war. We are all in it, all the way. Every man, woman and child isBut what Hillary omitted from her remarks was the salient point FDR made in that speech:a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history," Sen. Clinton quoted, adding "That was presidential leadership that understood that when American soldiers are in harm's way, we are all at war."
"The United States can accept no result save victory, final and complete . . . The sources of international brutality, wherever they exist, must be absolutely and finally broken . . . We're going to fight it with everything we got."But the dissonance did not end there. Following her remarks, "when asked point blank whether she believed America should win the war in Iraq, she hemmed and hawed, refusing to answer directly."
You can read the whole story here and the full text of Roosevelt's famous speech addressed to the nation here.
If Hillary Clinton is going to be successful in her Presidential bid, it would behoove her to choose carefully whom she quotes and whom she puts forth as a model of presidential leadership. The comparison it invites in this instance is not flattering. We are able to compare the resolute and forward looking leadership of FDR in order to achieve victory with Senator Clinton's determination to withdrawal from Iraq whatever the cost in order to achieve the Presidency. I think it fair, on that comparison, to paraphrase Senator Bentsen -- "Senator Clinton, you're no Franklin Roosevelt."
As a postscript, I would add a warning to Senator Kerry should he ever decide to quote the same lines from FDR's speech as did Senator Clinton. FDR also included the following in his speech:
It is not a sacrifice for any man, old or young, to be in the Army or the Navy of the United States. Rather is it a privilege.
The Poison That Is Multiculturalism
Diana West views multiculturalism as the single poison that is allowing for the march of radical Islam throughout the West. I could not agree more.
Only one faith on Earth may be more messianic than Islam: multiculturalism. Without it -- without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same -- the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. It's as simple as that. To live among the believers -- the multiculturalists -- is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place un-repulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.Read her entire article in Townhall.
For a round-up of prior posts on multiculturalism or dealing with issues arising out of the multiculturalist's philosophy, see:
Guardian Sees Moral Equivalence Between U.K. & Iran
Britain's Existential Problem: Multiculturalism (Part I)
How to Define a Multiculturalist's Nightmare
A Hilarious Guardian Hit Piece or How to Twist the Fact When They Are All Bad
In the U.K. - The Liberal World On Its Head
Multiculturalism and the Death of Liberal European Mores
Hello, Auntie-Mum . . .
The Muslim Council of Britain & Its Plan For State Sponsored Islam in Schools
Reaction to the Muslim Council of Britain's Plans for Britains Schools
Trying to Wake Europe
U.K. Insanity - Criminalizing Criticism of Islam
Finnish Suicide
Germany Wakes Up to Its Own Problems With Fundementalist Islam
The Problems With Appointing a Special Prosecutor
Pelosi - Caught Between Iraq and a Hard Place
The Wall Street Journal takes a serious look at the grist that I had fun with here.
Rarely Discussed Efforts to Bring Stability to Fallujah
Fallujah was the main center of Sunni and al Qaeda insurgents at the start of the war. It is a major city in Anbar province. If you recall, it was the city were the bodies of the four burned and mutilated contractors were hung from a bridge, and it was the site of a major offensive by the Marines some time ago.
Today, Marines are operating in Fallujah, both with military partrols and with civilian reconstruction efforts. The military aspect of operations is what takes up 99% of all reporting. Rare is the time when you read an article that touches on the reconstruction effort or civilian life in outlying cities in any depth. I remember last year one reporter for MSM said, and I paraphrase, "there are many good things happening in Iraq, but we don't report those things out of fear that they will become the target of insurgents." That is not an indictment; she was being very sincere.
Today, we get that very rare look into the civilian side of Fallujah, as well as some of the reconstruction efforts. The author of the In Iraq Journal interviews Marine Staff Sergeant Tyler Belshe who works for Civil Affairs.
The interview is very frank, open, and not sugar coated. It discusses the successes, the failures, and the limits of what the Marines can do in Fallujah. It shows the problems of dealing with Iraqi's who want to live in peace but who are under constant strain from gangsters, for lack of a better term, and who are still evolving to the point where they have the collective internal confidence to stand up and say "no more." I walked away from reading the interview with the belief that what the Marine's are doing in Fallujah is to buy the time for that change in collective paradigm while helping it along with good works. Its a slow process built on each small success.
I won't cherry pick quotes from this one. Because the topic and message is so nuanced, you really need to read the whole interview in context. You will find it here.
Friday, March 9, 2007
The FBI and NSL's - Trouble Looms on the CounterTerroism Horizon
There is a partisan storm on the horizon in response to the Dept. of Justice's Inspector General's report on FBI usage of National Security Letters, otherwise known as NSL's. And it appears to be both out of proportion to the scope of the problem and destined to lead to changes that will only further handcuff our counterterrorism efforts.
Prior to 9-11, our counterintelligence system was dysfunctional for a myriad of reasons. For example, Chinese walls prevented sharing of information, and there was difficulty in getting timely FISA warrants to examine potential terrorist leads such as to examine the 20th hijacker, Zacharias Moussaoui's, hard drive. Those are just two examples of many systemic problems. In the aftermath of 9-11, and in response to the systemic problems, the government implemented the Patriot Act, one provision of which -- Section 505 -- deals with NSL's.
