Gates of Vienna News Feed 10/31/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 10/31/2011Thanks to NATO, freedom and democracy are now enjoyed by the Libyan people. Evidence of their new condition may be seen in the black flag of Al Qaeda, which flies over the courthouse in Benghazi. Reports coming out of the city say that it is being governed by Sharia law.

In other news, Hagia Sophia, the former cathedral of Constantinople and later an Ottoman mosque, is being returned to use as a mosque after serving as a museum for almost a century.

Meanwhile, British prime minister David Cameron says that British ships off the Horn of Africa will now be allowed to carry armed guards to protect them against pirates.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to A. Millar, C. Cantoni, CSP, Egghead, Erick Stakelbeck, Fjordman, Gaia, heroyalwhyness, Insubria, JP, KGS, Kitman, Nilk, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Slavery and Jihad

The latest essay by Anestos Canelides examines the Islamic institution of chattel slavery, which accompanied the Great Jihad wherever it reached.

Arab slave market


Slavery and Jihad
by Anestos Canelides

Sura 48.20: …Allah promises you much booty (spoils of war) that you will capture from the defeated infidel.

                   — Legacy of Jihad, by Dr. Andrew Bostom, pg. 127

Slavery has been a curse upon human existence since the dawn of mankind. During modern times there has been a thin illusion that slavery has vanished from the world. The sad reality is that slavery does exist in our modern era, and while slavery is not unique to Islam, there has never been an abolition of slavery in the Islamic world as there has been in the Western nations.

In recent decades slaves were taken in southern Sudan by Muslims from the north. These captives were either Christians or animists taken during the civil unrest between southern Sudan and the Muslims in northern Sudan.

Is there a connection between jihad and slavery in the Muslim world? Most importantly, is slavery an major factor in Jihad?

The main focus of this essay will not be the dhimmi status of the conquered, but jihad and chattel slavery in the Muslim world.

Slave manaclesThere is a permanent link between jihad and slavery. It is a uniquely Islamic institution, and provides a good explanation for the persistence of slavery in Islam’s dominions and societies. This may applied to specialized forms of slavery such as the employment of eunuchs, slave soldiering, child slavery, and harem slavery. Jihad slavery has been a powerful tool for both expanding Islamization and the maintenance of Muslim societies.[1] It was a form of punishment for the infidels who were conquered, whether they were Christians, Jews, or idolaters.

Historian Spero Vyronis provides a description on how jihad slavery, as practiced by the Seljuk Turks and early Ottomans, was so important for the Islamization of conquered lands in the eleventh through fourteenth centuries.

A further contributing factor to the decline of the numbers of Christian inhabitants was slavery… Since the beginning of the Arab razzias in the lands of Rum (Roman), human booty had come to constitute a very important portion of the spoils. There is ample testimony in the contemporary accounts that this situation did not change when the Turks took over the direction of Jihad in Anatolia. They enslaved men, women and children from all major urban centers and from the countryside where the populations were defenseless. In the earlier years before the Turkish settlements permanently affected Anatolia, the captives were sent off to Persia and elsewhere but after the establishment of the Anatolian Turkish principalities, a portion of the enslaved were retained in Anatolia for the service of the conquerors.[2]

The reality is that entire regions were depopulated, due largely to enslavement, and in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) once fertile farmland reverted back to forest. The majority of the looting, pillaging and enslavement of Christians began after the first Seljuk invasion of the former Byzantine lands. The disastrous loss by the Romans at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 accelerated the Islamization of Roman lands. The Muslim Turkic tribes found the land similar to their homeland on the Eurasian steppes, so these nomads began migrating en masse into Roman territory.

They were not peaceful immigrants, and yes, it was a jihad against the Christian infidel. Many Christians were killed or enslaved in the process. The Byzantines (Romans) were not the only ones to have faced slavery by the Muslim invaders. The Islamic demand for a global caliph, stemming from the belief that Islam will dominate the world one day, has had an all too sad impact on the world. The Qur’an clearly says (Sura 4.75): “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah and those who reject the faith fight in the cause of evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.”[3]

Another example, according to Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad, may be found under the Shah Abbas I (1588-1626 AD), when the Safavid Shiite theocracy of Iran expanded its earlier form of slave razzias into the Christian Georgian and Armenians regions. Many people were enslaved in these regions and forcibly converted to Shia Islam. The males were made to serve in the military, and the females were forced into harems.[4]

Islamic slavery was not unique to Christian nations, or even to Europe and Asia Minor, but also occurred in Africa. While all too many people today focus on slavery in the Americas, slavery within Africa was comparable to the western transatlantic slave trade to the Americas. Quantitative estimates for the transatlantic slave trade between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries reckon the numbers at about 10.5 million. This is more than matched by the number of slaves carried along the Islamic trade routes. It is estimated the Islamic trans-Saharan, Red Sea and Indian Ocean slave trade from 650 AD to 1905 AD was about 17 million. The terrible plight of the enslaved animists taken from the savannahs and forest regions of western and central Africa was at least comparable to the suffering faced by slaves of the transatlantic crossing.[5]

Most of the slaves captured by Muslims were females. Males who were not killed were generally fully castrated when taken captive, and those who survived the brutal maiming were used as eunuchs. Many of the females ended up in the harems, and their offspring were often murdered.

Greatest in comparison would be the extensive domain of slavery created by jihad. This would include all regions where Islam had conquered from the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia. Wherever the sword of Allah has arrived there has been conquest, forced conversion, death and slavery. According to Dr. Andrew Bostom in “Jihad conquests”: “The persistence of Islamic slavery is as impressive and unique as to its extent. Slavery was practiced in both Ottoman Turkiye and Shiite Iran.” Ehud Toledano points out that slavery was the core of Ottoman society until the demise of the Ottoman Empire in the second decade of the twentieth century. Slavery in fact continued to exist in most Muslims countries until recent times, and it was mainly due to the pressure from western powers it ended. Slavery was not abolished on the Arabian Peninsula until 1962, and persisted until 1970 in Yemen and Oman. Chad still permitted slavery in the 1990s.

