Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 23, 2014, 04:14:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83383 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 Print
Author Topic: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)  (Read 91402 times)
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2792


« Reply #200 on: May 20, 2010, 08:18:11 PM »

Spot the offensive picture

Clarice Feldman
My online friend bgates, created this for Draw Mohammed Day and invites anyone who want to republish it.

It is right on target, I think:


Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2792


« Reply #201 on: August 10, 2010, 11:17:56 AM »

Director Mueller, Say No to CAIR
A Muslim Brotherhood tentacle targets Robert Spencer.
 
At this point, the question about CAIR should be: Why does anyone care? Care about anything CAIR officials say, that is.

The notorious Council on American-Islamic Relations is back up to its old tricks. CAIR officials figure our ten-minute attention span has lapsed, and that we’ve probably forgotten by now that, in the 2007–08 prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) — a case in which several Islamists were convicted in a scheme that poured millions of dollars into the coffers of the terrorist organization Hamas — CAIR was named as, and shown to be, an unindicted co-conspirator. CAIR reckons that the heat is off, so it’s back on the “Islamophobia” soapbox, demanding an apology from FBI director Robert Mueller.

An apology for what? The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces had the temerity to invite Robert Spencer — one of the nation’s leading experts on Islamist ideology — to lecture federal agents on Islamist ideology.

Spencer’s lecture departed from the government’s “religion of peace” dogma, which holds that there is no Islamist aggression, that there is no civilizational jihad to destroy the West from within (never mind that CAIR’s progenitor, the Muslim Brotherhood, has bragged about its “sabotage” campaign), and that terrorism is not merely unconnected to Islam but, in fact, is anti-Islamic. According to this thinking, Islamist groups like CAIR have a monopoly on what Americans — including American law-enforcement and intelligence agents — are permitted to hear about Islam from academic, media, and government sources. No dissenting views are permitted, no matter how steeped the dissenters may be in Islamic doctrine and no matter how much these dissents accord with what your lyin’ eyes are seeing.

“When I speak with the American,” said Nihad Awad, “I speak with someone who doesn’t know anything.” Awad is now CAIR’s executive director. He made this statement at a Marriott Hotel in Philadelphia on Oct. 27, 1993, when he was the public-relations director for the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). He and about two dozen other Islamist activists were meeting to brainstorm about how they might be able to continue supporting Hamas and to derail the Oslo Accords — the Clinton administration’s effort to bring a peaceful, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For Hamas supporters, there can be no peaceful two-state solution, because they deny Israel’s right to exist. That is why, to this day, the charter of Hamas (which was established at the start of the intifada in the late Eighties) calls for the elimination of Israel by violent jihad. But in 1993, the United States was cracking down on Hamas. It would soon be designated a terrorist organization, and providing material support to it would be made a crime.

The Philadelphia conferees realized they were “marked” men, as one of them put it. Omar Ahmad, then the IAP president and Nihad Awad’s boss, openly worried about U.S. government surveillance, counseling his confederates to use the inversion “Samah” in their conversations to avoid uttering the word “Hamas.” As it happened, the FBI was secretly bugging the meeting. It was thus able to record Ahmad calling himself “Omar Yahya,” the better to conceal his identity from Bureau snoops.

When later compelled to testify about the meeting, Ahmed said he couldn’t recall being in Philadelphia, though the tape captured his calling the meeting to order. Awad, too, had a bout of amnesia when asked about the meeting during a 2003 deposition. But the tape showed him to have been a very active participant. When he gave his cohorts the aforementioned advice about American ignorance, his point was that we are easy for Islamists to deceive. Speaking with Americans was different, he posited, from communicating with “the Palestinian who has a martyr brother or something.” A “martyr,” of course, is one who gives his life (often by suicide bombing) in the terror campaign against Israel.


Elaborating on the communications point, Omar Ahmad observed, “There is a difference between you saying, ‘I want to restore the ’48 land,’ and when you say, ‘I want to destroy Israel.’” If you confined yourself to saying the former, Palestinians would understand that you meant the latter, while unwary Americans would figure you were just making a political statement. Similarly, Ahmad suggested saying, “Yasser Arafat doesn’t represent me, but Ahmed Yassin does.” Palestinians would understand that this meant one was a supporter of Hamas (which Yassin founded), while clueless Americans would be in the dark.

Shukri Abu Baker, the HLF leader and a friend of Awad and Ahmad, concurred in that sentiment. The Islamists were at war, he reminded his confederates, and the prophet Mohammed had counseled that “war is deception.”

Deception is CAIR’s métier. It was created precisely because the marked men at the Philadelphia meeting realized they needed a new vehicle: one that was not tainted by a prior history of Hamas support, one that had media savvy, and one that could set up shop in Washington and portray itself as a “civil rights” organization rather than just another Islamist mouthpiece. In America, when lobby groups complain that someone’s civil rights have been violated, opinion elites take notice.

At the Philadelphia meeting, Ahmad complained, “We don’t have influence over the Congress.” The organization he envisioned would accrue political influence “by infiltrating the American media outlets, universities, and research centers.”
 
CAIR was formed the following summer, with Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad sliding over from IAP to run it.

There should have been no question, though, about where CAIR was coming from — even for unwary Americans. The IAP had been started by Mousa abu Marzook, the leading Muslim Brotherhood figure in the United States, and Sami al-Arian, a Brotherhood operative who went on to become a top leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, another terrorist organization. When Israel apprehended Yassin, Marzook succeeded him as the head of Hamas, running the organization from his Virginia home until he was deported in 1994. Meanwhile, al-Arian turned his teaching perch at the University of South Florida into a PIJ outpost; in 2006, he was finally convicted of conspiring to support a designated terrorist organization.
 
Under Marzook, the IAP anchored the Palestine Committee. This committee was established by the Muslim Brotherhood to “increase the financial and moral support for Hamas.” At the HLF trial, an internal Muslim Brotherhood report, dated July 30, 1994, identified CAIR, along with the IAP, the HLF, and another Marzook creation, the United Association for Studies and Research, as members of the Palestine Committee. Ghassan Elashi, one of the defendants convicted for using HLF to underwrite Hamas’s terror war, had run an IAP office in California before starting CAIR’s chapter in Texas.

Elashi is just one example of a CAIR figure either convicted or deported as a result of terrorism investigations. There have been several others.


To no one’s surprise, CAIR vigorously opposed al-Arian’s prosecution and Marzook’s deportation, calling the latter “anti-Islamic” and “un-American.” As Daniel Pipes recounts, CAIR also referred to the terrorism conviction of Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh” behind the cell that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993) as a “hate crime.” When Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998 and then bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, a Los Angeles billboard called him “the sworn enemy”; and CAIR demanded the billboard’s removal, calling it “offensive to Muslims” while denying bin Laden’s responsibility for the embassy attacks.

CAIR’s purpose is to further what the Muslim Brotherhood calls its “grand jihad” to destroy America from within. That is why it is consistently a cheerleader for Islamist terrorists and a thorn in the side of American national security, opposing every sensible measure to protect our homeland.

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” Ahmad is quoted as saying in 1998. “The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

A key tactic in carrying out this supremacist agenda is to suppress its critics. With their media acumen, CAIR operatives know there is nothing more debilitating for a public figure in America than to be portrayed as a racist or a bigot. Islamists have thus coined the phrase “Islamophobe” to stigmatize those who dare speak forthrightly about the extremely troubling aspects of Islamic scripture, particularly of sharia, Islam’s legal and political framework.

We are not, it bears emphasizing, speaking about people who lie about Islam or smear all Muslims as terrorists. Islamists are targeting the truth-tellers. If they can intimidate their critics into silence, they have inched yet closer to the goal of supplanting our First Amendment with their sharia, which condemns as “blasphemy” any speech or expression that casts Islam in a poor light. Blasphemy can be savagely punished — and, in contrast to the Western idea of defamation, truth is no defense.

Thus is CAIR trying to intimidate the FBI into ostracizing Robert Spencer. As he demonstrates daily at Jihad Watch, the invaluable site he founded, he is effective and immune to Islamist scare tactics. Because Spencer won’t quiet down, CAIR officials have concluded that it will be necessary to have the U.S. government silence him. They know the government, the FBI in particular, has a history of being overly solicitous toward Islamist apologists. They are banking on getting satisfaction out of Mueller, and they’ve brought out the big guns to turn up the heat. Their letter has now been signed by Grievance Industry eminence Jesse Jackson (who better to give sensitivity lessons than the guy who labeled New York City “Hymietown”?) and by such groups as the Islamic Society of North America (another unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas case, but one for which Obama-administration majordomo Valerie Jarrett nonetheless gave the keynote address at its 2009 annual convention).

If any party is owed an apology or explanation from our government, it is the American people — over the government’s courtship of CAIR. For years, even though the Justice Department was in possession of information showing the key role CAIR officials played in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network, government agencies, including the FBI, continued turning to CAIR for “liaison” duties. Top brass forced our law-enforcement agents to endure CAIR-prescribed sensitivity training, and, in the case of the Department of Homeland Security, even published a CAIR press release on an agency’s taxpayer-funded website, enabling CAIR to pass itself off as a civil-rights organization. This went on until finally, following the convictions in the HLF case (to say nothing of the emerging indications that CAIR itself may be under investigation), the FBI cut off ties with the group in 2009, citing its Hamas connections. That was a stand for which Mueller won strong bipartisan praise on Capitol Hill. Here’s hoping he sticks to his guns.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

http://article.nationalreview.com/439017/director-mueller-say-no-to-cair/andrew-c-mccarthy
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #202 on: August 11, 2010, 04:19:18 PM »

As someone who took a CAIR/USG "sensitivity" class, all I can say is it was laughable. Sadly, there are plenty of people deceived by such propaganda.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #203 on: September 15, 2010, 07:19:34 PM »

Koran burner Derek Fenton booted from his job at NJ Transit
By Alison Gendar, Kevin Deutsch and Pete Donohue
DAILY NEWS WRITERS

Originally Published:Tuesday, September 14th 2010, 7:55 PM
Updated: Tuesday, September 14th 2010, 9:05 PM

Derek Fenton's 11-year career at the agency came to an abrupt halt Monday after photographs of him ripping pages from the Muslim holy book and setting them ablaze appeared in newspapers.  Fenton, 39, of Bloomingdale, N.J., burned the book during a protest on the ninth anniversary of Sept. 11 outside Park51, the controversial mosque slated to be built near Ground Zero.  He was apparently inspired by Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida clergyman who threatened to burn the Koran that day but later changed his mind.

NJ Transit said Fenton was fired but wouldn't give specifics.

"Mr. Fenton's public actions violated New Jersey Transit's code of ethics," an agency statement said.  "NJ Transit concluded that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore [he] was dismissed."

Fenton was ushered from the protests by police on Saturday and questioned, but he was released without charges.

"He said, 'This is America,' and he wanted to stand up for it, in a Tea Party kind of way," a police source said.  Another police source said Fenton described himself as a "loyal American" exercising his "right to protest."

But the source said Fenton looked like he was having second thoughts as he was released.

"He looked nervous, like he was starting to think it wasn't such a good idea," the police source said.

Described by neighbors as a likable family guy with two children, Fenton was an assistant train-consist coordinator, sources said - a job that entails ensuring there are enough train cars positioned to be put into service. He previously worked as an NJ Transit conductor.

Several neighbors in Fenton's town stood up for his right to express himself with flames.

"Good for him for burning the Koran," neighbor Jacqui Marquez, 40, said.

"Everybody's entitled to their opinion ... by firing him, they're sending a message that there's no freedom of speech. They're completely wrong for doing this."

"He's a family man," neighbor Randy McConnell, 43, said. "He loves his kids and he loves trains. I don't agree with what he did, but he shouldn't lose his job over it. That's his right."

If Fenton was fired for burning the Koran while off-duty, his First Amendment rights probably were violated, Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said.