The NSL is a unique administrative subpoena that was in existence before 9-11, but which was expanded in scope and made easier to secure by the Patriot Act. NSL's are unusual in two respects -- one, they do not require judicial overview to be issued. They are authorized by the Special Agent in charge of a FBI Bureau field office. Two, they only allow access to limited information. NSL's allow FBI agents to access financial data, internet usage data, telephone data, and credit report information. An NSL does not allow for eavesdropping or a physical search. Those are still the sole province of a warrant that must be authorized by a judge. Further, an NSL can only be approved if it is certified in the request that the information sought is:
"relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment . . . "
to gather enough information to support a warrant for search or surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
assess communications and financial links between the target and others
collect information to fully develop national security investigations or to close out such investigations as unwarranted
develop leads for other terrorism related agencies
corroborate information derived from other investigative techniques
Director of the FBI Mueller has taken responsiblity for his agency's shortcoming. Further, the FBI has issued a public statement on the matter here.
So, to put this in perspective, what we have is a vital investigative tool that is central to the FBI's investigation of terrorism, that is designed to find information limited in scope, and that has been used for proper investigative goals. We also have a bookkeeping and administrative system in the FBI that needs to be cleaned up and it needs to be done immediately. Lastly, documentation surrounding NSL's needs to be enforced. If necessary, a few heads should roll. Fair enough.
But if you listened to the crowing from the liberals today -- and unfortunately led by Arlen Specter -- one would be led to believe that the FBI is completely out of control and mining private data for a conspiracy worthy of Fox Maulder's imagination. They were falling all over themselves in the rush to get to a camera and take unbelievably outlandish shots while not one acknowledges any beneficial use of the NSL as a very timely and flexible investigative tool at the heart of the war against terrorism. See here and here.
From the New York Times:
“It is time to place meaningful checks on the Bush administration’s ability to misuse the Patriot Act by overusing national security letters,” said Senator Harry Reid."
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “National security letters are a powerful tool, and when they are misused, they can do great harm to innocent people.” Mr. Leahy said his panel would hold extensive hearings on the inspector general’s findings.
In the House, Representative Silvestre Reyes, the Texas Democrat who heads the Intelligence Committee, said that the inspector general had painted “a highly troubling picture of mismanagement” and that it was up to Congress to “conduct vigorous oversight of this situation.”
Among the Republicans voicing anger was Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “When it comes to national security, sloppiness should be reserved for the hog lot, not the F.B.I.,” said Mr. Grassley.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, who had been pressing for a review of national security letters since 2005, said the report "confirms the American people's worst fears about the Patriot Act."
"It appears that the administration has used these powers without even the most basic regard for privacy of innocent Americans," Durbin said in a statement. He called for "reasonable reforms" to the Patriot Act that have been proposed, but not acted on, in the past. "We should give the government all the tools it needs to fight terrorism," Durbin said. "However, I continue to believe that the Patriot Act must include reasonable checks and balances to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans."
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, like Specter a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the problems identified by the inspector general were a "profoundly disturbing breach of public trust." Schumer also promised that the panel would hold hearings and then likely consider legislation to rein in portions of the Patriot Act.
"This goes above and beyond almost everything they've done already," Schumer said of the allegations in the report. "It shows just how this administration has no respect for checks and balances."
. . . .
Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the report shows the need for an independent investigation of the Justice Department's anti-terrorism tactics.
"It confirms our greatest suspicions about the abuse of Patriot Act powers and, specifically, national security letter powers," Romero said. "The report is really only a description of the tip of the iceberg."
The Far Left - Let No Voice Be Heard But Their Own
The last time the Democratic Party went to the far left, it culminated with the nomination of George McGovern for President, circa 1968. It proved disastrous in the long run for the Democrats. Is there any reason to believe that a hard turn to the left will result in any different consequence now?
The far left are every day speaking louder and louder, and all 
members of the Democratic Party are listening with uneasy attention. The first real demon
stration of the far left's new found power was the successful inquisition directed at ousting Joe Lieberman from power, thus insuring ideological purity. Now, the far left feels they hold the trump card over most, if not all Democrat office holders. The party of Roosevelt and Truman is now the party of Kos, Moveon.org, Michael Moore and George Soros.
A hallmark of the far left seems to be that speech should only be free if it is in concordance with their own deeply held views. Certainly, the hallmark of free speech and open debate is precisely that -- you seek out others whose views differ, and you debate them. Not so for the far left, and today is but the latest example.The Nevada State Democratic Party is pulling out of a controversial presidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno and co-hosted by Fox News, according to Democratic insiders.
The debate was being hosted by Fox News Channel and Fox News Radio, the Nevada State Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project.
. . . .
The state party has been under pressure from progressive activists across the country, led by MoveOn.org, to cut its ties with the debate.
According to MoveOn, more than 265,000 people signed a petition sent to the Nevada State Democratic Party.In announcing the event, a statement posted by the state Democratic Party has Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offering high praise of the debate partnership with Fox.
“This is more great news for Nevada,” he said in the statement. “I'm happy FOX News will be a partner for the August presidential debate. Western issues will be a major focus of this debate in particular. With FOX News as our partner, candidates will have an opportunity to not only speak to Nevada voters, but voters across the West who will be instrumental to electing a Democratic president in 2008.”
But such was not to be allowed in the far left corner of the world dominated by Kos and MoveOn.org. Harry Reid proved once again his lack of any principles and, as the shrill cries came from the far left, he quickly folded. Reid now allegedly shares "activist concern about the event."
I personally think this is suicidal. Not that I am complaining, mind you. The ever greater drift to the left of the Democratic party left me behind a decade ago. But those voters still in play - the swing voters who do not share the purity of the belief of the far left -- are watching. And grossly ideological acts like this which both cast a pall over freedom of speech and evince a refusal to countenance any other opinion to be heard cannot be good for the Democratic Party.