Does it still exist? Yes, it is likely that the barbaric institution of slavery still exists in some Muslim enclaves. It is believed by some observers that slavery may still exist in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia to this day.[6]

This institution will continue to exist in Orthodox Islam because it is an effort to free men from unbelief. According to Ralph Willis in Jihad and the Ideology of Enslavement, “If Jihad frees men from unbelief and deprives men of freedom, so also does the humiliation and subjection of enslavement serve to remove men from infidelity.” Jihad seeks to release the captives’ spirits from the bondage of their unbelief, but conversion does not prevent one from becoming enslaved. It brings death to the infidel, and in order to recapture their identity the slave must incarcerate his spirit in Islam. It is only through manumission that the process is sustained.[7]

In essence, a person is enslaved as punishment for their unbelief and forced to endure the hardship of slavery, even if they convert to Islam. For the kafir who embraces Islam, hijra points to the path of freedom; for the kafir who defies Islam, jihad is the path to bondage. This is the only path by which the controversy between belief and unbelief can be closed. “Again, for the slave from Dar al-Harb who flees Dar al-Islam, hijra is the sanctuary from the servile condition. Hence it brings life to the infidel: while it vanquishes the Kafir.[8] The fact is that you cannot separate Jihad from slavery, and it is a tool to force conversion on the unbeliever by making their life a living hell.

While slavery does not exist in most Muslim nations today, I remain unconvinced that with the growth of Islam as a world power it would not return. Unless Islam reforms itself, this institution will have a revival as Islam spreads and encounters resistance. Those who are in the house of war, or Dar al-Harb, could face the yoke of slavery or death.

I write both to the infidel, like myself, as well as to Muslims who are truly moderate and honestly believe in the plurality of all faiths. I can only hope that a dialogue amongst Muslims today will prevent the restoration of slavery in the Islamic world. I do not expect this to happen soon.

All forms of slavery should be condemned, whether Muslim or from another belief system. Bear in mind that there are many Muslims in the world who would be appalled at the idea that slavery might ever return. This essay is not descriptive of them, but only those who have no understanding of human rights.



Notes:

1.   Bostom, Andrew. The legacy of Jihad: Jihad Conquest and the imposition of Dhimmitude — a Survey, Prometheus Books, page 86
2.   Ibid, page 87
3.   Ibid, page 1
4.   Ibid, page 88
5.   Ibid, page 9
6.   Ibid, page 92
7.   Willis, John. The legacy of Jihad: Jihad and the Ideology of Enslavement, Prometheus Books, page 343
8.   Ibid, page 347



Previous posts by Anestos Canelides:

2010   May   29   The Last Empire
    Jun   18   The Muslim Devastation of India
    Aug   20   Are They Lying to Us?
    Sep   28   Devshirme: A Muslim Scourge on Christians
    Oct   6   AIFD: Friends of America and Freedom
    Dec   3   A 19th-Century Jihad on American Shipping
2011   May   29   Borders, Language and Culture
    Oct   18   The Jihad Against Dogs

What is Wrong With Western Elites?

Fjordman


Below is Fjordman’s latest essay. For a complete archive of his writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.



Libya’s autocratic ruler Muammar Qaddafi was brutally tortured and killed on 20 October 2011 after France, Britain, the USA and NATO had actively given military support to rebel troops that were known to include groups with ties to terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda.

Muammar QadaffiAs writer Diana West said, “Qaddafi was not killed in retaliation for his attacks on American servicemen in Berlin in 1986, or the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1989. He was not killed for his central role in the USSR’s terror networks going back to the 1960s and 1970s. He was killed after coming over to our side of George Bush’s ‘war on terror’ in the final phase of a civil war in Libya in which his regime fought al Qaeda affiliates. Horrific as it sounds, Qaddafi was killed because we and our NATO allies joined the other side.”

In February 2011, a day before he quit as Egypt’s president after popular uprisings, Hosni Mubarak had harsh words for his former allies in the United States and their misguided quest for democracy in the Middle East. “They may be talking about democracy but they don’t know what they’re talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam.”

Mubarak during his three decades in power kept stability in Egypt, peace with its neighbors including Israel and promoted decent economic progress in his country without being cruel. Despite this, the USA quickly turned its back on him when protests began. The Muslim Brotherhood has since gained in strength, and attacks on Coptic Christians have escalated.

Sayyid QutbSayyid Qutb (1906-1966) from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was with his writings among the inspirations for the Jihadists terrorists from al-Qaeda who killed three thousand Americans on September 11th 2001. A decade later, President Obama and his Administration are actively aiding the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere to gain more influence.

Many ordinary citizens, when witnessing our so-called leaders supporting our enemies, wonder whether Western political elites have lost their grip on reality. What are they trying to achieve with such stupid and suicidal policies? Why do they want to export democracy to Islamic countries, even if this brings radical organizations with hostile agendas to power, at the same time as the democratic system is being de facto abolished in Europe by the European Union?

My personal view is that the cultural, economic and especially immigration policies currently promoted by the ruling elites throughout virtually the entire Western world are harmful to the long-term interests of the European peoples who created this civilization. One fundamental question that has been hotly debated on the Internet by dissident writers is whether this trend is entirely accidental, and exclusively reflects the purely impersonal forces of technological globalization, or whether there is also a purpose and a plan behind some of these changes.

I believe that there is also an intentional plan of breaking down Western nation-states behind this trend. This is demonstrated by the statements of some key actors, by the all-pervasive (in the Western world at least) indoctrination with non-European “diversity” as well as by the systematic demonization and ridicule of all traditional practices, cultural symbols and national flags. The arguments, or rather lies, presented in favor of continued mass immigration and Multiculturalism are remarkably similar in all Western countries, too similar to be entirely coincidental.

Multicultural classroom


The question is: Why? And what do those promoting such policies hope to achieve?

It is important to realize that this does not necessarily rule out other possible explanations, which may supplement rather than contradict the previous claim. It is undoubtedly true that modern Western technology has created a far more integrated world than existed in the past.

One could also successfully argue that there are deep underlying structures and ideas in Western culture and mentality at work here, too, for instance the concept of “universal egalitarianism” that could be found already in Greco-Roman Antiquity, and especially in Christianity. This was secularized after the Enlightenment in the form of human rights. Present-day Globalists, regardless of whether they come in a Socialist or a capitalist shape, can exploit these ideals.

Finally, there is no doubt that many people vote for open-border Globalists of their own free will. For example, I have been severely critical of the British government of Tony Blair, but we should remember that Blair with his Labour Party won no less than three elections in a row. Some of this can be attributed to media censorship and decades of indoctrination plus the mass importation of a new electorate in the form of immigrants who tend to vote for Socialist parties which give them access to more welfare payments. Some of it, maybe, but not all of it.