"The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to burn the flag. As reprehensible as it may be, burning the Koran would be protected as well."
=======================
Government Justice Breyer Questions Free-Speech Right to Burn Korans`

* Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:36pm by Scott Baker

“Good Morning America” host George Stephanopoulos interviewed Justice Breyer this morning:

Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on “GMA” that he’s not prepared to conclude that — in the internet age — the First Amendment condones Koran burning.

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”

Stephanopoulos points out that Obama and Boehner gave at least grudging affirmation that Pastor Jones had the legal right to burn a Koran. Breyer isn’t convinced:

“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #204 on: September 15, 2010, 07:34:09 PM »

Burning an American flag is protected speech, per the SCOTUS, but a koran has a protected legal status?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #205 on: September 15, 2010, 09:44:39 PM »

Well, to be precise, it is an open question for him-- but you have the gist of it I think.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #206 on: September 16, 2010, 02:17:06 PM »

 

‘Draw Mohammad’ Cartoonist Goes Into Hiding at FBI's Insistence
Published September 16, 2010

| FoxNews.com



AP

May 19: Pakistani students gather to demonstrate against a Facebook page amid anger over a page on the social networking site which encourages users to post images of Islam's Prophet Muhammad, in Lahore, Pakistan.

The Seattle cartoonist whose work sparked the controversial "Everybody Draw Mohammed Page" on Facebook has gone into hiding at the advice of the FBI, the newspaper that published her comics said Wednesday.

Molly Norris has moved and changed her name following a call by U.S.-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, The Seattle Weekly said. Awlaki reportedly said she was a "prime target" for execution and that her "proper abode is hellfire."

"You may have noticed that Molly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week," the newspaper said. "That's because there is no more Molly."

"The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, 'going ghost': moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity.

"She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program -- except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab," the newspaper said.

Norris drew a cartoon in April to protest the decision by the cable TV channel Comedy Central to cancel an episode of the popular show "South Park" over its depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in a bear suit.

In her cartoon, Norris satirically proposed making May 20 "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

Soon after, A fan page turned up on Facebook but Norris wrote on her since-shuttered website that said she had nothing to do with it.

"I did NOT 'declare' May 20 to be 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,'" she said, adding that her idea was satire that was "taken seriously, hijacked and made viral."

"I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this 'day' be called off," she said.

Islam strictly prohibits the depiction of any prophet as blasphemous and the "Draw Mohammed" page led to Facebook being temporarily blocked in Pakistan and sparked angry street protests.

In July, an English-language Al Qaeda magazine, "Inspire," in an article attributed to Awlaki, the radical Yemeni cleric, said Norris "should be taken as a prime target of assassination."

Awlaki, who is based in Yemen, rose to prominence last year after it emerged he had communicated by email with Major Nidal Hasan, a US army psychiatrist accused of opening fire on colleagues at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13.

Agence France Presse contributed to this report.

 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #207 on: September 16, 2010, 02:23:15 PM »

Well, as islam is the religion of peace, she has nothing to worry about. Anyone who says otherwise is probably just some right wing islamiphobe....
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #208 on: September 24, 2010, 02:47:25 PM »

A Tale of Two Journalists

Molly Norris used to have a life and a career in Washington, as a cartoonist for
Seattle Weekly, an alternative paper. But not any longer. She has now -- at the
urging of the FBI -- gone underground, forfeiting her identity and her job. Is
Norris a criminal? No. She just had the poor judgment to draw a cartoon entitled
"Everybody Draw Muhammad Day," which led to the issuance of a fatwa -- or Islamic
death sentence -- against her. Perhaps she had forgotten the 11th Commandment: Make
fun of Christians and Jews all you want, but thou shall not inflame Muslim ire.

The fatwa was issued by imam Anwar al-Awlaki, a man The New York Times described in
October 2001 as "a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and
West." Al-Awlaki, who was born in the United States and headed a mosque in Virginia,
is now conducting his dirty work from a hiding place in Yemen.

Barack Obama has remained silent on this matter, conspicuously so because only
recently he lectured all of us on the freedoms afforded by this country. Of course
that was in relation to the building of the Cordoba House mosque two blocks from
Ground Zero (http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/08/20/digest/ ). When it comes to
the injustice that has befallen an average American like Molly Norris, he has
nothing to say.

While some in the field of journalism are threatened with death for making a joke,
others are rewarded for their hatred. Recall Helen Thomas, the poster child for
women in journalism, who was canned after making incendiary comments at a conference
celebrating Jewish heritage. Thomas' statement that Jews should "get the hell out of
Palestine" (http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/06/11/digest/#4 ) and "go home" to
Poland, Germany, America and "everywhere else" was caught on tape so that not even
leftists could defend her.

Even after her weak apology, no one would touch her with a 10-foot pole. No one,
that is, except the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Next month the
90-year-old Thomas will be given a lifetime-achievement award at CAIR's Leadership
Conference & 16th Annual Fundraising Banquet in Arlington, Virginia. Clearly, her
final flourish as a "journalist" was appreciated by someone.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #209 on: October 02, 2010, 03:27:20 PM »



http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20101001_Swedish_artist__his_Phila__speech_on_freedom_canceled_by_threat__meets_with_media.html#ixzz11DEpd8LN
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #210 on: October 02, 2010, 03:31:14 PM »

Waiting for the vast majority of peaceful muslims to take to the streets to voice their support for the freedom of expression......



Yup, any time now.....





Hello? **tap-tap-tap** Is this thing on??........
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #211 on: October 04, 2010, 08:39:57 PM »

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10...est=latestnews

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/8041998/Geert-Wilders-trial-suspended-after-he-attacks-judge.html

« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 08:52:31 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #212 on: December 29, 2010, 04:14:46 PM »



STRATFOR
---------------------------
December 29, 2010
 

VIDEO: DISPATCH: SUSPECTED TERRORISTS ARRESTED IN DENMARK

Vice President of Tactical Intelligence Scott Stewart explains why a thwarted terrorism plot in Denmark -- in which five suspected terrorists were arrested -- appears to be a more credible threat than other recent terrorism plots.

Authorities in Denmark and Sweden arrested five men today in connection with a plot to attack a Danish newspaper office in Copenhagen that was involved in the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Unlike some other recent cases in Europe involving the arrest of terrorism suspects, this case appears to be the real deal.
 
Although we still have a lot of details unavailable to us concerning this case, several of those that have surfaced so far indicate to us that this cell was sincere, that it was dedicated and that is was the real deal.
 
Probably the first indicator that leaps out to us is that this group was looking at a reasonable and reachable target. They were going to attack this newspaper office -- it wasn't the fact that they were looking to attack every target in Copenhagen or Denmark, or even hard targets that would be difficult to attack. Recently we saw a cell taken down in the United Kingdom last week. That group of plotters was looking to hit everything in London, including hard targets like the U.S. Embassy. When we see plots like that, it indicates to us that those conducting them are inexperienced, and they are more fanciful than real threats. In addition to the fact that the target was reasonable, the means of attack was also reasonable and achievable. They weren't looking at some grandiose plot involving nuclear weapons or large explosive devices. They were going to conduct a simple armed assault on the newspaper office with the intent of killing the largest number of people possible.
 
Second, the cell in Denmark had already obtained weapons to conduct their attack and had them in place, and three of the members had traveled from Sweden to Denmark in pursuit of the plot. So, this plot had gone beyond the theoretical stage, and the plotters had gotten to the stage of executing it. We saw a plot last week in The Netherlands where a group of Somalis was arrested, and that plot allegedly involved the desire of the Somalis to shoot down Danish helicopters. The only problem for them is that they didn't have any missiles to shoot down the helicopters. Again, the plot wasn't very far along and the people involved in it were more amateurish (whereas the group in Denmark appears to have not only obtained the weapons, but pre-positioned men to carry out the attack).
 
Third, like past cases, including the case involving American David Headley, who went to Copenhagen to conduct surveillance of the Jyllands-Posten office, and an attack last year in January in which a Somali had attacked the home of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard armed with an axe and a knife, this case shows us that, Jyllands-Posten office remains a very serious target of terrorists.
 
As al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said in 2010, they were not going to allow the dust to settle on the Muhammad cartoon controversy, and that those involved in the cartoons were going to continue to be targeted. This case is evidence that those threats were true.
More Videos - http://www.stratfor.com/theme/video_dispatch


Copyright 2010 STRATFOR.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #213 on: December 29, 2010, 04:31:13 PM »

Keep in mind that all it takes for those jihadists that have the motivation but not the skillsets or equipment is hooking up with a professional jihadist who can use them in something very lethal. The 1993 WTC attack is a good example of that.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #214 on: January 02, 2011, 10:20:50 AM »

While WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is celebrating his $1 million-plus book deal on a 600-acre estate and enjoying his status as a lefty fringe hero, former cartoonist Molly Norris is in hiding.

The moral of this column is that in today's world, cartoons, if they target Islam, can be more hazardous to your health than crossing the mighty U.S. government and its allies.

Swedish and Danish authorities arrested four suspected militant Islamic jihadists last week for allegedly planning a terrorist attack before this weekend. Their target was the Jyllands-Posten news bureau in Copenhagen. In 2006, the newspaper became the target of terrorist threats after it printed controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005. Authorities say the suspects arrested planned to use the same "swarm" tactics used in the 2008 Mumbai killing spree that left at least 160 people dead.

Kurt Westergaard drew a cartoon that depicted Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban. Last January, a Somali man wielding an ax and demanding "revenge" broke into Westergaard's home. In 2009, Danish authorities arrested three men for planning to behead Westergaard.

Like Westergaard, Jyllands-Posten Editor Flemming Rose, who commissioned the cartoons, now has round-the-clock security. I asked via e-mail how many planned attacks against his paper and cartoonists have been thwarted.

Rose answered that this latest episode represents the sixth or seventh foiled attack.

In his new book, "Tyranny of Silence," Rose explains that he asked cartoonists to submit works on Muhammad in order to stand up to "my perception of prevalent self-censorship among the Danish media" on the subject of radical Islam. Now he has a target on his back.

When we met in 2008, Rose summarized what summed up "The Cartoon Crisis." "They are basically saying, 'If you say we are violent, we are going to kill you.'"

And: "If you give in to intimidation, you will not get less intimidation, you will get more intimidation."

Back to Molly Norris. In April, the one-time Seattle Weekly cartoonist made the mistake of drawing a cartoon that called for an "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." Norris was reacting to Comedy Central's decision to censor parts of the show "South Park" that depicted a cartoon Muhammad dressed in a bear suit -- wink, wink -- lest showing an image of the prophet offend. The network also bleeped out verbal references to Muhammad.

Norris quickly renounced the idea and apologized to the Muslim community. But that didn't stop American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki from declaring that that Norris should be "a prime target of assassination." Al-Awlaki, you may recall, has been linked to the attempted Times Square bombing, last year's failed Christmas Day bombing on a Detroit-bound plane, and the Fort Hood shootings that left 13 dead.

At the FBI's urging, Norris changed her name and wiped her identity.

As for "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, they didn't like Comedy Central's decision to censor their material. To their credit, they risked the wrath of extremists, who made veiled death threats against them.

But they thrive in a system that perpetuates a double standard. Stone and Parker are now working on a new Broadway musical, "The Book of Mormon." In reporting on the musical, Newsday called them "scamps" and "the wonderful troublemakers of 'South Park.'"

Those aren't the sort of terms reserved for Rose, who became something of an international pariah for doing to Islam once what Parker and Stone do regularly to devout Christians. The "South Park" guys know that they can make fun of Mormons without fear of censorship from upstairs or fatwas from abroad.

This new year will bring the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. "Since Sept. 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement," a Heritage Foundation paper reported in April. And that was before Faisal Shahzad failed to set off a car bomb in Times Square.