Update: The following official statement from Fox News appears on Drudge:
Major Terrorist Capture Reported by Fox
Fox is reporting the capture of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, a terrorist who came to prominence following the death of al Zarqawi. He is identified as the leader of the al Qaeda affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq. According to reports from the Iraq military, al-Baghdadi was captured alive Friday when a group he led attempted a raid in an area on the western outskirts of Baghdad. The U.S. has yet to confirm al Baghdadi's capture.
"But, . . . what of the Goracle?"
Bafflement is being reported amongst the high priests of our new, green recoligion as they ponder why their message does not seem to be penetrating the undeducated masses:
TEN NETWORK's programmers are baffled. With so much attention on climate change and consumer research indicating viewers were keenly interested in a 2½ hour feast of practical advice on how they might save the planet, Ten's ratings for the Cool Aid blockbuster on Sunday night were still a disaster.
. . . .
"Truthfully, we're confused," says Ten's network head of programming, Beverley McGarvey. "They didn't come. It's not like they came to the show, sampled it and went away. They didn't come.
"We had study guides in schools, we had the full support of the print media, both editorially and with advertising, and an extensive [Ten Network] on-air campaign with a number of different creative treatments and different stances.
"We spent a fortune to get the audience there and it didn't work. We've talked about it quite a lot internally. We're disappointed."
Ten isn't alone. Despite the focus on climate change, the green conundrum is alive across myriad product categories, . . ."
Now admittedly this occurred in Australia. But I believe the general inferences that can be made are equally applicable to Western eco-church.
Thus, a few suggestions for the Goracle, as the Grand High Priest (using the Oscar as a sceptre), and his underlings. Preaching and gross hypocrisy are quite often mutually exclusive. Most of us less educated types are left high and dry when we see the Hollywood elite, including the Goracle, preaching how we commoners need to be drastically changing our lives while they merely purchase carbon credits to assuage their guilt as they climb into their gas guzzling cars and limos waiting to take them to their private jets. Perhaps that may have something to do with the less then desirable results discussed in the article above.
Two, stop the crushing of dissent. If what the Goracle and his bishop's pontificate is true, then why are contra-opinions being dismissed out of hand instead of being engaged in open debate. Many of us "fly over people" are curious about that.
Now, clearly our newest recolegionists are trying every technique in the left's hand book to promote their recoligion, but until the hypocrisy ends and legitimate debates are heard, don't expect the masses to embrace their every edict.
An IRGC General Goes Missing & Bad Things Start to Happen for Terhan
Amir Taheri looks at the importance of the defection of Ali-Reza Askari to America and ties it in to a spate of bad events for the Iranian theocracy that have happened of late
'A VERY big fish" - so Tehran sources de scribe former Deputy Defense Minister Ali-Reza Askari (sometimes called "Asghari" in the West), who disappeared in Istanbul on Sunday. Askari's disappearance fits an emerging pattern. Since December, the United States and its allies appear to have moved onto the offensive against the Islamic Republic's networks of influence in the Middle East:
* Jordan has seized 17 Iranian agents, accused of trying to smuggle arms to Hamas, and deported them quietly after routine debriefing.
* A number of Islamic Republic agents have been identified and deported in Pakistan and Tunisia.
* At least six other Iranian agents have been picked up in Gaza, where they were helping Hamas set up armament factories.
* In the past three months, some 30 senior Iranian officials, including at least two generals of Revolutionary Guards, have been captured in Iraq.
All but five of the Islamic Republic agents seized in Iraq appear to have been released. One of those released was Hassan Abbasi, nicknamed "the Kissinger of Islam," who is believed to be President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's strategic advisor.
Among those still held by the Americans is one Muhammad Jaafari Sahraroudi, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander wanted by the Austrian police in connection with the murder of three Iranian Kurdish leaders in Vienna in 1989.
All this looks like a message to Tehran that its opponents may be moving on to the offensive in what looks like a revival of tactics used in the Cold War.
This is all good news. You can read the rest of Mr. Taheri's article here.
Dr. Santy Expounds On Displacement by the Left
Dr. Sanity shining her spotlight on the pscyhological malignancies of the left as they ignore successes occurring in the surge in order to embrace and revel in defeat.
The truth is that Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and the other Democratic leaders are completely uninterested in whether or not the Surge might work, primarily because they are wholly committed to American failure in Iraq.Read the whole post here.
Failure in Iraq means success for them, and a failure for President Bush and Republicans.
As I commented in the post just prior to this one: The Democrats are far more interested in "directly challenging President Bush" than they are in directly challenging the real enemies of civilization or the United States.
. . . .
What we are witnessing then, in their indifference to any actual facts about the matter; or their casual lack of concern the consequences of their thoughtless behavior and frenzied oppositional activity--is a psychological defensive maneuver that is probably the most common psycological response to the worldwide threat of Islamofascism since 9/11. This response is a very specific kind of psychological denial; and it is called displacement.
Muslim Militants Imposing Their Version of Islam in the West
These are two videos from a Canadian Broadcasting Corp. segment on how muslim militants in Candada are coercively imposing their view of Wahabbi Islam upon other "moderate" muslims in the country.
Hattip: LGF
Keeping An Eye On CAIR: Part II
What follows is an editorial from Investor's Business Daily on CAIR's extreme agitation over the first Secular Islam Summit held here in the U.S. The editorial is so good, I reproduce it here in its entirity.
What Is CAIR Afraid Of?
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 3/6/2007
Politics And Islam: The first Secular Islam Summit was a success if for no other reason than it intimidated the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the PR machine of militant Islam.