No matter how we twist this, the fact remains that tens of millions of Westerners have more or less freely voted for parties that insult and dispossess them and rob them of their heritage. We have become decadent, indifferent consumers who live only for the here and now, cut off from our historical roots and with little regard for the future of our nation. Far too often, we care little for what will happen 50-100 years from now as long as we can still personally enjoy a steady supply of material comforts and new electronic toys plus football and sex on TV.

My good friend Ohmyrus, an Asian essayist, has convincingly argued that one of the factors behind the booming budget deficits we can now observe in many Western countries plus Japan may be the short-term focus inherent to the democratic system, where people prefer short-term gain now at the price of long-term pain later and vote themselves into possession of other people’s money. Not enough of them think longer than a couple of election cycles — maybe ten years — ahead. History-conscious peoples who come from non-democratic cultures, for instance the Chinese, seem to find it easier to plan in terms of generations and centuries.

On top of this, the good components that a democracy may contain have ironically also been undermined by hollowing out this system from above through international organizations, which in many cases promote harmful policies even when the majority does not want this.

The UN Ummah


In 2009 it was revealed that the ruling Labour Party had purposefully flooded Britain with millions of immigrants without consulting its citizens, in order to socially engineer a “truly Multicultural” country. The huge increases in migrants over the previous twelve years were due in part to a politically motivated attempt to radically change the country and to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity,” if you believe Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair. He said that mass immigration was the result of a deliberate plan, but ministers were reluctant to discuss this openly for fear of alienating the party’s “core working class vote.”

Lord Glasman — a personal friend of the Labour Party leader — in 2011 stated that “Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration… and there’s been a massive rupture of trust.” He admitted that the Labour Party had sometimes been actively hostile to the white natives. In particular, they tended to view white working-class voters as “an obstacle to progress.”

To my knowledge, these shocking revelations of a government launching a full-front attack on its own people — in what could be seen as a policy of ethnic cleansing of a specific national group — did not cause a single word of protest from the political leaders or mass media in any other Western country back then. I have since come to suspect that the reason for this shameful silence is that the authorities in many other Western countries themselves follow roughly similar policies and therefore see nothing wrong in what the British government did.

In 2009, the former left-wing US President Bill Clinton stated publicly that Americans should be mindful of their nation’s rapidly changing demographics, which led to the 2008 election of Obama as president. He told an Arab-American audience that before 2050 the USA will no longer have a majority of people of mainly European descent and claimed that “this is a very positive thing.” This was just a few years after a group of Arab Muslim terrorists had staged the deadliest attack against the US mainland in peacetime, killing thousands of US citizens.

Bill Clinton is himself of European extraction. I have never heard representatives of, say, the Chinese Communist Party brag about the fact that they support displacing their own ethnic group from their own country. Only leaders from the supposedly democratic West do this.

Roger ScrutonThe English philosopher Roger Scruton notes that “buying and selling of citizenship, often to people who think of it purely as a right and never as a duty, is common throughout Europe. The political élite sees nothing wrong in people collecting passports as they might collect memberships of clubs.” He thinks that the Western élite are immune to xenophobia, or fear of foreigners, but instead suffer from a severe case of what he terms oikophobia, the repudiation of home, the urge to denigrate the customs and culture of your own people. “The oikophobe is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism.”

Ibn KhaldunIbn Khaldun is somewhat overrated compared to other non-European historiographers such as Sima Qian, but the most useful aspect of his writings is the concept of asabiyya, which could be translated as group consciousness. Judged by the above cited examples of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton (numerous others might unfortunately be mentioned here), the ongoing decline of Western civilization can partly be explained as a decline of asabiyya among Western elites, who no longer feel attached to their own peoples but see them as obstacles to be overcome, or silenced through widespread anti-racism campaigns and doctrinal guilt imposed from above.

This does not mean that there is no grassroots support at all for Multiculturalism. Yet support for mass immigration is lukewarm at best among the population as a whole, whereas the ruling elites in politics, media and academia promote it enthusiastically. If anything, this pan-Western disconnect and deficit of trust between rulers and the ruled is growing larger. If unchecked, this widening political chasm threatens to seriously undermine stability in the Western world.

CIP logo


In June 2007, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, along with Chancellor (and PM-in-waiting) Gordon Brown and Conservative Party leader (also future PM) David Cameron, met Muslim leaders at a conference organized by the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme. Blair opened by defending Islam as a religion of “moderation and modernity,” announced a government fund to aid teaching of Islam and to train imams and designated Islamic studies as “strategically important” to the British national interest. Timothy Winter, a lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge, said that “The question facing British society, and society as a whole, is not how we encourage minorities to engage with western countries, but how those countries define themselves as a collage of different religious cultures.”

In other words: Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Spain and other Western countries with white majorities are no longer nations with a distinct heritage, only random spaces on the map just waiting to be filled with a “collage of different cultures.”

I could add that North American authorities and mass media are little better than European ones, and sometimes worse. The USA was the first Western country, in 1965, to open its borders to mass immigration from the entire world as a matter of ideological principle. US authorities have been promoting similar policies elsewhere in the Western world ever since.

Critical Whiteness StudiesThe concepts of “white privilege” and hostile “Whiteness Studies” were also developed in and spread from the USA. In conflicts between native Europeans and non-native colonizers, US authorities have repeatedly demonstrated that they will go against the interests of the natives.

Former PM Tony Blair showed no regrets when he stated in the fall of 2011 that it is “right” that the country should made up of different cultures and faiths mixed together. That is not to say you don’t encounter problems at certain points, but these “are to be overcome.” Blair added that the anti-immigration debate was now a thing of the past. Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch responded that: “This is completely shameless from the Prime Minister who brought more than three million immigrants into Britain in the teeth of public opposition.”

Perils of Diversity by Byron RothIn The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature, Byron M. Roth, a Professor Emeritus of Psychology from the USA, argues that the debate over immigration policy in the Western world is critically uninformed by the sciences of evolutionary biology and psychology. A primary thesis of his book is that societies are mainly the product of the genetic nature of the human beings who make them up, not geography, as Jared Diamond claims. He mentions that rising crime has become a serious problem, often committed by ethnic minorities. Low IQ correlates highly with rates of criminality and antisocial behavior.

What consequences will the mass importation of low-IQ peoples to the West have? Is a certain minimum average IQ necessary to maintain a complex society? Roth speculates whether what may emerge from these demographic patterns is that the USA will move in the direction of countries like Mexico, corrupt and dysfunctional states with oligarchic politics.