As for 2010, it ended with arrests in London, Denmark, Sweden and a suicide bombing in Stockholm.

We don't know the names of the intelligence operatives and law enforcement officials who saved innocent lives by uncovering and stopping these plots, but they are the unsung heroes of the last decade.

As for Assange, his leaks "have made it much harder for those who are stopping attacks to do their jobs," according to former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow. "The countries we rely on for information must increasingly be unwilling to share it with us for fear that it will be exposed in the next set of leaks. Next time an attack is successful, those who are applauding WikiLeaks today will give not a second's thought that they contributed to it."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #215 on: January 06, 2011, 08:23:43 AM »

The event that kicked off this thread is STILL current.

=============================

The Mohammed Cartoon Dust Has Not Settled
January 6, 2011


By Scott Stewart

When one considers all of the people and places in the West targeted by transnational jihadists over the past few years, iconic targets such as New York’s Times Square, the London Metro and the Eiffel Tower come to mind. There are also certain target sets such as airlines and subways that jihadists focus on more than others. Upon careful reflection, however, it is hard to find any target set that has been more of a magnet for transnational jihadist ire over the past year than the small group of cartoonists and newspapers involved in the Mohammed cartoon controversy.

Every year STRATFOR publishes a forecast of the jihadist movement for the coming year. As we were working on that project for this year, we were struck by the number of plots in 2010 that involved the cartoon controversy — and by the number of those plots that had transnational dimensions, rather than plots that involved only local grassroots operatives. (The 2011 jihadist forecast will be available to STRATFOR members in the coming weeks.)

Groups such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have gone to great lengths to keep the topic of the Mohammed cartoons burning in the consciousness of radical Islamists, whether they are lone wolves or part of an organized jihadist group, and those efforts are obviously bearing fruit. Because of this, we anticipate that plots against cartoon-related targets will continue into the foreseeable future.


A Recent Plot

On Dec. 29, 2010, authorities in Denmark and Sweden arrested five men they say were involved in planning an armed assault on the offices of Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen. Jyllands-Posten is the newspaper that first published the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in September 2005. According to the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (known by its Danish acronym PET), three of the arrested men, a 29-year-old Swedish citizen born in Lebanon, a 44-year-old Tunisian and a 30-year-old Swedish citizen, lived in Sweden and had traveled to Denmark to participate in the plot. The other two individuals arrested were a 37-year-old Swedish citizen born in Tunisia who was detained in a Stockholm suburb and a 26-year-old Iraqi asylum seeker who was arrested in a Copenhagen suburb. The Iraqi has been released from Danish custody.

According to the PET, one of the three men who had traveled to Copenhagen, 29-year-old Swedish citizen Munir Awad, had been arrested in Somalia in 2007 and in Pakistan in 2009 on suspicion of participating in terrorist activity. When arrested in Pakistan, Awad was allegedly traveling in the company of Mehdi Ghezali, a Swedish citizen who had been released in 2004 after being held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. Given Awad’s background, it is almost certain that he had been placed under intensive surveillance by Swedish authorities and it is likely this surveillance resulted in the unraveling of the plot.

In addition to Awad’s background, there are several other indicators that this latest plot against Jyllands-Posten was serious. First, the attack plan was reasonable, practical and achievable. The plotters sought to attack a specific target, the Jyllands-Posten offices, with an armed assault. They were not seeking to execute some sort of grandiose, fanciful attack using skills and weapons they did not possess, or to conduct attacks against targets that were too difficult to strike using their chosen method of attack. They appear to have been aware of their own capabilities and limitations and planned their attack accordingly.

This stands in stark contrast to plots like the one also thwarted in December in the Netherlands, where a group of Somalis allegedly plotted to shoot down a Dutch military helicopter but lacked even a rudimentary weapon with which to mount such an attack, much less a surface-to-air missile, the weapon of choice for anyone really wanting to bring down a helicopter. In another recently thwarted plot in the United Kingdom, the planners considered hitting pretty much every conceivable target in London, including the U.S. Embassy, Parliament, the London Stock Exchange and a host of religious and political leaders. The Copenhagen plotters were far more focused.

The PET said the group arrested in Denmark had obtained a pistol and a submachine gun equipped with a sound suppressor for use in its assault on the newspaper offices. Reportedly, the plotters were also found to possess flexible handcuffs, an indication that they may have been seeking to take hostages and create a theatrical terrorist operation to play to the world media.

In addition to conducting their preoperational surveillance, planning their operation and obtaining weapons, the plotters had also brought in a team of operatives from Sweden to assist them in implementing their plan. This indicates that the operation was likely in the later stages of the terrorist attack cycle and was close to being executed. Even though it appears that Swedish and Danish authorities had the plotters under close scrutiny, had the attack been launched against unsuspecting security at the Jyllands-Posten offices, it would have had a fairly good chance of creating considerable carnage and terror.


History of Plots

The cartoons received very little notice after their initial release by Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. It was not until early 2006 that a group of Muslim clerics traveling through the Middle East brought attention to the issue in a deliberate effort to stir up emotions. Those efforts were successful in fomenting a violent, if somewhat belated, reaction. In early February 2006, Danish and Norwegian embassies and consulates were attacked in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria and Indonesia. In Damascus, rioters set fire to the Danish and Norwegian missions, and in Beirut the Danish Embassy was burned. At least nine people died when protesters tried to storm an Italian Consulate in Libya while protesting the cartoons.

The furor diminished to a low boil but did not go away. In addition to calls by Muslims to boycott Danish goods, a Swedish newspaper published yet another cartoon of Mohammed, once again stoking the fires. In September 2007, Omar al-Baghdadi, then leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, offered a $100,000 reward for killing Lars Vilks, a Swedish artist who drew the August 2007 cartoon in which the Prophet Mohammed was portrayed as a dog. In a March 2008 audiotape, a speaker purporting to be al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden threatened to conduct attacks in Europe because of the drawings. According to bin Laden, drawing cartoons of the Prophet was even more provocative than killing Muslim civilians.

On June 2, 2008, the Danish Embassy in Islamabad was attacked in a suicide vehicle bombing. Before the attack, the Danes had drawn down their embassy staff in Islamabad and, recognizing that their embassy was not very secure, had ordered the Danish staff remaining in Islamabad to work out of hotels. This move undoubtedly saved lives, as the bombing killed only a handful of people, mostly Pakistani Muslims.

But militants were clearly trying to take their retribution for the cartoons to Denmark itself. Following the October 2009 arrest of U.S. citizen David Headley, American officials learned that Headley, who had conducted preoperational surveillance for the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, had also been dispatched to conduct surveillance in Denmark.

According to a complaint filed in federal court, the U.S. government determined that the Kashmiri militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad e-Islami (HUJI) had ordered Headley to travel from Chicago to Copenhagen on two occasions to plan attacks against Jyllands-Posten and cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in what HUJI called “Operation Mickey Mouse.” Westergaard is a Jyllands-Posten cartoonist who drew one of the original batch of 12 Mohammed cartoons in 2005. In Westergaard’s cartoon, the Prophet’s turban was depicted as a bomb, which caused the drawing to elicit a stronger reaction than the other cartoons. In January 2009, Headley conducted surveillance of the Jyllands-Posten offices in Copenhagen and Aarhus, Denmark. He then traveled to Pakistan, where he met with his HUJI handlers to brief them on the findings of his surveillance and to formulate an attack plan. Headley traveled back to Copenhagen in August 2009 to conduct additional surveillance (presumably to address issues that arose during the operational planning session in Pakistan). During this second trip, Headley made some 13 additional videos and took many photos of the potential targets and the areas around them. It is suspected that some of the observations, photographs and video recordings may have been used in planning some of the subsequent attacks against Jyllands-Posten and Westergaard.

Plots pertaining to the cartoon controversy in 2010 include:

On Jan. 1, a Somali man reportedly associated with the Somali jihadist group al Shabaab broke into Westergaard’s home armed with an axe and knife and allegedly tried to kill him. Westergaard retreated to a safe room and the assailant was shot and wounded by police.
On March 9, seven people were arrested in Ireland in connection with an alleged plot to kill cartoonist Lars Vilks. The group was apparently implicated with American Colleen LaRose (aka Jihad Jane) and included a second American woman, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez.
On May 11, Lars Vilks was assaulted as he tried to give a presentation at Uppsala University in Sweden. On May 14, Vilks’ home was the target of a failed arson attack.
On Sept. 10, a Chechen man was injured when a letter bomb he was assembling detonated prematurely inside a Copenhagen hotel bathroom. The letter bomb, which featured a main charge comprised of triacetone triperoxide and contained small steel pellets, was intended for Jyllands-Posten.
On Dec. 11, an Iraqi-born Swedish citizen detonated a poorly constructed explosive device in his car and then detonated a suicide vest, killing himself. The man had sent a warning email expressing anger over the Lars Vilks cartoon as well as the presence of Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan.

Cartoonists Remain in the Crosshairs

In July 2010, AQAP released the first edition of its English-language magazine Inspire. One of the articles in that issue was written by the American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who wrote, “If you have the right to slander the Messenger of Allah, we have the right to defend him. If it is part of your freedom of speech to defame Muhammad it is part of our religion to fight you.” He added: “Assassinations, bombings, and acts of arson are all legitimate forms of revenge against a system that relishes the sacrilege of Islam in the name of freedom.” Al-Awlaki also referred to a 2008 lecture he gave regarding the cartoon issue titled “The Dust Will Never Settle Down” and noted that, “Today, two years later, the dust still hasn’t settled down. In fact the dust cloud is only getting bigger.”

The first edition of Inspire also featured a “hit list” that includes the names of people like Westergaard and Vilks who were involved in the cartoon controversy as well as other targets such as Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who produced the controversial film Fitna in 2008; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the screenplay for the movie Submission (filmmaker Theo van Gogh, the director of Submission, was murdered by a jihadist in November 2004); and Salman Rushdie, author of the book The Satanic Verses.

The van Gogh murder demonstrated that such targets were vulnerable to attack — and not just by highly skilled transnational operatives. They were also potential victims of grassroots jihadists using readily available weapons in relatively simple attacks. The January 2010 attack against Kurt Westergaard using an axe and knife underscored this point. In light of the events of 2010, al-Awlaki’s boasts ring true. The dust kicked up over the cartoon issue has not settled — and there is no indication it will any time soon.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #216 on: February 25, 2011, 12:45:24 PM »

"Our man formerly in Iraq" comments:
=========================

I figure within a month or two Chesser will be getting passed around the prison in a sex for cigarettes program.

Man who threatened 'South Park' creators gets 25 years in prison
www.cnn.com

A 21-year-old man who admitted posting online threats against the creators of the animated TV series "South Park" was sentenced Thursday to 25 years in prison...
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #217 on: February 25, 2011, 02:07:21 PM »

Yup.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2792


« Reply #218 on: April 26, 2011, 09:12:49 AM »

Peter King vs. Eric Holder
Why did the Justice Department never indict CAIR?

The clock is ticking for Eric Holder. On Monday, Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) sent the attorney general a letter asking why the Justice Department declined to prosecute the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim-American organization, in a recent antiterrorism case. He gave Holder until April 25 to respond.

In United States v. Holy Land Foundation — which was ultimately decided in November 2008 — the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas, Texas, listed CAIR as an “unindicted co-conspirator” with the Holy Land Foundation, a now-defunct fundraiser for the terrorist group Hamas. Citing wiretaps from a 1993 Philadelphia conference among several Muslim groups, the attorney’s office argued that CAIR and its founder, Omar Ahmad, “discussed . . . redefining the perception of the sub-organizations due to their work for the Palestinian cause, and the legal hurdles the [Muslim] Brotherhood faced when raising funds for Hamas and other Palestinian causes or when taking orders from overseas leaders.”