The Washington-based group that boycotts airlines and bullies radio personalities and politicians into toeing the Islamist line is clearly worried about the message from Muslim reformers.
It dispatched its henchmen to Florida to shout the reformers down at their confab earlier this week. CAIR also posted on its Web site no fewer than four stories bashing the event and its courageous speakers, many of whom are women calling for an end to inequality and mistreatment under radical Islam.
CAIR declared the summit illegitimate because few of the participants are "practicing Muslims," and those who are, it claims, are merely pawns playing into the hands of "Islamophobes."
"In order to have legitimate reform, you need to have the right messengers," asserted CAIR spokesman Ahmed Bedier.
And who might that be? The four CAIR executives who have been successfully prosecuted on terrorism-related charges? The CAIR co-founder who said the Quran should replace the U.S. Constitution as "the highest authority in America"?
True voices of moderation are the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, who insisted in their declaration that mosque and state should always be separate. They also called for tolerance for non-Muslims, and an end to violent jihad. CAIR should take notes.
So what if many of them are ex-Muslims? They risked their lives to leave Islam and now dare to openly criticize an ideology that everyone else is afraid to criticize. What these brave souls have to say carries far more weight than anything said by CAIR, which couldn't even bring itself to condemn Osama bin Laden in the wake of 9/11.
Yes, Bedier argued, but the summit's "funding is coming from the neoconservatives." An article posted by CAIR suggests "Israeli intelligence" is behind the movement.
In CAIR's kooky world, the Zionists are behind everything, even 9/11.
But if anyone was behind 9/11, it was the Saudis. And guess who bankrolls CAIR? Right: the Saudis.
Fittingly, CAIR's Bedier balked when summit delegate Tawfik Hamid, a former terrorist, challenged him to denounce Saudi sharia law for "killing apostates, beating women and stoning women."
"This is not about Saudi Arabia," he huffed. "We condemn any nation that misuses Islam, but we're not going to condemn an entire nation. That's like condemning London (sic)."
Another CAIR sugar daddy is the ruler of Dubai, which acted as the staging ground for the hijackers and the transit point for 9/11 cash.
Sheikh Mohammed, who before 9/11 requisitioned cargo jets to supply bin Laden's Afghan camps, owns CAIR's D.C. headquarters through his foundation, which also holds telethons for Palestinian "martyrs."
The same foundation recently pledged $50 million to CAIR to boost its operations, which includes a legal shop set up to intimidate critics with vexatious lawsuits.
Radical groups like CAIR have been on the offensive, primarily because counterattacks by moderates have been few and far between.
But the Secular Islam Summit offers a ray of hope. Just a handful of reformers gathered in Florida made CAIR squirm. Imagine if hundreds of moderate Muslim voices rose up and challenged the Saudi-backed Wahhabi lobby.
Hattip: Little Green Footballs.
Update: Dr. Sanity has an extensive post that speaks to and beyond the Secular Islam Summit.
Update: And it appears that CAIR is squealing like a pig.
Looking Up the BBC's Knickers
Robin Aitken, 25 years a BBC reporter, takes a long look up the BBC's knickers and tells us what he finds in his new book - Can We Trust The BBC? A hint -- Mr. Aitken tells us in advance that the view is decidedly not pretty. I am waiting for his book to hit the bookstores.
From my own personal standpoint, I have great respect for the BBC and all that the organization does as a whole, but by the same token, I believe that the BBC News Division is a cancer on the U.K. - and everywhere else it is shown in the world. I can recall sitting in a flat outside London a few years ago, just before the Iraq War began, and having my jaw drop in disbelief at just how far left the BBC news was in what it chose to report and how it reported it.
What makes the BBC news division truly objectionable is that it operates without having to compete in the marketplace. All citizens of Britain fund it, and it operates distinctly to the left of center, expousing both directly and by omission, a firm belief in multiculturalism and related views. Unlike PBS in America, which has more then once been threatened with funding cuts when it has strayed even a little out of the political mainstream, the BBC is a monolith that operates without adult supervision. It has worked a sea change in driving Britain to the socialist and multicultural left in the past half century, and it has done so on the public tit. It has never been challenged. Perhaps that will change with Mr. Aitken's new book.
Although there is tremendous publicity in the U.K. surrounding this book, the BBC has put a lid on it, refusing to comment or grant an interview with its former reporter. As Mr. Aitken states, in an article on 18 Doughty Street:Funny that not one of them seems to want to cross swords with an obscure reporter who has had the temerity to point out that the Corporation’s claim to impartiality is a Big Lie. And that if word was to get out about just how unfair, one-sided and biased most BBC programmes are there could be consequences. The Corporation’s cherished reputation might be irreparably damaged.
One can only hope that this leads to a groundswell at the grass roots level. In Britain of the past twenty years, it is not that there has been a silent majority of moderates and conservatives, it is that there has been a silenced majority. The first step towards normality in the U.K. involves, almost out of necessity, taking a very serious look at spinning off the BBC news division and letting it operate in the free market.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Trying to Wake Europe
The Gates of Vienna is covering the work of SIAD -- Stop Islamification of Denmark, as they take their activism beyond the borders of Denmark and take to the European stage.
Read the whole story here. It is heartening to see at least some sanity emerging from the continent before it is too late. If you or anyone you know can be there to support this group, please, by all means do so.SIAD is carrying its message to the very heart of the EU on September 11th. Anders Gravers, the founder and leader of SIAD, recently sent me the following press release:
Demonstration outside the European Parliament
September 11th 2007
Europeans are saying
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
NO SHARIA HERE!