Do some Western elites actively desire such a result? Do they hope to turn the Western world into a giant version of Mexico with a weak middle class incapable of challenging a tiny ruling elite (themselves) entrenched virtually as a caste? Perhaps the authoritarian key to crushing the white man’s traditional desire for self-determination is to paralyze it by flooding his lands with alien ethnic groups who themselves often come from repressive and authoritarian cultures. In parts of Europe, Christianity was in medieval times used to consolidate the embryos of nation-states. Perhaps those who seek to break down these nation-states today view a different and more repressive religion, Islam, as a useful tool for achieving this goal.

LeninThe phrase “Political Correctness” first came into use under Communism and meant that all ideas had to conform to and support the agenda of the Marxist movement. History and philosophy were the first to be forced into line, but as is clear from the career of Trofim Lysenko, science was made to conform, too. Those who dissented from the official doctrine were judged to be psychologically imbalanced or evil. Today the ruling ideology is an absolute egalitarianism that if you analyze it closely actually amounts to saying that all cultures have an equal right to exist, except the European one which is evil. As Roth says:

Whether Western elites really believe these things is less important than the benefit they gain from its promulgation. The primary benefit is that it paralyzes the popular preferences for national preservation by characterizing opposition to elite doctrines as immoral, indecent, and inhumane. It allows unelected elites to aggrandize their own power by obliterating national sovereignty and nullifying democratic accountability. Many are, without exaggeration, true totalitarians that have no regard for the well-being of those they control, since the only way they can consolidate their dystopian plans is through brute state power. While there is no doubt that many well-meaning individuals join their efforts, they are the sort of ‘useful idiots’ who excused and covered up Communist atrocities during most of the 20th century.

Brides of Satan

Niqabs, London


This email just came in from one of my contacts in England:
I saw a large group of Muslim women yesterday while I was travelling down a main thoroughfare in West London — a head-turning moment as roughly fifteen black-clad (head to toe, a couple of niqabs) women spilled out of an Arabic restaurant about midday.

  • A clump of about seven or eight at the entrance
  • Four pairs already walking away down the pavement — on their way to a mosque? It would have been interesting to jump off the bus and follow them, but I was on my way somewhere.

What made the event chilling was its martial aspect — the paired formation — I imagine similar events might have occurred in Victorian Britain when the Temperance League or similar went out to preach.

This bunch looked like the women who accompany Muslims Against Crusades demos. They appeared confident, etc., and most definitely ‘owned’ the pavement.

Incredible.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 10/30/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 10/30/2011Dymphna and I were away for most of the day today visiting family, so both posting and the news feed are light.

A 17-year-old Coptic Christian high school student in Egypt was beaten to death by his classmates, in a classroom, for displaying a cross on a chain around his neck. The crime occurred on October 16th, but initial accounts by the media and the authorities failed to mention the role that religious enmity played in the attack. However, later reports by witnesses indicated that the fury of the boy’s murderers was aroused when he pulled the cross out from under his shirt where his Muslim classmates could see it.

In other news, Danish farmers will reportedly lose billions of kroner when the EU shifts some of its agricultural subsidies to other parts of Europe.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Egghead, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, Kitman, Mary Abdelmassih, Steen, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

The Unexamined Premises of Multiculturalism

Immigrants in Birmingham


The continued dominance of the doctrines of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism depends on a set of unexamined premises. If the axioms underlying PC/MC were ever carefully examined by a large proportion of the populace, the entire political superstructure of the West would collapse.

The practitioners of the Multicultural Arts are at least subliminally aware that the basic assumptions of their dogma cannot stand up to close scrutiny. This is why the proponents of PC/MC tend to respond to reasonable criticism with accusations of “racism”, vicious ad-hominem attacks, and physical violence. They fear that the edifice in which they have invested so much emotional and physical energy may in fact be spun from pure gossamer. Fear generates anger, and their fury demands the destruction of those who would expose their delusions.

The other day former British prime minister Tony Blair invoked one of the major unexamined premises of Multiculturalism while defending his party’s immigration policy during his time in office: “Britain cannot succeed unless it opens its borders to more people from different backgrounds.”

Where is the evidence for this assertion?

How has it been tested?

In what ways was Britain unsuccessful while it was still, well, British? In what ways is it more successful now?

None of these questions is asked by any significant public figure, because the axioms of Multiculturalism must not be questioned. They wouldn’t axioms if they were open to debate. Immigration is good for the country, and that’s that. It’s true because Tony Blairs says so.

Here’s the story from The Daily Mail:

Blair Defends Opening the Door to Mass Migration and Says it Had a Very Positive Impact on Britain

Former PM said it was ‘right’ that the country was made up of different cultures and faiths mixing together

Tony Blair has defended Labour’s controversial mass immigration policy by claiming that Britain cannot succeed unless it opens its borders to more people from different backgrounds.

The former prime minister said it was ‘right’ that the country was made up of different cultures and faiths mixing together.

Let’s continue our questioning of these unexamined premises. In what sense is it “right” to mix cultures? By whose standards?

Mr Blair added that migrants had made Britain ‘stronger’ and said those calling for greater curbs on foreigners entering the country were wrong.

Really? In what way is Britain stronger now than it was before it admitted all those immigrants?

From an outsider’s viewpoint it looks much weaker and more fragmented than it ever has before.

His comments come just days after official figures revealed that the population is expected to soar by the equivalent of a city the size of Leeds every year for the next decade.

A defiant Mr Blair insisted his party’s policy on immigration was the right one. He said: ‘It’s been a very positive thing and there is no way for a country like Britain to succeed in the future unless it is open to people of different colours, faiths and cultures.’

Once again, what evidence is there that mass immigration is a “positive thing”? What studies can you cite? Where are the statistics? Do unbiased surveys of public opinion agree with you?

Under Labour, up to 5.5million people born outside the UK arrived as long-term migrants.

Between 1997 and 2010, around 2.3million left the country, meaning the UK population increased by around 3.2million as a direct result of foreign migrants.

In an interview with Eastern Eye newspaper, Mr Blair said: ‘The vision of a country of different cultures and different faiths mixing together is the right one.

‘That is not to say you don’t have problems at certain points, but those problems are to be overcome without losing the essence of what has actually allowed this country’s people to get on and do well.’

The people who “do well” under recent British immigration policies are those foreigners who live lavishly on social benefits, along with their multiple wives and numerous children.