King claims to have sources who know why the Justice Department never indicted CAIR or Ahmad. “I have been reliably informed that the decision . . . was usurped by high-ranking officials at Department of Justice headquarters over the vehement and stated objections of special agents and supervisors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the prosecutors at the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas, who had investigated and successfully prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation case,” King wrote. “Their opposition to this decision raises serious doubt that the decision not to prosecute was a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

After King released his letter, however, bloggers questioned the accusation. Politico’s Josh Gerstein reported that the George W. Bush administration also neglected to prosecute CAIR. “The decision not to indict CAIR came in 2004 as prosecutors in Dallas were preparing to seek an indictment of the Holy Land Foundation and five of its officials,” Gerstein wrote. “Some prosecutors wanted to include CAIR and others in the case at that time. However, senior Justice Department officials elected not to, [a source of Gerstein’s] said.”

Ron Kampeas, chief of the Washington, D.C., bureau at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, raised doubts about King’s allegations as well. He quoted from district judge Jorge Solis’s opinion, which argued that there was no “legitimate government interest that warrants publicly identifying CAIR and 245 other individuals and entities as unindicted co-conspirators.” The main reason the government had done so, Kampeas argued, was to increase the pool of evidence it could use to convict its main target, the Holy Land Foundation.

But that’s a selective reading of the decision, King says. The judge “went on to say the government had produced ample evidence” that CAIR was linked to the Holy Land Foundation, King tells National Review Online. Indeed, Solis wrote, “The four pieces of evidence the government relies on . . . do create at least a prima facie case as to CAIR’s involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas.” Solis may not have seen a reason for the government to publicly disclose its suspicions of CAIR and thus besmirch the group’s reputation without the opportunity of a trial. But he also saw reason for the government to be suspicious.

King continues: “In this case, the prosecutors on the case who were dealing with it most closely wanted to proceed and they weren’t allowed to. The people working on the case thought they had enough for a conviction. If they believed an indictment was likely and a conviction was likely, what possible reason did the Justice Department have to overrule them?”

Politics, the congressman surmises. “We have probably the most liberal attorney general we have ever had,” he says. “From the day he came into office, he was talking about investigating CIA interrogators and holding 9/11 trials in New York, and even when he was forced to reverse himself, he made it clear he wanted trials held in New York. I would see this as being just a very dug-in liberal ideology on Holder’s part.”

And the pushback he’s gotten is just standard liberal fare, King believes. “There’s no doubt that radical Islamists in this country have become a protected force,” he tells NRO. “All of the radical Muslim groups such as CAIR, their allies in the media, and liberals in general have just rallied to the their defense.” If King had made similar charges about a right-wing Christian group, “there’d be either silence or encouragement” from the left.

But is the Left merely defending a politically unpopular minority? King has his doubts. “I think the fight against terrorism is somehow perceived as a Bush/Cheney thing,” he muses. “The New York Times trips over itself defending [radical Islamists]; they have visions of McCarthyism. They have all these right-wing scare scenarios. I went through the whole thing with my first radicalism hearing and I dare to say it’s probably rooted in some liberal psychological disorder.”

The congressman is sticking to his guns. His hearings on Muslim radicalization are going “to continue so long as I’m chairman.” And if Holder doesn’t respond to his letter, then, “I’ll probably discuss it with Lamar Smith [chairman of the House Judiciary Committee]. I’m serious about it, so we’ll decide. We’re certainly not going to let this hang around.”

So King soldiers on. He expects to hold his next two hearings on foreign money coming into American mosques. In July, he plans a hearing on terrorist group al-Shabab’s efforts to recruit young Muslim men in Minneapolis.

“It’s time for the American people to be aware of how real the issue is,” King explains. “Eric Holder needs to be more serious about prosecuting radical Islamist groups. Hopefully my hearings will put more pressure on him to take the issue seriously.”

— Brian Bolduc is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/265576/peter-king-vs-eric-holder-brian-bolduc
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2792


« Reply #219 on: April 26, 2011, 11:33:44 AM »

2nd post:

Defending the Constitution, and the Right to Be a Jerk

by Doug Bandow


This article appeared in The Forbes on April 25, 2011.



Terrorism may pose the greatest threat currently facing America. Not the possibility of being killed in a terrorist attack. Rather, the possibility of losing basic constitutional liberties.

Freedom is inconvenient. We all want the right to do as we please, but we hate it when other people do as they please. Free speech is fine, unless we disagree with the message. Everyone should be able to protest, unless we don't like their viewpoint. Spout the conventional wisdom, and few people get upset. Challenge the status quo, and public outrage results.

This is why freedom of expression and religion require constitutional protection. Freedom of conscience goes to the core of the human person. If this most basic liberty is not protected, then no freedom is likely to be secure. The power to curb expression must be put beyond transient political majorities.

]e cannot take our liberties for granted. We must guard them jealously...
Observed Glenn Greenwald: "The whole point of the First Amendment is that one is free to express the most marginalized, repellant, provocative and offensive ideas. Those are the views that are always targeted for suppression. Mainstream orthodoxies, harmless ideas, and inoffensive platitudes require no protection as they are not, by definition, vulnerable to censorship."

Yet at the first sign of trouble many public officials want to close the public square.

Terry Jones is a jerk. The Gainesville, Fla., pastor recently burned a Qur'an, which triggered deadly riots by Muslims abroad. He then traveled to Dearborn, Mich., in order to protest at an Islamic facility. His permit was denied and he ended up in jail after he refused to post a bond for police protection.

Jones is an agent provocateur and publicity seeker. He is more interested in generating media attention than in provoking thoughtful debate. His actions needlessly antagonize rather than convince people. He knew great harm was likely to result from his actions. He is a jerk.

But he also has a right to protest, whether by burning a Qur'an, demonstrating in front of a mosque, or in some other non-violent way. Deny him that right, and we all lose one of our most important constitutional rights.

Last September Jones received worldwide attention when he threatened to burn a Qur'an. If an Imam in Pakistan had threatened to burn a Bible, it would have garnered no press. After all, Christians are routinely murdered and imprisoned in that nation. Bible-burning would be unexceptional.

Jones backed down after being cajoled, pressured, and begged by political, military, civic, and religious leaders across the country. But in March he claimed that he had been duped by backers of the mosque planned near Ground Zero in New York City. He went ahead with the Qur'an burning, only this time he received virtually no publicity.

That didn't stop Muslims, including America's supposed ally, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, from stoking the flames of protest abroad. On April 1 hundreds of Afghans descended on the United Nations mission in the city of Mazar-e-Sharif and murdered seven foreign employees. Protesters were also killed in Mazar and Kandahar in the south of Afghanistan. Moreover, mobs attacked Christian churches, killed Christian worshippers, and desecrated Bibles in Pakistan. The protesters demanded that Jones be arrested and executed.

After the deaths, Jones acknowledged that his action had provoked the Muslim protests. But the Qur'an burning "was intended to stir the pot," or else everyone "will stay in their complacency." He had put the Qur'an on trial, he explained: "We wanted to raise awareness of this dangerous religion and dangerous element." In response to the killings abroad, he called on the U.S. government to retaliate for the murders: "The time has come to hold Islam accountable" and to make Muslim nations "allow for individual freedoms and rights, such as the right to worship."

Efforts to subvert Jones' constitutional rights began last year, when the Gainesville city attorney began the process of changing the municipal fire code to prevent Jones from lighting his fire outside. So the pastor burned the book inside.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who passes for a liberal, suggested an exception to the First Amendment which would allow government to criminalize a Qur'an burning. There also were the usual left-wing cries of Islamophobia. After Jones's March performance, radio host Thom Hartmann suggested that Jones be"tried for treason" or prosecuted for a"hate crime."

Majority Leader Harry Reed (D-Nev.) looked moderate in comparison: "We'll take a look at this." After all, he added,"Ten to 20 people have been killed."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — who has supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, detention policies at Guantanamo Bay, and Israeli occupation policies which all have done so much to anger Muslims worldwide — opined, "I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war." He added: "during World War II, we had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy." Never mind free speech: "Anytime we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk, we should do it."

When Jones traveled to Dearborn, Mich., to hold a protest outside of the Islamic Center of America, the local authorities complained that his rally would result in a breach of the public peace. In fact, the Wayne County prosecutor warned that if Jones held a demonstration "the greatest danger is the likelihood of a riot ensuing complete with the discharge of firearms." The city urged him to move his event away from the Center, while the prosecutor demanded a bond to arrange for police security. After Jones refused to pay, he was jailed.

All this for a rally where no Qur'an burning or anything else controversial apparently was planned.

Jones is once again a jerk. But in this case, he represents all of us. His right to free speech cannot be abrogated because there are evil people, whether half a world away or nearby, ready to murder for any excuse.

Time magazine's Joe Klein declared that "There should be no confusion about this: Jones' act was murderous as any suicide bombing." But Klein is the one who is confused. Giving offense is not the same thing as murder. Christians have had much to be offended by in recent years — remember "Piss Christ," the federally-funded "art" which involved dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine? To merely suggest that taxpayers should not have been forced to fund this creation set off an orgy of First Amendment outrage.

Even more so, Jones has the right to burn his own copy of the Qur'an as a form of symbolic speech. Over much protest, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld flag-burning as symbolic speech, ruling: "the government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." The burning of the Qur'an is no different. The question is not whether the majority believes Jones' criticisms of Islam. He has a First Amendment right to voice, and dramatically illustrate, his beliefs.

His right to hold a simple protest rally is even clearer — Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University, noted that the courts have ruled it unconstitutional for government to require the posting of a police bond. Jones cannot be held to different rules because he is Jones.

Explained Rana Elmir of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan: "As reprehensible as his beliefs may be, this is an unconstitutional attempt to limit his speech." The fee, she added, is an attempt "to put a price on free speech in anticipation of what others may do." Even the organizer of a counter-demonstration, Majed Moughni, agreed: "We think he has the right for free speech." Deny that to Jones, and the government has the power to deny it to anyone.

Ironically, the violent response to Jones's act supports his arguments. One of more than 310 million Americans burned one Qur'an. Muslim mobs in different cities and countries killed Christians and destroyed churches. As Muslim mobs did in Nigeria after a Christian was recently elected president. As Muslim mobs did in Egypt as authoritarian central rule was relaxed earlier this year. As Muslim mobs have done in response to critical cartoons, papal addresses, false reports of other Qur'an desecrations, and more.

Indeed, the fevered domestic response to Jones's plans reflects the pervasive fear that Muslims not only overseas but in America would respond with violence. What is the more basic problem? That a jerk is willing to offend others? Or that extremists are willing to kill, wound, and destroy in response?

The fear is real. In America television shows have been censored, bookstores have not stocked books, publishers have dropped cartoons, and newspaper cartoonists have gone into hiding out of fear. In Europe speech is routinely tempered and critics of Islam have been murdered, assaulted, and forced into exile.

But to allow fear to justify the abrogation of Americans' constitutional liberties would threaten what makes America worth protecting. Indeed, the First Amendment sets the U.S. apart from the rest of the world. Canada and many European nations long have sacrificed free speech to political correctness. It is a new form of tyranny, in which people cannot argue about important political, religious, moral, and cultural controversies if doing so might offend the majority or, more often, an influential minority.

Obviously, most Muslims, especially in America, do not resort to violence. But a disturbing number of people apparently believe that Islam provides a license to kill. When is the last time that the burning of a Bible or Torah set off murderous Christian or Jewish riots directed against Muslims? Equally disturbing, it is hard to find a majority Muslim nation which does not at least discriminate against religious minorities. In many, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to Iran to Egypt — the government either engages in virulent persecution or fails to curb private violence.

Surely this subject deserves discussion. Seeking to insult and scandalize those who believe differently, through the burning of the Qur'an or otherwise, achieves nothing. But a serious debate is warranted. Obviously, there are Muslim grievances, of which U.S. foreign policy is an important one, but none of them warrants the slaughter of innocents — including religious minorities in Muslim lands who typically express the same grievances. Any serious interfaith dialogue requires discussing the worrisome relationship between Islam and violence.