So join the call
All European nations must be represented
SO IF YOU LOVE FREEDOM
IF YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY
BE THERE!!
The organizers of the demonstration are: SIAD (Denmark) sioe@siad.dk phone: +45 96771784 No Sharia Here (England), sioe.nsh@btinternet.com. We are in contact with Akte-islam in Germany, which is organizing the German participation. We seek people / organizations from all other European countries who will organize participation by their own countrymen. For questions or coordination amongst countries, contact SIAD or No Sharia Here.
Surge Succeeding; Dems Seek to Pullout
If one were to juxtapose all of the news from today and the past few days, "Surge Succeeding; Dems Seek to Pullout" would have to be the headline. There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance there, does there not?
For a roundup of highlights:
News From the Surge
Iraq the Model
Back to (Iraqi) Politics
Street Justice
Imposing Law Enters Week III
Jules Crittenden
Pressing Petraeus
Michele Malkin
Gen. Petraeus Speaks
Powerline
Grounds for cautious optimism in Baghdad
Victory Caucus
It Was Inevitable
More Surge Achievments
Clearing Sadr City
Dept. of Defense
Baghdad Security Efforts Seem to Yield Results
Democrats Seek to Pullout:
My Posts:
Dems Assist Bush With Iraq Planning - Develop Plans B thru Z
Pelosi & Murtha Plan Slow Bleed / Vote Buying Strategy
New York Times
Democrats Propose Iraq Pullout in 2008
Washington Post
Democrats Unveil Pullout Plan for Iraq
Not the Real Vote
Powerline:
Never let the facts stand in the way of appeasing an interest group
And in the applauding a pullout catgory:
Al Jazeera
Hassan Abujihaad, U.S. Convert to Islam - Busted
Hassan Abujihaad, a navy vet and convert to Islam formerly known as Paul R. Hall, 31, Phoenix, was arrested today and charged with material support for a conspiracy with British Islamists to kill U.S. nationals and for transmitting classified information -- i.e., naval ship locations. It seems we finally have a real leaker being charged with a crime. Given that the NYT is able to publish our state secrets with impunity, and given that Scooter Libby faces jail for leaking something that was not illegal, it is comforting to see, at least once, our government apparently geting one right.
Read the whole story here.
Update: More on this story at Counterterrorism Blog.
Free Speech - Not Quite
If a news organization does not shill for Democrats, then it is not a legitimate news organization. Well, at least not according to the Kos kids, MoveOn.org, and several other of the far left. They believe that any such news organization is unworthy and must be silenced. Which has the liberals once again demonstrating how they view the concept of freedom of speech -- that speech should only be free if it is in consonance with their own beliefs.
In that vein, the far left -- who more and more seem to be in total control of the Democratic Party -- are demanding that Fox not be allowed to host a debate among Democratic primary candidates for President. And when the far left makes demands, all current members of the Democratic Party listen. Joe Lieberman is excluded from that group, of course, following the far left pogrom to insure ideological purity. But not such other luminaries as Harry Reid or John Edwards. Edwards has been the first candidate to jump on the far left side of the bandwagon, stating that he will not attend the debate hosted by Fox news.
Edwards' campaign said the involvement of Fox News, which is often accusedby liberals of having a conservative bias, was part of the decision to pass on the Aug. 14 debate in Reno. . .Read the rest of the story here.
The two Democratic presidential frontrunners, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, have not indicated whether they will attend the Nevada debate. .
Online activists and bloggers quickly hailed Edwards' decision as a victory in their campaign to urge Nevada Democrats to drop Fox News as a partner. MoveOn.org Civic Action says it has collected more than 260,000 signatures on a petition that calls the cable network a "mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel."
Fox News Channel vice president of news David Rhodes issued a statement calling it "unfortunate that Sen. Edwards has decided to abandon an opportunity to reach the largest mainstream cable news audience in America." On the language of the petition, Rhodes has said: "Everyone has a right to free speech."
Democratic Party officials and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid initially touted the partnership with Fox News as an opportunity to reach out to a different bloc of voters. But in a letter posted Wednesday on the party's Web site, Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins said Reid now shares activists' concerns and "has asked us to take another look." . .
. . . .
"The Fox debate should just be canceled and a more legitimate news source should be found," Green said.
The bottom line is this: If anyone ever tells you that the left in America are or would ever be the best protectors of our rights -- and I mean those rights explicitly set out in the Constitution -- then they are being something even less then dishonest. Open your eyes and time after time, you will see the left do all that they can to suppress any speech not in agreement with their own. This is but the latest example.
Hello, Auntie-Mum . . .
Finish this line: You know your British when you go to family reunions . . . .
the correct answer, "to meet women." . . . or "men," as the case may be.
At least that's the impression I get after reading up on the facts in The Telegraph documenting the latest from a BBC report supporting an incestuous relationship between brother and sister. Displaying the latest in multicultural chic, the Beeb reporter was sympathetic and apparently saw nothing untoward in the relationship. Anyone want to bet that the schooling he received did not include a degree in genetics or pediatrics. Ahhhhh, but what of the liklihood of birth defects when there are cultural and religous taboos that can be challenged by the BBC. So avant garde they are. I could add amoral, suicidally liberal, etc., etc. Read the story here.