But what about the average hard-working British taxpayer? How well is he doing?

Next comes one of the most frequently employed tactics of a Socialist who is being criticized: his critics’ complaints are stale. They’re old hat. Been there, done that. Yesterday’s news:

Mr Blair added that the anti-immigration debate was one of the ‘past’. ‘I think the majority of people in Britain today are not prejudiced and can understand the benefits of migration.

In other words: if your criticism has been leveled by somebody else in the past, it has no validity.

Why is that? Why does an argument become invalid simply because it has been made more than once?

Here are the responses of two of Mr. Blair’s out-of-fashion critics:

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: ‘This is completely shameless from the Prime Minister who brought more than three million immigrants into Britain in the teeth of public opposition.’

Fellow Tory MP Dominic Raab added: ‘These comments are naïve if not reckless. Tony Blair has left Britain with a legacy of uncontrolled immigration that has put huge pressure on public services and undermined community cohesion’.

Ah, but Multiculturalism guarantees that there will never be any “community cohesion”. The phrase is a euphemism for “a lack of interracial and intercommunal violence”.

“Community cohesion” means no honor killings, no grooming and pimping, no ethnic gangs, no citizens getting beat up for being white or Christian. Britain will not attain that exalted state again for the foreseeable future.

From Multiculturalism’s point of view, an absence of “community cohesion” is not a bug — it’s a feature.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


It’s a good idea to subject the premises of PC/MC to close scrutiny. None of them can stand up to a real forensic examination.

Let’s keep doing it. Fear and the herd mentality are the only things that hold this Palace of Folly together.



Hat tip: Fjordman.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 10/29/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 10/29/2011As a consequence of the shooting at the American embassy in Sarajevo yesterday, seventeen Serbian Muslims were rounded up by police in the Sandzak region of Serbia today. All were said to be associated with the shooter, Mevlid Jasarevic, and were part of a radical Wahhabist group.

In other news, French president Nicolas Sarkozy says it was a mistake to ever have allowed Greece to join the euro.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, Egghead, Fjordman, Insubria, JP, Kitman, Mary Abdelmassih, Nilk, PJ, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Islamophobia, Islamic Slander, and the OSCE

OSCE logoAs reported previously, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff represented BPE yesterday at the “Confronting Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims in Public Discourse” conference in Vienna. Elisabeth presented a brief paper during the meeting, which was posted here last night.

She submitted a longer version of the same paper to the conference organizers. It contained more detailed arguments, an appendix citing Islamic law, and footnotes for sources. It has been accepted, and was registered by the OSCE. An HTML version of the paper is below.


Pax Europa

Buergerbewegung Pax Europa

In cooperation with and endorsed by

International Civil Liberties Alliance,
Mission Europa, Wiener Akademikerbund

Today’s meeting is ostensibly concerned with confronting intolerance and discrimination against Muslims in public discourse. Actually, however, it focuses on “Islamophobia”, a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1990’s. According to the David Horowitz Freedom Center, “it has become ‘a matter of extreme priority’ for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.” It appears that the UK-based Runnymede Trust in 1996 coined the “accepted” definition, which includes any and all of the following components:

1. Islam seen as a single monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to new realities.
2. Islam seen as separate and other:
  (a) not having any aims or values in common with other cultures,
  (b) not affected by them, and
  (c) not influencing them.
3. Islam seen as inferior to the West — barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist.
4. Islam seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, engaged in ‘a clash of civilizations’.
5. Islam seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
6. Criticisms made by Islam of ‘the West’ rejected out of hand.
7. Hostility towards Islam used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility accepted as natural and ‘normal’.

Runneymede has been in a close relationship with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation for some time. Pax Europa and its affiliations note with grave concern that this definition — or any definition — of Islamophobia cannot and does not address the underlying problems with Islam and its teachings.

For example, Pax Europa believes that Islam denies equal rights to men and women. According to the above definition, simply raising this point has been considered Islamophobia. Pax Europa believes that for many, there is a political ideology component to Islam. Since its ideology informs the doctrine of political organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, it is indeed a political ideology. Pax Europa is accused of Islamophobia for speaking to this reality, even when it can demonstrate a factual basis for the statements it makes in this regard.

Pax Europa is of the opinion that criticism of a religion, including Islam, must remain legitimate. This is echoed by the OSCE: “Criticisms of religious practices (just religious practices, not religions themselves?; BPE) are legitimate speech.” We believe, however, that while Muslims are not a monolithic group, for those Muslims who accept Islam as an ideology, there are elements of Islamic law that are monolithic, in that all Muslims worldwide, whether they live in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, consider the Koran and the Hadith (authentic sayings of Mohammed) as the basis of their legal system. Certainly groups like the Muslim Brotherhood profess this! How are groups like Pax Europa to discuss such issues if not allowed to speak to the language and doctrines that define them?

We further note that the distinction between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” speech is one of grave concern. We would like to recall the OSCE commitments (Copenhagen 1990) which state with respect to freedom of expression:

The participating States reaffirm that

9.1)   - everyone will have the right to freedom of expression including the right to communication. This right will include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. The exercise of this right may be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and are consistent with international standards.

The participating States express their commitment to

10.1)   - respect the right of everyone, individually or in association with others, to seek, receive and impart freely views and information on human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights to disseminate and publish such views and information;

When we review the OSCE Commitments, their direct nexus is to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 19 UDHR. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Pax Europa is of the opinion that the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) require public expression to conform to Shariah law. This includes perceived “anti-Muslim discourse” as well as cases of “discrimination”, whether intentional or unintentional. This is not speculation. In December 2005, at the Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit Conference, the OIC implemented a ten-year plan “to meet the challenges facing the Muslim Ummah”. Article 6 of the OIC Charter states:

The Islamic Summit is composed of Kings and Heads of State and Government of Member States and is the supreme authority of the Organisation. It convenes once every three years to deliberate, take policy decisions and provide guidance on all issues pertaining to the realization of the objectives and consider other issues of concern to the Member States and the Ummah.[1]

Section 1 of the ten-year program covers “Intellectual and Political Issues”, and under category VII, “Combating Islamophobia“, we read this:[2]

2.   Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation. [emphasis added]
3.   Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through the establishment of an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the relevant Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to counter Islamophobia. [emphasis added]