Equally important, Americans must preserve their liberties. We cannot let freedom of expression become another casualty of the War on Terror, along with privacy in almost all of its forms. We must not surrender our liberties out of fear.

The danger is clear and present. Bruce Bawer wrote in Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom: So far Islamic extremists have "been less successful at rolling back freedom, including freedom of speech, in the United States than in Europe — partly because the First Amendment makes that freedom a good deal stronger in America than anywhere else on earth, and partly because Americans have traditionally possessed a deeply ingrained appreciation for their freedom that many Europeans, alas, have not."

But we cannot take our liberties for granted. We must guard them jealously, even when that means protecting the rights of jerks like Jones. For his rights are our rights and our rights are his rights. If the Constitution still means anything, it means Terry Jones is free to burn the Qur'an and demonstrate in front of a Muslim facility.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13052
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #220 on: April 26, 2011, 12:30:36 PM »

Amen.

I note that CAIR has supported the reinstatement of an MTA (Metro Transit Authority) worker in the NYC/NJ area who lost his job for burning three pages of the Koran.

For most of us here, this is likely to be suspected of theologically blessed deception (taquiya- sp?) but nonetheless it should be noted-- at the very least so we are not thrown off guard when someone uses it as a debating point.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #221 on: April 26, 2011, 12:45:00 PM »

Jones is a JERK; but I too agree he should not be denied his right of free speech.

Justice Breyer disagrees.  And I think it's important for this forum to hear all sides.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016378-503544.html

During an appearance on ABC's Good Morning America this morning, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer addressed the recent controversy over a Florida pastor's plan to hold a Quran-burning rally on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, saying he wasn't convinced the First Amendment would protect such an action if the case were brought to the court in the future.

"Holmes said it doesn't mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater," Breyer told George Stephanopoulos during the GMA interview, referring to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote the opinion in a 1919 Supreme Court decision that addressed Freedom of Speech. "Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?"
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #222 on: April 26, 2011, 01:03:27 PM »

Can you yell fire in a crowded theater if the theater is on fire?
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2792


« Reply #223 on: April 26, 2011, 02:12:34 PM »

After Breyer's sundry warblings on the second amendment his credibility on all things constitutional is shot where I'm concerned. He can divine our penumbras, but cant see black letter law.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #224 on: May 01, 2011, 03:30:28 PM »

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=80&load=5298

Be sensitive.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #225 on: June 24, 2011, 02:35:15 PM »

By GEERT WILDERS
Yesterday was a beautiful day for freedom of speech in the Netherlands. An Amsterdam court acquitted me of all charges of hate speech after a legal ordeal that lasted almost two years. The Dutch people learned that political debate has not been stifled in their country. They learned they are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and that resistance against Islamization is not a crime.

I was brought to trial despite being an elected politician and the leader of the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament. I was not prosecuted for anything I did, but for what I said. My view on Islam is that it is not so much a religion as a totalitarian political ideology with religious elements. While there are many moderate Muslims, Islam's political ideology is radical and has global ambitions. I expressed these views in newspaper interviews, op-ed articles, and in my 2008 documentary, "Fitna."

I was dragged to court by leftist and Islamic organizations that were bent not only on silencing me but on stifling public debate. My accusers claimed that I deliberately "insulted" and "incited discrimination and hatred" against Muslims. The Dutch penal code states in its articles 137c and 137d that anyone who either "publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group of people" or "in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished."

I was dragged to court for statements that I made as a politician and which were meant to stimulate public debate in a country where public debate has stagnated for decades. Dutch political parties see themselves as guardians of a sterile status quo. I want our problems to be discussed. I believe that politicians have a public trust to further debates about important issues. I firmly believe that every public debate holds the prospect of enlightenment.

My views represent those of a growing number of Dutch voters, who have flocked to the Party for Freedom, or PVV. The PVV is the fastest-growing party in the country, expanding from one seat in the 150-seat House of Representatives in 2004, to nine seats in 2006 and 24 seats in 2010. My party's views, however, are so uncommon in the Netherlands that they are considered blasphemous by powerful elites who fear and resent discussion.

That's why I was taken to court, even though the public prosecutor saw no reason to prosecute me. "Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society," the prosecutors repeatedly said during my trial. "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable."

The Netherlands is one of the few countries in the world where a court can force the public prosecutor to prosecute someone. In January 2009, three judges of the Amsterdam Appeals Court ordered my prosecution in a politically motivated verdict that focused on the content of the case. They implied that I was guilty. The case was subsequently referred to the Amsterdam Court of First Instance.

The judges who acquitted me yesterday already had a peremptory ruling from the appeals court on their desk. They decided, however, to follow the arguments of the public prosecutor, who during the trial had once again reiterated his position and had asked for a full acquittal.

Though I am obviously relieved by yesterday's decision, my thoughts go to people such as Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, Austrian human rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and others who have recently been convicted for criticizing Islam. They have not been as fortunate. In far too many Western countries, it is still impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam.

The biggest threat to our democracies is not political debate, nor is it public dissent. As the American judge Learned Hand once said in a speech: "That community is already in the process of dissolution . . . where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists to win or lose." It has been a tenet in European and American thinking that men are only free when they respect each other's freedom. If the courts can no longer guarantee this, then surely a community is in the process of dissolution.

Legislation such as articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code disgraces our democratic free societies. On the basis of such legislation, I was prevented from representing my million-and-a-half voters in parliament because I had to be in the courtroom for several days, sometimes up to three days per week, during the past year and a half. Such legislation should be abolished. It should be abolished in all Western countries where it exists—and replaced by First Amendment clauses.

Citizens should never allow themselves to be silenced. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.

Mr. Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and the leader of the Party for Freedom.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #226 on: June 24, 2011, 02:45:17 PM »

Allah akbar!  grin
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #227 on: November 04, 2011, 08:04:38 AM »

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-france-arson-muhammad-20111103,0,4620865.story

but paper shows courage:

http://www.latimes.com/sns-rt-france-firemagazinel5e7m304n-20111103,0,4671429.story
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #228 on: November 04, 2011, 08:15:11 AM »


If they only had concealed carry permits, those arsons could have been avoided....   rolleyes
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #229 on: November 10, 2011, 02:21:08 PM »

By ANNE JOLIS
Shortly after the death of John Paul II, French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo led with a caricature of the Pope stumbling through an empty, Heaven-free afterlife. "Hello, is anyone there?" read his speech-bubble against the darkness. There was not.

Welcome to the world of "Charlie," neither as subtle as Private Eye nor as hip as the Onion, and more scatalogical than National Lampoon ever was. If Charlie can be said to hold anything sacred, it is that nothing is sacred.

In 2001, Charlie marked 9/11 with a pornographic cartoon. A crucified and wisecracking Christ has made countless appearances over the years, as have gold-bedecked rabbis, and titans of nations and industry in various states of compromise. When Princess Diana died, the magazine offered a crack about her nose.

Charlie is also a serial depicter of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. This is the leading theory for the motive behind a firebomb attack that destroyed the paper's Paris offices last week. Charlie had been on the verge of printing a special "Shariah Weekly" edition. The cover featured Muhammad as "guest editor," assuring readers "100 lashes if you don't die laughing!" French authorities have yet to name suspects for the arson.

Separately, Turkish Muslims claimed responsibility for hacking Charlie's website last week; it stayed down for days. In a particularly cantankerous but prescient editorial in 2001, Charlie explained that it did not (then) have a Web presence because the Internet was too infested with "defectives, maniacs, fanatics, megalomaniacs, paranoiacs, Nazis, informers, who have found a means of globally diffusing their delusions, their hatreds or their obsessions." Now they're after Charlie and have also threatened the website of the daily Liberation, which has taken in the now-homeless Charlie operation.

The response in France to last week's attacks has been powerful and all but unanimous: Six months before presidential elections, politicos from every quarter of the French establishment are rushing to defend Charlie, including some who, at one time or another, have threatened the magazine with defamation suits. "All the world, all Frenchmen, must feel solidarity with this newspaper that, with its very existence and way of being, expresses the liberty of the press," said Interior Minister Claude Guéant. On Sunday hundreds of pro-Charlie demonstrators gathered outside Paris City Hall to declare their "right to blaspheme."

That's a right that arguably had its birth in the France of Voltaire, who once said the Christian faith is "without a doubt the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and the most bloody to ever infect the world." It's also a right that, in the last quarter of the 20th century, was generally taken for granted in the West.

But the right to blaspheme is under frontal assault. Writing about the attack on Charlie's offices, Bruce Crumley, Paris bureau chief for Time magazine, did nothing to hide his contempt—not for the attackers, but for the magazine itself.

"Not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish," he wrote, "but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good." James Kitfield, National Journal's security correspondent, told NPR listeners that he wished the "irresponsible" people who "do this get condemned by society for constantly provoking crises that we don't need right now." Such reactions cause one to wonder whether the deeper threat to free speech comes not from its avowed enemies but from its supposed practitioners.

The good news is that Charlie is taking all of this in stride. Its first cover since the attacks depicts a Muslim man French-kissing one of Charlie's male cartoonists. Above the pair, the headline offers the rallying cry of our liberal world: "Love is Stronger Than Hate."

Miss Jolis is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #230 on: December 06, 2011, 05:55:33 PM »

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/sioa-trademark-lawsuit-geller-vs-united-states-patent-and-trademark-office-before-the-trademark-and-.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #231 on: December 08, 2011, 04:03:51 PM »


Over the Line
 


December 8, 2011 - 3:00am



By

Scott Jaschik
 






In an unusual move, Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted this week to eliminate two summer school courses in economics because of anti-Muslim statements the instructor made in an op-ed published in India.
 
When word about the op-ed spread in July, some Harvard students demanded that Subramanian Swamy be fired. At the time, Harvard pledged to look into the situation, but noted that it is "central to the mission of a university to protect free speech, including that of Dr. Swamy and of those who disagree with him." But faculty members this week cited the nature of his statements as justifying the move to kill his courses rather than permit him to return to Cambridge.
 
The op-ed ran in Daily News & Analysis (and while that newspaper no longer has the piece online, it can be read here). The piece, a response to a bombing by Muslim terrorists in Mumbai, said that India could wipe out terrorism by taking certain steps, such as declaring India a Hindu state where "non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus," or demolishing mosques, or banning conversion from Hinduism to any other faith. Swamy was once an economics professor at Harvard, but he returned to his home in India, where is an outspoken nationalistic politician. But he has come back to Harvard each year to teach in the summer school.
 
The faculty vote on Swamy's courses came during what is typically a routine review (and approval) of the slate of summer school offerings. In this case, the faculty approved the courses only after removing the two Swamy was to have taught.
 
Harvard faculty meetings are closed to the press except for representatives of Harvard Magazine (the alumni publication) and The Harvard Crimson (the student newspaper). An account of the meeting in Harvard Magazine said that the economics department chair, John Y. Campbell, told the faculty that his economics colleagues considered Swamy to be "competent" to teach the courses, and that none of the students who took his courses last summer had complained about him. The only student who mentioned the op-ed in a class evaluation rated the course favorably. The department had "expressed its view that it would not take a collective position on academic freedom or on matters of speech, hate speech, or Harvard’s reputation -- issues on which there were a wide range of views, in this case, within the department," Campbell was quoted as saying.
 
The proposal that eventually carried -- to decline to authorize Swamy's courses -- was made by Diana L. Eck,  a scholar of India's religions. According to the Harvard Magazine account, she stressed that this was much more than an issue of a professor having some controversial views. She called Swamy's views "destructive" and said that his ideas involved limiting the human rights of others and denying freedom of religion. In light of the nature of his comments, she also wondered why his courses hadn't been "quietly dropped," rather than included in the proposed offerings for the coming summer.
 