Alas, what amazes me truly is that, time and again when the BBC is attacked for being exceedingly biased and liberal in their reporting, they always denounce the charges, then pay one reseach organization or another to do a study that buttresses their claim. That the Brit's have not yet marched a million strong onto 10 Downing Street to demand that the BBC News be spun off the public tit is just beyond me. The blood of Alfred the Great, William the Conquerer, Richard the Lionheart, Churchill, etc. has become very dilute over the years, apparently -- and somewhere in the national DNA, a lamb and a lemming or two snuck in (Hey, if incest is ok, whose to complain about a wee bit of bestiality. I am sure that, if the BBC can support incest, they would not feel sheepish at all about supporting bestiality as a permissible life choice).
Below I posted on how the intersection of multiculturalism and Wahhabi Islam is destroying traditional European values. I need to amend that post to add the BBC.
Multiculturalism and the Death of Liberal European Mores
I have previously posted on multiculturalism in Britain here, and a problem with applying the philosophy of multiculturalism here. Now, Khalil Samir writes an excellent article in Asia News about multiculturalism and Islam, describing the intersection of the two as the "suicide of the West."
The ideology of multiculturalism, i.e. blind tolerance toward any culture and tradition, is destroying European identity and is above all doing away with human rights and, more specifically, women’s rights.
Samir goes on to quote an interview with a French imam Sheikh Abdelkader, and what he taught to his adherents on the male-female relationship, and then to discuss how the Sheikh's views are those of conventional Islam.
Q: In your opinion, are women equal to men?
A: No. For example, women do not have the right to work alongside men, as they [women] could be tempted by adultery.
Q: Must women necessarily be subjugated to men?
A: Yes, because the head of the family is always a man. But he must be fair to his wife: he must not beat her for no reason, nor consider her a slave.
. . . .
Q: Are you in favour of the stoning [1] of women?
A: Yes, because beating one’s wife is allowed by the Koran, but under certain conditions, in particular if she betrays her husband. Please note however: the man does not have the right to beat her everywhere: not on the face, but in the lower parts, her legs, her stomach, her bottom. He can beat her vigorously so as to induce fear, so that she does not start again!
Q: The Koran: wife beating is allowed
Various readers were up in arms, but in the end the imam defended himself saying that this is the Koran. And he’s right. If we open the Koran at Sura 4, verse 34, we can read:
“Men have authority over women due to the preference that Allah concedes to them over the other and because they spend their property [for women]; Good women are therefore obedient, guarding under secrecy that which Allah has preserved [sex]. [2] ; As for those on whose part you fear insubordination, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do nothing further against them; Allah is high and great.”
Last week on Al Jazeera, I heard another imam explain the four conditions for beating a wife: not on her face; without drawing blood; without breaking bones; not in the presence of children. . . .
Read the entire article here. Samir has also written another article of interest, "Islamic Finance and Sharia, Europe's Suicide:"
This is how European civilization is dying, in submitting itself to the rules of radical Islam that wants to destroy it. We can clearly say that Europe’s ailment is not Islam; its ailment is within Europe itself. The Pope has stressed this many times, especially at Regensburg. The European continent’s ailment is relativism, the loss of clear principles and of faith in itself for lack of an absolute foundation, as is instead the case in a context of faith. This is the real root of the problem. And the cause of this weakness is having excluded faith from the horizon of its search and its reasoning.
At this point, 3 projects are competing in Europe:· a secularist project, which has no principles, but seeks hedonistic well-being;
· a Catholic project, with principles – expressed in the Gospel and Christian tradition – that are to be constantly rethought and which proposes a reform of Western society, to recuperate what is good in the Enlightenment;
· a radical Islamic project which has come on the scene through considerable blackmail and power to condition, and affirms that the solution is that of God expressed in the Koran and in sharia.
The secularist world looks well upon the prospect of Islam cancelling Christian elements (let’s recall the controversy on crucifixes in hospitals and schools), because it recognizes an element of its secularization project. But, the fact is that Islam seeks Islamization, not secularization. Islam rejects Christianity, but to substitute it was Muslim law.
You can find the article here.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The NYT Shills for Democrats on the Employee Free Choice Act
It is hard to imagine a more mis-named act then the Employee Free Choice Act. As I said in a previous post, it removes free choice by taking away the right for employees to vote on unionization in secret ballots. The act is nothing more then a grossly hypocritical attempt by Democrats to pay off their Union ATM's who themselves are trying to stem their ever declining membership due to irrelevance. Never one to let reality or facts stand in the way of shilling for a liberal cause, Pinch Salzberger's New York Times ran an editorial today repeating Democratic and AFL-CIO talking points. The Union-Free Employer blog has taken significant issue with the editorial. They seem to think that it is in serious need of an extensive fact check, and obligingly provide one here.
Fred Thompson on the Libby Fiasco
Fred Thompson is a fascinating man -- a former U.S. attorney, a former Senator, an actor on Law & Order, he is an excellent communicator, congenial, and has impeccable conservative credentials. There have been many conservatives who have urged him to throw his hat into the Presidential race; he is said to be considering it. At any rate, he has weighed in on the Libby trial:
Two crucial decisions were made in order for this sorry state of affairs to have played out this way. The first was when the Justice Department folded under political and media pressure because of the Plame leak and appointed a special counsel. When DOJ made the appointment they knew that the leak did not constitute a violation of the law. Yet, instead of standing on that solid legal ground they abdicated their official responsibility.
The Plame/Wilson defenders wanted administration blood because the administration had had the audacity to question the credibility of Joe Wilson and defend themselves against his charges. Therefore, the Department of Justice, in order to completely inoculate themselves, gave power and independence to Fitzgerald that was not available to Ken Starr, Lawrence Walsh, or any prior independent counsel under the old independent-counsel law. Fitzgerald became unique in our judicial history in that he was accountable to no one. And here even if justice had retained some authority they could hardly have asked Fitzgerald why he continued to pursue a non-crime because they knew from the beginning there was no crime.