If the OIC’s Ten Year Plan really does come from a “Summit,” and it does, it means that the plan reflects the policy objectives and state actions of non-EU state actors against citizens of EU Member States. Further, as Article 6 of the OIC Charter makes clear, the “Combating Islamophobia” initiative has been undertaken as an objective of OIC Member States and the Ummah. Neither the European Union nor any of its Member States belong to that Ummah. Hence, not only are the OSCE Commitments and Article 19 of the UDHR being compromised, but it appears that it is happening on behalf on foreign state actors in concert through the OIC. This should not come as a surprise. From the Secretary General of the OIC himself, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, on behalf of all 57 OIC Member States:

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked. [3] [emphasis added]

Of course the “we” are the leaders of non-European Member States. The clear message is a threat to clamp down on the free speech rights of EU citizens or a “red line” will be crossed! What “red line”? The very language the OSCE uses when discussing “Islamophobia” is in line with OIC language on the topic. Has the OSCE changed its position on the protection of human rights so that they can be abridged when state actors from non-EU jurisdictions make such demands, couched in language of hate speech? More importantly, trying to steer public discourse is at odds with the core concept of freedom of expression. Attempting to resolve conflicts in society by controlling public discourse is generally futile , as evidenced in Eastern Europe just a few decades ago, and is fundamentally at odds with the objectives of the OSCE.

Buergerbewegung Pax Europa and its affiliates strongly discourage pursuing this strategy further.



Appendix

Islamophobia

The OIC has implemented a ten year plan[4] which began at a summit in December, 2005. Fifty-seven heads of state represented the Muslim member states of the OIC at this summit. Their mission was to

Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia and call upon all states to enact laws to counter it including deterrent punishment.[5]

When Western officials employ a narrative that restricts the terms which may be used when discussing the behavior of Islamic extremists, they are (perhaps unintentionally) implementing an OIC imperative which aims to create laws combating “Islamophobia”.

According to “Concluding Observations from the Chair” at the OIC International Conference on “Terrorism: Dimensions, Threats and Countermeasures”, which took place in Tunis in November 2007:[6]

As Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, OIC Secretary General noted, there is a growing need to be more concerned with tackling “defamatory campaigns that seek to incite a particular civilization against another, thereby inflaming violence, hatred and extremism, and ultimately leading to terrorism”.

“As reiterated by the OIC, the international community must counter campaigns of calumny against Islam and Muslims to prevent the spread of Islamophobia which attempts to cause a rift between civilizations, a situation that has become a new form of racial discrimination.”

The OIC thus intends to redefine “racial discrimination”. Furthermore, according to the OIC, defamation “seeks to incite a particular civilization against another” — that is, speaking out is considered “incitement”, so that silence is being demanded under threat of violence. Also, defamation “ultimately lead[s] to terrorism”. That is: a citizen who stands up for his own viewpoint can be considered to have incited terrorism against himself and his culture.

This shifts responsibility for acts of violence from the perpetrator to the victim.

The word “calumny” used in the above extract must be understood as it is defined in Islamic law. The insistence that “the international community must counter campaigns of calumny against Islam and Muslims” constitutes a state-sponsored policy to demand that non-Muslim jurisdictions implement Islamic legal doctrine on “slander” (see below).

Consider the final communiqué of the Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit Conference in 2005. Once again, since this was a summit, it consisted of the heads of state for the OIC. The excerpt below is from Section II, “In the Political Field”:[7]

The Conference underlined the need to collectively endeavor to reflect the noble Islamic values, counter Islamophobia, defamation of Islam and its values and desecration of Islamic holy sites, and to effectively coordinate with States as well as regional and international institutions and organizations to urge them to criminalize this phenomenon as a form of racism. [emphasis added]

This prompts a series of questions:

1.   What is “regional”? Does that mean the European Union?
2.   What is “international”? Does that mean the United Nations?
3.   The OIC urges the criminalization of “defamatory” speech as “racism”, but in what jurisdictions?
4.   And what is the relation between “defamation” and “racism”?

A summary document from the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in Bamako, Republic of Mali, was published in June, 2001. Section 10 of this document refers to the Report of the Secretary General on the Defamation of Islam:[8]

Defamation of religions

5.   The World Conference considers that the defamation of an individual’s religion provides the basis of, legitimises and inevitably leads to the manifestation of racism, including in their structural forms, such as Islamophobia against the adherents of that religion. Furthermore, the defamation of religions, including its denial is a primary source of both the persistence and mutation of racism. UN organs and specialized agencies should therefore strengthen their collective efforts together with the relevant intergovernmental organizations, such as the OIC, to implement programmes and undertake initiatives to combat the defamation of religions and manifestations of this in any form. [emphasis added]

In other words, “defamation” is equivalent to racism, and the “defamation of religions” means “Islamophobia”.
Now we must consider what the OIC mean by “racism”. In the same document from 2001, under the subhead “Contemporary Forms of Racism”, Sections 3 and 4 are particularly relevant to this question. Many documents about “racism” from sources other than the OIC seem to resonate with Section 4 but not with Section 3. Yet Section 4 cannot be understood without first understanding Section 3:[9]

3.   Contemporary forms of racism are based on discrimination and disparagement on a cultural, rather than biological basis. In this content, the increasing trend of Islamophobia, as a distinct form of xenophobia in non-Muslim societies is very alarming.

Note that “racism” as defined here by the OIC falls under the category “Contemporary Forms of Racism”. Without having read that first, one might not draw the same conclusions about what is said in Section 4:

4.   The Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Commission on Human Rights along with its subsidiary bodies and mechanisms, have an important guiding role in the elimination of the contemporary forms of racism. …

Based on the definition in Section 3, when Section 4 refers to “contemporary forms of racism”, it has nothing to do with biology or race. Section 4 continues:[10]

…All governments should cooperate fully with the Committee and the Special Rapporteur on the Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance with the view to enabling them to fulfill their mandates and to examine the incidents of contemporary forms of racism, more specifically discrimination based on religion, including against Islam and Muslims.

In summary, contemporary forms of racial discrimination are actually discrimination based on religion, especially Islam. Once again, “defamation” is held to be equivalent to racism, and the “defamation of religions” means “Islamophobia”. These are extraterritorial claims: the OIC is calling on non-Muslim nations to pass laws that are specifically designed to implement Islamic law.

As mentioned above, at the Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit Conference in 2005, the OIC implemented a ten-year plan “to meet the challenges facing the Muslim Ummah”. As an extraordinary summit, it was attended by the heads of state of Muslim countries. There is no political or legal level higher than this in the Islamic world; this summit could be reasonably seen as speaking authoritatively for the entire Ummah, as classically defined in Islamic law.