She also quoted from a letter she and other Harvard faculty members sent to President Drew Faust last summer. The letter said in part: "Freedom of expression is an essential principle in an academic community, one that we fully support. Notwithstanding our commitment to the robust exchange of ideas, Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line into incitement by demonizing an entire religious community, demanding their disenfranchisement, and calling for violence against their places of worship. Indeed, India’s National Commission for Minorities has filed criminal charges against Swamy, whose incendiary speech carries the threat of communal violence. When Harvard extends appointments to public figures, it behooves us to consider whether the reputation of the university benefits from the association. In this case, Swamy's well-known reputation as an ideologue of the Hindu Right who publicly advocates violence against religious minorities undermines Harvard’s own commitment to pluralism and civic equality."
 
Under Harvard's governance system, the faculty vote is final, and does not require administrative approval. A spokesman for the university released only a brief statement: "Members of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences each year vote to approve or amend the course list for the Harvard Summer School.  Yesterday, the faculty voted to approve the curriculum for the Summer School for the coming summer session with the exception of two courses, about which there was considerable discussion."
 
On his Twitter feed, Swamy said that the vote at Harvard was "nothing serious," explaining that "non-economists at Harvard don't like my views on how to protect India."
 
Citing Eck and a colleague who also wanted his courses dropped, Swamy also tweeted: "I have been held accountable at Harvard for what I write in India. This means India studies' [Michael] Witzel and Eck are accountable in India. Healthy?"
 
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has spoken out against Harvard's taking any action against Swamy on the basis of his op-ed. The organization's blog noted that Swamy's op-ed calls for radical social change in India, but FIRE noted that American principles of free expression extend to calls for radical social change. As an example, it cited the legal right for people to call for the United States to become a communist country.
 
"We tolerate the widest possible range of political, social, cultural, and religious views because, for one thing, we trust in the marketplace of ideas to eventually sort it all out," the blog post said.


Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/08/harvard-kills-courses-controversial-summer-school-instructor
 Inside Higher Ed
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Sharia at Harvard?








User Rating: / 2
PoorBest



 Mar 14, 2008 at 01:24 AM




By Andrew G. Bostom
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, March 13, 2008
 

Right on the heels of Harvard’s capitulation to Sharia mores at its Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center, the Harvard “academic” community indulged an ideologue with much grander aspirations for implementing Sharia, UCLA Professor of Law, Khaled Abou el Fadl.

My dear friend and colleague Hillel Stavis had the morbidly fascinating experience of witnessing this pseudo-academic fraud peddle his paltry wares March 5, 2008 at Harvard’s Divinity School, during a lecture entitled, non-sequitur, “Conceptualizing Islamic Theology: Sharia and Human Rights Doctrine”

Here are Hillel Stavis’ cogent first hand observations, in his own words:

Of all the evasions, obfuscations and diversions uttered by UCLA’s Professor of Law Khaled Abou el Fadl yesterday [ i.e., March 5, 2008] at the Harvard Divinity School, none was more revealing than his opening declaration that Sharia Law’s compatibility or incompatibility with human rights was wholly “vacuous” and “irrelevant”. None of the 60 or so, mostly Muslim attendees, seemed to have had a problem with this statement. The audience reaction, from both Mr. Fadl’s academic colleagues (among whom was Harvard’s Roy Mottahedeh, Gurney Professor of History, specialist in Persian history) and students was more disturbing than the actual presentation.

Professor Mottahedeh lamented the fact that Muslims have spent too much time trying to reconcile Shari’ah with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, urging the world to supplement it with the Muslim version. Of course, the former is truly universal, the latter particularistic.

And so, a Harvard tenured professor would essentially replace one with the other in a kind of perfecting process.

Nearly 5-years ago now, I warned that El Fadl’s much ballyhooed reputation as a reformer was completely unjustified. Specifically, I noted his pattern of uniformed or deliberately deceitful presentation:

Recently El Fadl elucidated his "construction" of the tolerant tradition in Islam as part of an essay collection. He focused this presentation, appropriately, on two of the most obvious challenges to any such construction, i.e. jihad, and the poll tax (jizya) levied on non-Muslims under Islamic rule. El Fadl's arguments regarding both jihad and the jizya in this essay merit close scrutiny, as these institutions are integrated into the corpus of the Shari'a, or sacred Islamic law. I believe his omissions of evidence in this essay, combined with an excessive reliance on sacralized, whitewashed historiography, refutes the prevailing notion that El Fadl is engaged in a sincere effort to instill fundamental change in Islam.

El Fadl states categorically: “..Islamic tradition does not have a notion of holy war. Jihad simply means to strive hard or struggle in pursuit of a just cause...Holy war (al-harb al-muqaddasah) is not an expression used by the Qur'anic text or Muslim theologians. In Islamic theology war is never holy; it is either justified or not...” This contention cannot be supported on either theological-juridical, or historical grounds, and in fact contradicts the conclusion of an earlier essay by El Fadl.

El Fadl's discussion of jihad is rendered meaningless by a blatant historical negationism of both Muslim and non-Muslim sources. In his analysis of the poll tax (jizya), he relies exclusively upon the sacralized early Muslim historiography of this institution. El Fadl thus attempts to uphold the "virtuous" aspects of the jizya, omitting any reference to the consistent, intentionally humiliating character of its application…El Fadl's presentation excludes discussion of how the jizya was viewed by classical Muslim jurists. There was in fact a basic consensus among the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence regarding the intimate relationship between the institutions of jihad against the infidels, and jizya. El Fadl ignores these extensive writings, and instead asserts whimsically, "…there are various indicators that the poll tax is not a theologically mandated practice, but a functional solution that was adopted in response to a specific set of historical circumstances. Only an ahistorical reading of the text could conclude that it is an essential element in a divinely sanctioned program of subordinating the non-believer."

Another important aspect of the jizya that El Fadl ignores is the widely upheld, although not unanimous view of the classical schools of Islamic jurisprudence about the "humiliating" imposition and procurement of this tax. Here is a discussion of the ceremonial for collection of the jizya by the 13th century Shafi'i jurist an-Nawawi: "…The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector: the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks…"

El Fadl also fails to discuss how the "contract of the jizyah", or "dhimma" encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim "dhimmi" peoples. Collectively, these "obligations" formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims- Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists- subjugated by jihad. Some of the more prominent features of the system of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; the restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches and synagogues; the inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to overall taxation, and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; the obligation for Jews and Christians to wear special clothes; and their overall humiliation and abasement.

And I concluded with this relevant assessment:

It should be abundantly clear that Professor El Fadl's disingenuous revisionism hardly qualifies as a sincere effort to promote a meaningful Islamic "Reformation". Intended or not, his whitewashed, "ahistorical" presentation is dangerous, and serves to justify alarming contemporary Muslim assessments of dhimmitude, and its appropriate application, even today! For example, Palestinian Authority (PA) Undersecretary for Awqaf [Religious Endowment], Sheik Yussef Salamah, representing the PA at a May 1999 "Inter-Cultural Conference," in Tehran, praised the 7th century system of Ahl Al-Dhimma (i.e, the system of dhimmitude), as the proper paradigm for relations between present day Muslims and Christians 58. Palestinian Authority employee, Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi later reiterated these sentiments with regard to Jews during a Friday sermon broadcasted live on June 6, 2001 on PA TV, from the Sheik 'Ijlin Mosque in Gaza:"We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah."

One needs simply to contrast El Fadl's meager revisionist approach with the unequivocal statements of a Muslim academic such as Professor Bassam Tibi. Professor Tibi possesses the insight and courage to acknowledge that a meaningfully reformed Islam must embrace the pluralistic spirit of the Western Enlightenment:
 
“..In the context of religious tolerance-and I write this as a Muslim- there can be no place in Europe for Shari'a …Shari'a is at odds with the secular identity of Europe and is diametrically opposed to secular European constitutions formulated by the people… I hold out for the superiority of common sense over religious faith (i.e., absolute religious precepts); individual human rights (i.e., not collective human rights); secular democracy based on the separation of religion from politics; a universally accepted pluralism; and a mutually accepted secular tolerance. The acceptance of these values is the foundation of a civil society..”

Professor Tibi's comments underscore basic truths that apologists for the Shari'a such as El Fadl refuse to acknowledge. For example, the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam maintains that the Shari'a has primacy over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and includes the specific proclamation that God has made the umma (Islamic community) the best nation, whose role is to "guide" humanity. This statement captures the indelible influence of jihad ideology on the Shari'a, rendering sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus we can see clearly the differences between the Shari'a-inspired Cairo Declaration, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which does not refer to any religion or to the superiority of any group over another, while stressing the absolute equality of all human beings. Indeed a Senegalese jurist (and Muslim), Adama Dieng, (then serving as secretary-general to the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists), courageously declared in 1992 that the Cairo Declaration introduced an intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women.

Subsequently, Daniel Pipes elaborated on El Fadl’s so-called “anti-Wahhabism,” which is negated by his continued apologetics for jihad terrorism, and open espousal of the implementation of Sharia in non-Muslim societies, as a leading pseudo-academic, cultural jihadist. Pipes highlighted, for example the fact that Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali (1917-96), an important 20th century Egyptian cleric, remains one of Abou El Fadl's chief intellectual influences. However, as I have noted, the “anti-Wahhabi” al-Ghazali, then an official of Al Azhar University, supported the July 1994 vigilante murder of secular Egyptian writer Farag Foda. Testifying on behalf of Farag Foda’s murderer, al-Ghazali stated, unabashedly, “A secularist represents a danger to society and the nation that must be eliminated. It is the duty of the government to kill him.”

Over fifty years ago (i.e., circa 1955), Gustave von Grunebaum (d. 1972), a major scholar of Islam, well prepared to make sound judgments on matters related to Islamic societies, issued this prescient warning based upon actually studying the writings of the Muslim ideologues of his day, including El Fadl’s ideological inspiration, Muhammad al-Ghazali. [Gustave von Grunebaum, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 1955, Vol. 14, p. 202, (Book Review of Muhammad Al-Ghazzali’s, Our Beginning in Wisdom, 1953, translated by Ismail R. al-Faruqi)]:

The political constellation of the moment which is likely to continue for some not inconsiderable length of time has induced us to envisage ourselves in a world of an “either…or.” We concern ourselves with the compatibility or otherwise of Islam with communism and regardless of the conclusion in which we acquiesce, we are apt to overlook the fact that the Muslim circles most emphatically opposed to communism are at the same time potentially if not actually the most formidable stronghold of hostility to the West. Ghazzali’s tirade against American Democracy (pp. 60-62) with its warning “against the spreading American ways,” with its condemnation of “the domestic as well as foreign policy of America” as “actually a systematic violation of every virtue humanity has ever known” should make us aware that the Muslim “extremists” will be with the West not because of any recognized affinity but merely out of momentary political considerations. Ultimately, the self-conscious world of Islam would wish to consolidate into a power center strong enough to set itself up by the side of the Russian and the Western blocks, strong enough to determine for itself what its primary political concerns should be, and strong enough perhaps to be no longer compelled to westernize for the sake of survival. The hot-headed half-truths of Ghazzali must not delude us into considering absurd the aspiration of those who feel that for its revival Islam needs less rather than more gifts of the West.

At present, more than fifty years later, the distressingly stupid leaders of our universities remain oblivious to (or if ever aware, hostile to) von Grunebaum’s profound insights, allowing post-Edward Saidian pseudo-scholars like El Fadl and Mottahedeh, to blissfully pursue their university-supported efforts aimed at “peacefully” subverting the US to Islamic Law.
 
Let me state bluntly, and humorlessly, I have lost all patience with such fraudulent “presentations,” and their utterly ridiculous academic patina—they are pernicious.
 