From there the players' moves were predictable. Fitzgerald began his Sherman's march through the law and the press until he thought he had finally come up with something to justify his lofty mandate--a case that would not have been brought in any other part of the country.
Read the rest of his article. I agree with all that Mr. Thompson has to say. See my prior post on this topic here. Further, Mr. Thompson's criticism of the DoJ just adds another charge against an organization that is appearing more and more to be incompetent.
A Philosophical Question on Extremists From the Director of Al-Arabiyya
It is more then a little ironic that several of the most virulent radical islamists who preach hatred and violence against the West are now doing all that they can to remain in the West rather then return to their homelands. MEMRI has translated excerpts from a column by Al-Arabiyya TV Director-General Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed who criticizes these extremists as inexplicable hypocrites:
"The common denominator shared by Abu Qatada, currently under arrest in Britain, Osama Nasser, who was kidnapped in Rome, and Omar Bakri, who fled from London, is that all of them want to [live] in the West, rather than in their native Islamic countries. Abu Qatada prefers to remain under arrest in Britain, and not to be deported to Jordan. The Italian imam Abu Omar Osama Al-Masri, who was kidnapped by the CIA [and taken] to Egypt, is likewise demanding to return to Milan, the fashion capital, and is even suing for financial compensation. As for the most famous of the three, [Omar] Bakri, he hurried to the airport and grabbed a flight to Lebanon when the [British] government prepared [to take] punitive measures against [individuals] who incite to violence. [But] now, after spending some time in his homeland, he is begging to return to London, despite all the [British] decisions, and despite all his statements against them.
"What makes fundamentalist extremists, who incite against the West and its culture, the first to run into its arms, and to fight [for the right] to stay there? . . .
"What makes Omar Bakri, who enjoys liberty in Britain, spread hatred [against Britain], fight its culture, and say obscenely that [Britain] is a toilet in which he lives in order to defecate there? Does it make sense for someone like him to express a desire to return to Britain after everything he has said and done?
"As for Abu Qatada, he prefers to remain in prison and not to return to his homeland Jordan, just like [Osama Nasser], the imam from Milan, who is protesting about being taken to Egypt and about being imprisoned there. Not only is he protesting his abduction; he has also decided to sue for 20 million Euro in damages…
"It is blatantly obvious that all three are enjoying all the benefits of the [government] they despise: They want the financial aid, the security, the [rule of] law, the justice and the freedom of expression afforded by this government. Is this not the epitome of hypocrisy? When they preach, aren't they greatly deceiving their followers - [considering this discrepancy] between what they say and what they do?
"It is some of the extremist hate-mongers living in the West who are inciting the Muslims in the East against Western countries... - those [same] countries that have hosted them, given them protection and shelter, and in many cases also financed the education of their children, including their Islamic and Arabic language studies. It is also revolting to see writers denouncing the actions of [Western] governments that wish to get rid of the extremists by sending them back to their Islamic countries.
"Instead of demanding that the Arab [countries] mend their legal and security deficiencies, they ask the [Western] countries that have thrown out these extremists to spare them and to tolerate the ideological damage that they inflict upon their societies."
Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA) - Busted
The FBI is reporting today that they have indicted 5 officers and directors of the now closed U.S. branch of an Islamic charity, the Islamic American Relief Agency. The men have been charged with illegally transferring funds to Iraq prior to 2003, as well as "laundering money, stealing federal funds, and obstructing tax laws by, among other things, falsely denying that a procurement agent of Osama bin Laden had been an employee of the charity." Good work.
Reaction to the Muslim Council of Britain's Plan for British Schools
I previously posted here on the Wahhbist "Muslim Council of Britain" initiative, published in a 72 page document, to enlist the state school system of the UK in imposing special and segregated treatment for muslim students. In the days following this initiative, the Guardian allowed a member of the Muslim Council of Britain to opine in their paper on the initiative -- a post that generated an incredible bevy of critical responses from muslims and non-muslims alike.
Unfortunately, I missed this article and the responses at the time, but Maverick News did not. They quote from Eye of the World blog, which had this to say:Recent publication of articles about the Muslim Council of Britain's critique of British public schools, and a list of its segregationist Sharia based "guidelines" created a firestorm to such an extent that the assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain,Tahir
Alam wrote a piece in The Guardian in which he tried to sell these
segregationist demands as "An agenda for integration." Much to our surprise, The Guardian, being as left wing as they come, provided a forum for discussion on which the readers, non-Muslims and Muslims alike, ripped Tahir Alam a new one. Here are some of the readers' comments on his piece (spelling and orthography
preserved).
Comment:
(by thetrashheap):
Do you honestly believe Muslims aren't integrating because they can't pray enough or have to shower infront of other children?They don't integrate becasue they wear burkas, won't do PE, won't go out socially, because women are scared of men, and because like all strongly religious they don't mix.
How many non muslim friends does the author have?Also do you honestly believe
Muslims aren't achieving because they can't pray enough or have to shower in front of other children? They aren't achieving because far to much emphasis is spent on knowledge of islam rather than real knowledge. To much time is spent on cultural identity rather that integrating and playing the system. I'm an Irishman who lived in England for a while and I saw a lot of integration from every community except the muslim population which lead me to think that a large part of the problem lies with the muslim community and its failure to adapt rather than the general population
(by Abair):
Didn't you get the memo Tahir? We don't want communitarian,sectarian politics being nurtured in our country. They've already caused enoughtrouble.The self-appointed Muslim commumity "leaders" who represent next tono-one (6% of Muslims in the case of the MCB, the most representative organisation) are no longer listened to. Who needs their Saudi-funded doctrines anyway?