Section 1 of the ten-year program covers “Intellectual and Political Issues”, and under category VII, “Combating Islamophobia”, we read this:[11]

1.   Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation. [emphasis added]

“All religions” seems inclusive and multicultural, and thus worthy of general support. However, the next item singles out Islam for special attention:

2.   Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through the establishment of an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the relevant Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to counter Islamophobia. [emphasis added]

The OIC proposes to monitor the internal jurisprudence of non-Muslim nations to discover whether they are in compliance with its rule.

3.   Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments. [emphasis added]

In other words, the OIC requires that the United Nations, the European Union, and the member states of the European Union pass laws criminalizing Islamophobia. This is a direct extraterritorial call to submit to Islamic law, and to implement Shari’ah-based crime and punishment. It is not a call to “respect all religions”, but for other nations to pass laws making “Islamophobia” a punishable crime.

Islamophobia consists of “defamation of religion”, as defined under Islamic law. “Defamation of Islam” is not the same as “defamation” as the word is understood in the Western sense. For the OIC, Islam is the only religion to which “defamation applies, and its focus is solely on Islamophobia. It is demanding that the West implement Shari’ah crime and punishment in violation of the legally- and constitutionally-protected rights to free speech.

For the United Nations, the resolution would nullify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Islamic Slander

‘Umdat al-salik wa ‘uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.

We cite the Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994), subtitled “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The publisher is listed as amana publications in Beltsville, Maryland.

This an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam. It has also been certified as authoritative by the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

The OIC’s proposed laws against “defamation of religion” derive from Reliance of the Traveller, Book R. “Holding one’s Tongue”, § 2.0, “Slander (Ghiba),” r2.2: [12]

Slander and talebearing are two of the ugliest and most frequently met with qualities among men, few people being safe from them. I have begun with them because of the widespread need to warn people of them.

And a little further on in r2.2: [13]

Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike…

Then r2.3: [14]

As for talebearing… it consists of quoting someone’s words to another in a way that worsens relations between them.

This is obviously not the Western understanding of slander. According to this definition, to slander someone is to say something about him that he would not like.

Continuing with “Evidence of Prohibition”, r2.4: [15]

The above define slander and talebearing. As for the ruling on them, it is that they are unlawful by consensus…of Muslims.

This means that the legal ruling is absolute. There is no disagreement about it among Muslim scholars.

Quoting the prophet Mohammed for the point of law, r2.6: [16]

The Prophet… said:

    (1)   The talebearer will not enter paradise.

This is an indication of the seriousness of the crime.

Next comes: [17]

(2)   Do you know what slander is?” … “It is to mention of your brother that which he would dislike.
(3)   The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim. He does not betray him, lie to him, or hang back from coming to his aid. All of the Muslim is inviolable to his fellow Muslim: his reputation, his property, his blood.

Therefore, if a non-Muslim says something about Islam that is true, but which Muslims do not want infidels to know, he is still guilty of slander under Islam. This is far different from a Western understanding of slander.

Every rule must have its exceptions, and slander under Islam is no different. There are six reasons for permitting slander, but I will list only one of them, “Permissible Slander,” r2.16: [18]

Slander, though unlawful, is sometimes permissible for a lawful purpose, …the legitimating factor being that there is some aim countenanced by sacred law that is unattainable by other means.

So if a Muslim cannot advance sacred law except by deceiving someone, he is allowed to deceive that person.

The heart of the matter is here: “Talebearing (Namima)”, § r3.0 and r3.1: [19]

In fact, talebearing is not limited to that, but rather consists of revealing anything whose disclosure is resented… The reality of talebearing lies in divulging a secret, in revealing something confidential whose disclosure is resented. A person should not speak of anything he notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim…

This bears no resemblance to a European understanding of what slander or defamation mean. And all Muslims everywhere are legally bound by this rule.

Furthermore, there is r3.1(1): [20]

Anyone approached with a story who is told, “So and so says such and such about you,” must do six things… (3) hate him for the sake of Allah…

Once again, this is obligatory. All Muslims are required to obey this rule.

The above passages from Islamic law form the basis for “defamation of religion” as understood by Muslim scholars and jurists. Anything that insults the Prophet Mohammed is by definition slanderous and unlawful. It is this definition of slander which the OIC seeks to impose upon non-Muslim nations.

From the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), concerning the Danish Mohammed cartoon crisis:

The angry reaction in the Muslim world… is mainly due to the premeditated and deliberate attack on the revered person of the prophet, whose holy position, message and teachings were maliciously and calculatingly sacrileged by the so called defenders of freedom.

H.E. Prof Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC

Bahrain Tribune Daily, January 29 2006 [21]

From the Supreme Islamic Council (on IslamOnline), also concerning the cartoon crisis:

The SIC condemns in the strongest possible terms the publishing of such offensive cartoons. These caricatures do no good for Muslims, Christians or even atheists, but will only shake that national unity to its foundation. Editors should not take free speech as an excuse to insult a certain religion; otherwise they risk an extremist response from the offended, which carries grave consequences.

Mohammad Hamdan, Head of the Supreme Islamic Council

Arab News, January 13th, 2006 [22]

A theology professor at al-Azhar University in Cairo said:

“Those cartoons are very offensive to every Muslim feeling, and to Islam as a religion. Do you expect Muslims to remain silent or rise and defend their religion?”

Moeti Bavoumi, Theology Professor, al-Azhar University

Arab News, December 9, 2005 [23]

A report on what the Imam of the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah said:

He said many people in the past had tried to defame the Prophet: “They were thrown in the dustbin of history and nobody remembers them.”

(Saudi) Sheikh Ali Al-Hudaify

Arab News, January 28, 2006 [24]

The Chairman of the Saudi Foreign Affairs Committee in the Majlis al Shura (Consultative Council):

[The Saudi government] does not accept anything that harms Islam and the Prophet or that destroys the friendly relations that link the Muslim world and the West, under any pretext.

Dr. Bandar al Ayban

Asharq Al-Awsat (London) January 27, 2006 [25]

This language is reasonably clear: it attempts to make defamation of Islam a crime, with “defamation” being defined by Islam. Its aim is to deny non-Muslims the right to talk about Islam. This is not defamation as defined in Western terms. Defamation under Western law still allows for freedom of speech, unless speech is taken to an extreme. But when Muslims accuse a non-Muslim of defamation, they mean that he does not have the right to talk about Islam.