Mr El Fadl, and his equally deficient Harvard host Roy Mottahedeh want nothing less than for our liberal democracy to willfully impose upon itself the Ur-Fascistic totalitarianism of Sharia. Only the most empty-headed buffoons, their minds melted away by ceaselessly and uncritically imbibing the cultural relativism that prevails in our “academy,” and “public discourse,” would even begin to entertain El Fadl’s premise. And yet there he was, at Harvard, no less, espousing such hideous ideas along with the dangerously ludicrous Mr. Mottahedeh, who endorsed them.

Hillel Stavis sent me this apposite closing observation shortly after hearing El Fadl’s lecture, and the equally inane commentary of his host, Mottahedeh:
 
Harvard seems to have heard Mr. Mottahedeh’s message recently when it accorded exclusionary rights to Muslims by banning men from one of its gyms at designated hours to accommodate Muslim women. Given the professor’s desired trajectory of Islamic “ethics”, we might even see the ultimate penalty for apostasy applied to those foolhardy students who decide to change their religion while at Harvard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew G. Bostom is a frequent contributor to Frontpage Magazine.com, and the author of The Legacy of Jihad, and the forthcoming The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.
 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #232 on: December 22, 2011, 03:01:22 PM »

IPT News
December 22, 2011
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3355/state-department-panders-to-islamists-on-free
 

The Obama administration is drawing fire for yielding what critics see as a huge propaganda victory to Islamist regimes seeking to curb American speech deemed "offensive" to Muslims.

The State Department hosted a three-day, closed-door meeting last week with representatives of the Saudi Arabia-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on measures to fight religious "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization."

In her closing remarks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton portrayed the conference as a sign that Washington and the OIC are working together to protect religious freedom around the world.

"We have to get past the idea that we can suppress religious minorities, that we can restrict speech, that we are smart enough that we can substitute our judgment for God's and determine who is or is not blaspheming," Clinton said. "I think if we do our work right, in years to come, people will look back and say this was a great step forward on behalf of both (sic) freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and our common humanity."

But according to the Hudson institute's Nina Shea (who attended portions of the conference as an observer), the event was actually a step backward for religious liberty. The meeting seemed to be an exercise in "moral equivalency and pandering to Sunni tyrants in the Middle East," she said.

"The general theme seemed to be that the U.S. has problems just like Saudi Arabia with religious tolerance," she added. "There was a total absence of perspective on all counts."

Pointing to familiar events such the Muhammad cartoon violence, Quran burnings and Muslim objections to the film "Fitna," OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu argued that his organization regarded bigotry as a primarily Western phenomenon. He wrote that "no one has the right to insult another person for their beliefs or to incite hatred and prejudice," and that "freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility."

Zamir Akram, Pakistan's permanent representative of the OIC before the U.N. Human Rights Council was more emphatic. He claimed that Resolution 16/18, which expressed concern about "negative profiling" and religious "stereotyping," was driven by Western discrimination against Muslims. Akram also questioned whether Muslims engaged in discrimination, and said Muslims would not compromise on permitting "anything against the Quran, anything against the Prophet."

Given these comments – and Saudi educational materials that encourage the spread of Islam through jihad and demonize Jews, Christians and polytheists – Shea believes U.S. officials are "naïve" to think there will be reciprocity from the OIC when it comes to combating discrimination.

Despite Saudi Arabia's abysmal record of persecuting non-Muslims, the Kingdom received a note of dubious praise from the United Nations General Assembly, which on Monday passed a resolution condemning religious intolerance. According to Shea, the UNGA resolution – passed by consensus with U.S. support – singled out for praise a single program: A Saudi-built "religious dialogue" center in Vienna, Austria.

Given Saudi Arabia's relentless persecution of non-Muslims, the praise is "Orwellian," Shea told the IPT. "They don't dare establish such a program on their own territory."

OIC member states spearheading the anti-blasphemy campaign include Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia – all of which jail or execute "blasphemers." In nations like Egypt and Iraq, Christians are attacked and their churches torched while Muslim-dominated governments are unwilling or unable to protect them.

"In these countries, you have 'cleansing' tolerated by the authorities," Shea noted. "Religious cleansing [of Christians] is underway right now in Egypt and Iraq. It's been completed in Saudi Arabia. Jews have been cleansed from the Sunni Muslim world."

By any measure, Muslims and other religious minorities in the United States face no dangers comparable to religious minorities in the Muslim Arab world. Indeed, like the Bush administration preceding it, the Obama administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to court American Muslims and portray their situation in a very favorable light.
Clinton's Dec. 14 remarks included a rebuke to Islamists who seek to silence people of other faiths. "But is our religion so weak that statements of disapproval will cause us to lose our faiths?" Clinton asked. She added that there is nothing wrong with "hav[ing] good debates with others."

But Shea emphasizes that the behavior of OIC participants like Saudi Arabia gives no indication that they are interested in dialogue with minorities in their countries. She said that at the conference, participants largely ignored the vast differences between the United States and OIC member nations in protecting religious minorities.

One legal official (State Department confidentiality rules barred observers from identifying him or his country) gave a "one-sided depiction of American bigotry against religious minorities, including Muslims" in his opening keynote address, Shea said, telling representatives of some of the world's most repressive regimes that America can learn from them about protecting religious tolerance.

But the official never bothered to explain that, when compared with other countries, America has an extraordinary record of "upholding individual freedoms of speech and religion," Shea told the Investigative Project on Terrorism. "The tolerance of the American people is misrepresented by omission."

Pointing to mounting reports of atrocities and intimidation against Middle East Christians and mass slaughter by the Islamist regime in Khartoum, Shea didn't mince words in characterizing the attitudes of the American conference participants toward their OIC counterparts.

"It's the equivalent of saying to Hitler: 'Well, you have a real problem with the way you treat minorities and we have a problem with limiting the rights of Aryans here.'"

Washington Retreats on Speech Codes

The OIC (previously called the Organization of the Islamic Conference) has pushed for a universal blasphemy law for more than a decade. Since the November 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands and the 2006 riots protesting cartoon depictions of the prophet Mohammad, the group has pressured Western European nations to implement speech codes punishing criticism of Islam.

In March, the Obama administration thwarted the OIC's attempt to win United Nations Human Rights Council passage of a resolution calling for criminal penalties for the "defamation of religions." The following month, Washington engineered Council passage of Resolution 16/18, a nonbinding measure which did not censor speech.

The victory didn't last long. In July, Secretary of State Clinton revived the issue when she co-chaired an OIC session in Istanbul dealing with "religious intolerance." Clinton called on countries to "counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue and public debate," while emphasizing that speech restrictions were unacceptable. She invited conference attendees to a follow-up meeting to continue the dialogue.

OIC officials seized on Clinton's offer by stepping up their campaign for blasphemy laws and speech codes.

Based on conversations with U.S. officials, Shea believes that many of them fail to grasp what the OIC represents. They lack essential information about apostasy and blasphemy laws and have "very little knowledge of the illiberal nature of the OIC," she said. "There's a sense of political correctness that prohibits probing of that organization and what it stands for."

Although the United States is unlikely to emulate Western European countries in enacting speech codes, "what we see is self-censorship" by agencies like the State and Homeland Security departments which are barred from discussing issues such as Salafism and jihad. Moreover, "in the media, academia and the entertainment world, we see self-censorship on behalf of Islam. Certain issues are off the table."

Shea believes that this "politically correct" approach to Islamism has disturbing implications for U.S. national security. In the case of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who massacred 13 of his fellow servicemen at Fort Hood in 2009, co-workers emphasized that they were deeply troubled by his jihadist ravings regarded him as a radical Muslim "but didn't report it for fear of being labeled "Islamophobes,'" she noted.

Similarly, a Senate committee issued a report documenting a culture of timidity at the Pentagon on the subject of Islam. Shea said the Fort Hood massacre is a "perfect example" of the danger posed by the U.S. government's failure to address the danger Islamism poses to our liberties.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #233 on: February 24, 2012, 07:45:31 AM »



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGTaEQebfE

Lesson learned, violence is rewarded and respected, especially when you are muslim.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #234 on: February 24, 2012, 11:34:23 AM »

**Imagine if the roles were reversed. You'd have national media coverage and the DOJ would be investigating.**
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/muslim-admits-attacking-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case

Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim Judge Dismisses Case


Submitted by American Atheists on Feb 22, 2012


By Al Stefanelli
 
The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.
 
The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
 
The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death.
Judge Martin’s comments included,
 

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.  

Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,
 

“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.
 
Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,
 

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”
 
But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,
 

“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”
 
And,
 

“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “
 
And,
 

“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”
 
The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws.  This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs.  Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.
 
This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight.
 
Here is a link to the video that includes the audio of the Judge during the trial:
 
Here’s coverage of the incident from the local ABC affiliate
 
Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation.
 
This reeks of those cases we used to read about where a woman is blamed for her own rape because she “was asking for it” by virtue of the clothing she chose to wear, and then having the Judge set the rapist free.
 
I can promise you this, you have not heard the last of this issue. Not by a long shot.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4198


« Reply #235 on: February 24, 2012, 02:28:07 PM »

"The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death."

I guess the fact we are in the US is no reason to uphold the law.   So here is an activist judge enforcing Sharia law in the US?

"**Imagine if the roles were reversed. You'd have national media coverage and the DOJ would be investigating.**"

That is the truth. 

I suppose Obama is going to apologize for this?



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #236 on: February 24, 2012, 06:59:51 PM »

"The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death."

I guess the fact we are in the US is no reason to uphold the law.   So here is an activist judge enforcing Sharia law in the US?

"**Imagine if the roles were reversed. You'd have national media coverage and the DOJ would be investigating.**"

That is the truth. 

I suppose Obama is going to apologize for this?





Nope. Non-muslims are lesser beings and not worthy of Obozo's notice or concern.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #237 on: March 19, 2012, 08:33:37 PM »

ttt because I've referenced this thread elsewhere.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #238 on: March 30, 2012, 01:32:11 PM »



This law firm in NYC, which had agreed to host an appearance by Robert Spencer on April 18th, has caved to threats from the Islamic supremacist thugs at CAIR.  Please call, write, fax and e-mail your displeasure over this.  Again, a business is being intimidated by an organization with terrorist links to Hamas into canceling an appearance by a noted scholar on Islam - Robert Spencer - who is only telling the truth.  This must not be allowed to happen:

www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/action-alert-new-york-law-firm-kramer-levin-caves-to-hamas-linked-cair-cancels-robert-spencer-event.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #239 on: May 17, 2012, 11:36:11 AM »

http://www.radicalislam.org/news/allegan-michigan-free-speech-0-sharia-1

Acting on a tip from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), police shut down a private event in a rented room that was promoting the American constitution and the “American Laws for American Courts” legislation initiative.

Amid calls of “What about free speech?” the Allegan Police Department entered the room in the middle of the event and ordered it shut down.

Police originally gave as their reason for the shut-down the appearance of Kamal Saleem, a former Muslim terrorist who converted to Christianity and who was a featured speaker at the event.  However, the chief of police later admitted to a reporter that he was acting on no specific threat or danger being posed by the event.

The event was located in the Allegan High School auditorium which had been rented by Willis Sage, an Allegan County commissioner.  Sage is the author of “Constituting Michigan – Founding Principles Act,” which would require Michigan public schools to teach the history and constitution of the United States.

No specific threat of violence was received by either the City of Allegan

Kamal Saleem, the police department, the Allegan Public School District or the Allegan Public High School.

However, school officials had notified police that they had received a letter complaining about the event from Dawud Walid, executive director of CAIR - Michigan.  The letter asked the school to cancel the event despite an existing contract.

CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding trial in U. S. history, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation.