Quite what Islam has to offer to the educational process is beyond me. Islam is an Arabic cultural product and its homelands have a dismal history of educational achievement - even now it's literacy rate lags behind that of the DEVELOPING world. Women's literacy is particularly poor.In fact in a thousand years the Arab world has only managed to translate the same number of books as Spain does annually, as the Arab authors of the UN Human Development Report pointed out: "Most Arab countries have not learned from the lessons of the past and the field of translation remains chaotic. In terms of quantity, and notwithstanding the increase in thenumber of translated books from 175 per year during 1970-1975 to 330, the number of books translated in the Arab world is one fifth of the number translated in Greece. The aggregate total of translated books from the Al-Ma'moon era to the present day amounts to 10,000 books - equivalent to what Spain translates in a single year (Shawki Galal, in Arabic, 1999, 87)." www.miftah.org/Doc/Reports/Englishcomplete2003.pdf
Introducing Arab-style gender apartheid will do nothing to improve children's education opportunities. It clearly has failed the Arab world for a
thousand years.
Comment
(by Alumindogg):
My own experiences of supply teaching in a wide variety of inner city Secondary schools in Yorkshire led me to the following conclusions (although bear in mind this is probably more relevant to Pakistani and Somali muslim groups).
1.Muslim pupils cared little for these kind of over-bearing dictats that merely reaffirmed the control of their parents inside, as well as outside the school. They effectively had the same interests and vices as the 'indigenous' students.
2. The tight grip that their parents would hold over their behaviour, appearance, and free time when at home, would lead to many pupils treating school as 'freedom' away from the pressures and norms of home-life. This was very positive for the students, but would often lead to very immature behaviour and made teaching very difficult. This issue applied to both the children ofrich and poor pupils.
3. Some muslim pupils lacked a natural respect for many of the
teachers in the schools, especially the younger ones. However teachers from
their own community (or from a similar background), would be afforded instant,
unquestioned deference. This perhaps being a sign that the pupils saw genuine
authority within the home, community and mosque rather than with their teachers
or school. For me, these are genuine issues effecting muslim underachievement
within the mainstream school system, not the use of mixed swimming classes.
Surely the MCB is hijacking the "Every Child Matters" agenda here to enforce its
own narrow, conservative view of Islam on ALL muslim pupils regardless of their
own beliefs?.
(by Btitishmuslim):
Alumindogg, What you have described is so true. The behavious of certain muslim children in school is one of the biggest barriers tothem obtaining good qualifications. The reason why so many children of a'pakastani background' underachieve is due to the various restrictions place by parents on them which results in them not being able to fully integrate with wider society. Also in majority of Pakastani families 'especially of Mirpuri descent' education is not considered important.Therefore what the reader is suggesting will make the isolation of the muslim community worse. The Muslim community needs to wake up to the fact that it is a minority in this country and not a majority. Education should not be mixed with religion.Needless to say that MCB's "guidelines" were branded everywhere in the UK as unacceptable.
Le Censorship
France has just passed major legislation limiting the rights of anyone not an officially licensed journalist to film acts of violence by others and then to broadcast them. Additionally, France is debating whether to impose rules on what may or may not be published on the internet. Fauta's blog has commentary and a round-up of posts on the latest in an ominous move to stifle the free flow of information in France.
The French Constitutional Council has approved a law that criminalizes the filming or broadcasting of acts of violence by people other than professional journalists. The law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned on Tuesday.See the entire article here.
The council chose an unfortunate anniversary to publish its decision approving the law, which came exactly 16 years after Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King were filmed by amateur videographer George Holliday on the night of March 3, 1991. The officers’ acquittal at the end on April 29, 1992 sparked riots in Los Angeles.
If Holliday were to film a similar scene of violence in France today, he could end up in prison as a result of the new law, . . . And anyone publishing such images could face up to five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (US$98,537), potentially a harsher sentence than that for committing the violent act.
. . . During parliamentary debate of the law, government representatives said the offense of filming or distributing films of acts of violence targets the practice of “happy slapping,” in which a violent attack is filmed by an accomplice, typically with a camera phone, for the amusement of the attacker’s friends.
The broad drafting of the law so as to criminalize the activities of citizen journalists unrelated to the perpetrators of violent acts is no accident, but rather a deliberate decision by the authorities, said Cohet. He is concerned that the law, and others still being debated, will lead to the creation of a parallel judicial system controlling the publication of information on the Internet.
The government has also proposed a certification system for Web sites, blog hosters, mobile-phone operators and Internet service providers, identifying them as government-approved sources of information if they adhere to certain rules. The journalists’ organization Reporters Without Borders, which campaigns for a free press, has warned that such a system could lead to excessive self censorship as organizations worried about losing their certification suppress certain stories.
Besides the obvious problems with limiting information in a free society, it is especially problematic in France, where the Government, in apparent coordination with a complicit major news media, are not addressing France's extensive problems with a restive and radicalized Muslim population, but rather are deliberately ignoring it and minimizing coverage and commentary about the crimes that spring from it. As Fausta explains:
As it was, the French media did their best to not report on, and then underplay as much as possible, the stories about the Halimi murder, the 2006 New Year's day rampage on a train from Nice to Lyon, and the 2005 rioting banlieus, which continued into 2006. . . I expect a full news blackout on anything that doesn't reflect well on La Belle France. Everything else will be whitewashed to an appropriate shade.That seems a sure recette pour le désastre.