A civil rights lawsuit has been filed against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR- MI), its Executive Director, the City of Allegan, the Allegan Police Department and the School District for violating the constitutional and contractual rights of the event organizers and participants. The lawsuit was filed for the plaintiffs by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center commented, “It’s amazing how much clout CAIR has with the political establishment of both parties in Lansing [Michigan’s capital] and throughout Michigan and the nation -- this, despite the fact that CAIR has its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, and the FBI’s  former chief of counterterrorism noted that CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.


Richard Thompson“Press accounts make it clear that an indictment naming CAIR as a defendant in the Holy Land Foundation trial was squelched by Attorney General Holder’s office despite vehement objections by FBI agents and the federal prosecutors in Dallas.”

The purpose of the event was to inform the public about the importance of honoring the United States Constitution, to recognize the internal threat to America posed by radical Muslims and the dangers to American society posed by the imposition and insinuation of Islamic (sharia) law.

Saleem has spoken at numerous high schools and universities, Christian churches and Jewish institutions across the nation.  He has also spoken at the U. S. Air Force Academy, Michigan’s State Capital and Ford Field in Detroit, Michigan.  At no time before or after the Allegan event has an event where he has spoken been shut down by law enforcement.

Commissioner Sage had notified the Allegan police chief ten days before the event and invited him to check out the background of Saleem, which he never did.

In addition to Sage, plaintiffs in the case include Michigan State Representative David Agema, sponsor of the “Restriction of Application of Foreign Laws Act,”, which bans the use of foreign laws including sharia by courts and administrative bodies of the State when those laws conflict with fundamental rights protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Michigan.

CAIR is an outspoken opponent of the act.

The American Laws for American Courts act is designed to protect American citizens’ constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially sharia.

Foreign laws are frequently at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, and freedom of religion, speech and assembly. They typically enter the American court system through the principle of comity (mutual respect of each country’s legal system). Granting comity to a foreign judgment is a matter of state law. Most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment violates an important public policy of the state.

The “American Laws for American Courts” act has been passed into law in Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona. To find out more about the law, a Forty Minute Course is available online.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #240 on: June 26, 2012, 09:09:03 PM »



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnJBW49afzg
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #241 on: September 11, 2012, 06:33:11 PM »

Today, 9/11, a mob with AQ flags crashed the US Embassy in Cairo and burned our flag in protest of some docu-movie here in the US that offended them.  So what did the State Dept. do?  It expressed regret at those who abuse free speech that hurt the feelings of Muslims.   angry angry angry
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #242 on: September 12, 2012, 03:22:41 PM »

A FB post:


As a good Christian, I need 60 or 70 of my friends to come help me burn a non-Christian (preferably Arabic) embassy later this afternoon, then kill and behead with a jack knife whoever made this insulting video...
 
http://www.youtube.com/​watch?v=J4297XZdQsM&feature=rel​ated
 
The US internet broadcast of this satire video, (which, according to its own description, is not actually associated with the glue manufacturer), is constitutionally protected 'free speech' and 'artistic satire' but the Balice "Innocence of Muslims" film in question today is "bigoted hate speech" according to this afternoon's NPR. It’s sad how much the leftist apologists are trying to undermine your rights to speak out, regardless of your idiotic viewpoint (by which I here include my own).
...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #243 on: September 14, 2012, 10:33:04 AM »

Obama administration officials said Thursday that they have asked YouTube to review the video and determine whether it violates the site's terms of service, according to people close to the situation but not authorized to comment.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-youtube-accountability-20120914,0,4384171.story

And now they put their name to it , , ,

Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East.  The administration flagged the 14-minute "Innocence of Muslims" video and asked that YouTube evaluate it to determine whether it violates the site's terms of service, officials said Thursday

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-administration-asks-youtube-to-review-innocence-of-muslims-video-20120913,0,610679.story
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 10:36:05 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #244 on: September 17, 2012, 12:27:48 PM »

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/report-iran-adds-reward-rushdies-death-17247292
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #245 on: September 18, 2012, 01:48:14 PM »

 cheesy cheesy cheesy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204904/Pakistani-man-dies-inhaling-fumes-burning-American-flag-anti-Islam-film-rally.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #246 on: September 18, 2012, 03:06:03 PM »

second post

Life in the Fatwa's Shadow
Instead of condemning Ayatollah Khomeini and his Western surrogates, many putative liberals blamed the embattled novelist..
By MICHAEL C. MOYNIHAN

In 1988, a Booker Prize-winning author published a novel called "The Satanic Verses." In the British city of Bradford, 200 miles from his London residence, a wild-eyed rabble of Muslim fundamentalists, most of whom hadn't bothered to read the book, declared it blasphemous and set it alight. The word "fatwa" would enter the English lexicon when Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini weighed in, issuing a religious edict demanding that Salman Rushdie, the book's author, be put to death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. The ayatollah offered those unmoved by promises of otherworldly paradise a bounty of $1 million.

Mr. Rushdie now lives quite openly in New York—but the author's more literate tormentors can take satisfaction from "Joseph Anton," his compelling, affecting, depressing memoir of a life profoundly disfigured by terrorism. The soldiers of Allah didn't "send him to Hell," as Khomeini demanded, but they did make his existence a living one.

The conspiracies against Mr. Rushdie demanded the intervention of Britain's security services, curtailing his movement and making interaction with the outside world—and his young son—onerous. Book reviews he wrote were, in the days before email, given to a protection officer to be mailed from London, a postmark far from his undisclosed location. (When he included a note explaining why his reviews were late, one newspaper reproduced it on the front page.) The Thatcher government, a frequent target of Mr. Rushdie's more polemical writing, provided the security arrangement but offered only qualified diplomatic support, expressing sympathy more for those "offended" by the novel than for the condemned novelist himself.

It was a position shared by many of his literary and journalistic peers. British tabloid hacks mocked Mr. Rushdie's physical appearance, dismissed the literary merit of his novels and regularly complained of the cost to British taxpayers of keeping him alive. To many in the intelligentsia, it wasn't the bearded ghoul in Tehran who was responsible for the violence, nor his British surrogates, but the bearded novelist who surely "knew what he was doing."

The list of putative liberals suddenly concerned with hurt religious "sensibilities" is depressingly long: Joseph Brodsky, John le Carré, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Roald Dahl ("long, unpleasant man with huge strangler's hands"), Germaine Greer, the reliably Islamophilic Prince of Wales, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who coughed up the most astonishing pronouncement of the whole affair: "We must be more tolerant of Muslim anger."

"Joseph Anton" is hardly a conventional memoir. It is written in the third person, a conceit that works well enough as a way of recounting the alienating experience of living under cover while hearing one's real name condemned by Muslim leaders world-wide. The author covers his life before the fatwa, including a moving account of the death of his father, a brilliant secularist and a brutish drunk. He also savagely recapitulates his marriage to the American novelist Marianne Wiggins (to whom "The Satanic Verses" was dedicated) and provides a brief but revealing accounting of married life with model and TV star Padma Lakshmi, whom he took up with after he came out of hiding. But the bulk of the book deals with the death sentence, the point when "The Satanic Verses" left the realm of literature and was "denied the ordinary life of a novel," instead becoming "something smaller and uglier: an insult." "Joseph Anton" demonstrates Mr. Rushdie's ability as a stylist and storyteller. It also serves as an important moral balance sheet.

It is quite stunning to be reminded of the craven "religious leaders" who openly suborned Mr. Rushdie's murder, to no response from the police or courts. Mr. Rushdie hasn't forgotten, though it seems everyone else has. Iqbal Sacranie, one "leader" given substantial airtime and column inches to adjudicate Mr. Rushdie's fate, said that "death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him." In 2005, Mr. Sacranie was knighted at the behest of Tony Blair. Then there is Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), who in 1989 publicly supported the death sentence, saying that Mr. Rushdie "must be killed." In 2010, he was a special guest at comedian Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" in Washington, D.C. In a subtle dig at Mr. Stewart, Mr. Rushdie sighs that the musician, who later denied his words, must have understood that "he lived in an age where nobody had a memory."

Mr. Rushdie's analysis of the pusillanimity of Western journalists and intellectuals is bracing, though one greedily wants more of it. He thunders against the "the cancer of cultural relativism" and the newly minted crime of "Islamophobia," which meant that "to criticize the militant stridency of this religion in its contemporary incarnation was to be a bigot." Mr. Rushdie, a strident atheist, is forthright. "Actually existing Islam had become a poison and Muslims were dying of it and that needed to be said," he writes. "He would say it, if nobody else would."

Since the Iranian regime stopped actively pursuing the fatwa in 1998, Mr. Rushdie has "said it" less frequently, focusing mainly on his career as a novelist. He periodically wades back into the free-speech debate—like signing a statement denouncing "religious totalitarianism" during the Muhammad cartoon affair—but has left the polemical activism to others, like his late friend Christopher Hitchens.

Mr. Rushdie is optimistic about the Arab Spring and those young Muslims who took to the streets because they "wanted jobs and liberty, not religion." But the recent violent attacks on American embassies suggest that the revolution in the Middle East might be more religious than libertarian, and the lightning-quick condemnation last week by the American embassy in Cairo of the "abuse" of free speech by a private citizen who produced an anti-Islam YouTube video indicates that the enemies of liberal democracy have learned well from the Rushdie affair. Defenders of Enlightenment values, regardless of what they think of Mr. Rushdie the novelist, must acknowledge the fact that, when threatened, Salman Rushdie—Joseph Anton—reacted with great bravery and even heroism.

Mr. Moynihan is a contributing editor at Reason and a columnist at Tablet.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #247 on: September 19, 2012, 10:29:03 AM »

France to Shut Embassies, Schools Amid Cartoon Row .
By INTI LANDAURO

PARIS—France's Foreign Ministry said it would close its embassies as well as French schools in 20 countries on Friday, amid fears of backlash after a French weekly magazine published a series of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.  French authorities said they feared the cartoons published in satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday could cause more outrage in the Muslim world, days after a low-budget film denigrating the Prophet Muhammad sparked violent protests at U.S. and other Western embassies in several Muslim countries.

Paris's decision to pre-emptively close its embassies highlights how Western governments are grappling to respond to a wave of protests fueled by events—the film in the U.S., or potentially the caricatures in France—largely out of their control.

The French government said that although freedom of speech rules applied in France, the magazine's decision to publish the cartoons was ill-timed.

"It is dangerous, even irresponsible, when we know the general climate, to pour oil on fire," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said at a news conference in Paris on Wednesday.

French authorities didn't disclose the list of countries where they would close embassies. But government officials said they had decided to close buildings on Friday because it is the main day of prayer for Muslims, suggesting the order would apply mainly to Muslim countries. A spokesman at the Foreign Ministry said ambassadors would have the option to keep their embassies closed beyond Friday for security reasons.

French interests overseas have so far been spared by the recent spate of protests in Muslim countries. The protests began last week, when a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked, resulting in the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Demonstrations have since erupted elsewhere in the Middle East and South Asia, including Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In Paris, about 150 protesters were arrested on Saturday during what police described as an unauthorized rally near the U.S. Embassy.

Charlie Hebdo defended its decision to publish the prophet cartoons.

"If we start to wonder whether we have the right to draw Muhammad or not, or if it is dangerous to do it, we will have to start to wonder whether we can draw Muslims or human beings in the paper," the magazine's editor in chief, known only as Charb, told French radio RTL. "Eventually, we won't be drawing anything and a bunch of extremists in the world and in France will have won."

The magazine headquarters in Paris were put under heightened police protection, police said.

Charlie Hebdo's offices were struck by arson last year after the paper published a special issue with Muslim cartoons called "Sharia Hebdo."

Write to Inti Landauro at inti.landauro@dowjones.com
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #248 on: September 20, 2012, 10:32:08 AM »


http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/european-politicians-begin-bow-muslim-demand-limit-free-speech/#fm
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #249 on: September 21, 2012, 06:50:08 PM »

http://www.danielpipes.org/11965/a-muhammad-cartoon-a-day
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!