The OIC wants Western governments to enforce its version of defamation within their jurisdiction.



Notes:

1.   Article 6, Charter of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference
2.   VII “Combating Islamophobia,” Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century, Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Conference, Makkah al Mukarramah — Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 5-6 dhul qa’dah 1426h 7-8 December 2005, at URL: http://www.oic-oci.org/ex-summit/english/10-years-plan.htm.
3.   Speech of His Excellency Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, at the Thirty-Fifth Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Kampala — Republic of Uganda, 18-20 June 2008, OIC/CFM-35/2008/SG-SP. Cited hereafter as “Speech of OIC Sec Gen Ihsanoglu.”
4.   The Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit, Makka Almukarama, Organization of the Islamic Conference, 7-8 December 2005, at http://www.oic-oci.org/ex-summit/english/10-years-plan.htm. Cited hereafter as OIC, Third Extraordinary Session — Ten-Year Progamme.
5.   OIC, Third Extraordinary Session — 10 Year Plan OIC, Third Extraordinary Session — Ten-Year Progamme.
6.   OIC International Conference on Terrorism: Dimensions, Threats and Countermeasures — Concluding Observations from the Chair, 15-17 November 2007, Tunis, at 2, at URL: http://www.oic-oci.org/english/article/terrorism_conference_concl-en.pdf.
7.   “Political Field,” Final Communiqué of the Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Conference “Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century, Solidarity in Action, Makkah al-Mukarramah, 5-6 Dhul Qa’Adah 1426H (7-8 December 2005), URL: http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/english/conf/is/ex-3/fc-exsumm-en.htm.
8.   “Defamation of Religions,” Reports of the Secretary General on the Legal Affairs Submitted to the Twenty-Eighth Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Bamako, Republic of Mali, 4-8 Rabi-ul-Thani, 1422H (25-29 June, 2001) at http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/english/conf/fm/28/28-ICFM-SG-Rep-en/28-ICFM-LEG-D-en.htm. Cited hereafter as “Twenty-Eighth Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Bamako.”
9.   “Contemporary forms of Racism,” Twenty-Eighth Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Bamako.
10.   “Contemporary forms of Racism,” Twenty-Eighth Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Bamako.
11 .   VII “Combating Islamophobia,” Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century, Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Conference, Makkah al Mukarramah — Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 5-6 dhul qa’dah 1426h 7-8 December 2005, at URL: http://www.oic-oci.org/ex-summit/english/10-years-plan.htm.
12.   Keller, Reliance of the Traveller, at § r2.2
13.   Keller, Reliance of the Traveller, at § r2.2
14.   Keller, Reliance of the Traveller, at § r23
15.   Keller, Reliance of the Traveller, at § r2.4
16.   Keller, Reliance of the Traveller, at § r2.6
17.   Keller, Reliance of the Traveller, at § r2.6
18.   Keller, Reliance of the Traveller, at § r2.16
19.   Keller, Reliance of the Traveller, at § r3.1
20.   Keller, Reliance of the Traveller, at § r3.1
21.   “OIC Condemns Publication of Cartoon of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH),” IRNA (Iranian Republic News Agency), Tehran, 31 January 2006, at http://www.workablepeace.org/Cartoons/oic.pdf
22.   Ahmad Maher, “Norwegian Muslims Blast Magazine Over Prophet Cartoon,” 11 January 2006, at http://www.islamonline.net /English/News/2006-01/11/article05.shtml
23.   Jan M. Olson, “Muslim Reaction to Danish Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad Remind some of Rushdie’s Experience,” Associated Press, 10 December 2005, at http://www.nctimes.com/special_reports/religion/article_362349a2-7bcc-5e01-965c-695f659f6e09.html
24.   P.K. Abdul-Ghafour, “Imams Back Call for Danish Boycott in Cartoons Row,” Arab News, 28 January 2006, at http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=76941&d=28&m=1&y=2006
25.   Turki al-Suheil, “Saudi Arabia Recalls Envoy in Danish Row,” Asharq Alawsat, 27 January 2006, at http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=3571.



Previous posts about the OSCE and the Counterjihad:

2009   Jul   25   A Report on the OSCE Roundtable
    Sep   30   ICLA Tackles Fundamental Freedoms at the OSCE Meeting in Warsaw
    Oct   1   The ICLA Meets the OSCE, Round 2
    Nov   5   The OSCE: Islam and Violence Against Women
        7   Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding Under Fire At OSCE Meeting in Vienna
        7   “Hate Speech” Accusations at the OSCE Meeting
        8   What is Medica Zenica?
        10   Report on the OSCE Supplementary Human Rights Dimension Meeting
2011   Oct   28   ESW: Liveblogging In Vienna
        28   Steering Public Discourse
        28   Fallacies That Deserve Correction
        29   Towards a “Responsible” Freedom of Speech in Europe

The End of Freedom of Expression in Europe

EU Skull Dragon


We’ve written numerous times in this space about the European Union’s “framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia”, which was implemented last November and became binding on the member states of the EU. Austria has now passed a law to meet the requirements of the framework decision. The new law will remove what little remains of free speech in Austria, especially as it concerns immigration and Islamization.

On October 19 Andreas Unterberger wrote a strongly-worded dissent against the new law. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff sends this introduction to Mr. Unterberger’s piece:

In November 2010, only a year ago, I said the following at a conference hosted by IFPS:

A milestone in this ominous totalitarian trend will be reached tomorrow, 28 November 2010, when the member states of the European Union are required to implement an innocuous-sounding legal provision known as the “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia”, or, more fully, the “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” According to the final article of the Framework Decision, “Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 28 November 2010.”

This nightmare has become reality ten days ago here in Austria, when parliament passed the new Anti-Terrorism law. The passage of this law was sped up by the Breivik massacre in Norway with the ÖVP (the [formerly] Conservative Party).

We have been silenced. God help us. There is no democracy without freedom of speech.

However, mark my words: As I said in my intervention at yesterday’s OSCE conference, I will continue to speak out. I will not be silenced.

Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

The End of Freedom of Expression: The EU is Responsible, but not Alone

by Andreas Unterberger

EUSSREverything bad comes from the EU: This rapidly growing feeling among European citizens is being further strengthened this week by the Austrian parliament. Over the objections of the opposition, it could decide on the most severe restrictions of basic rights and freedoms which have been imposed on Austrians in the last 60 years. It is true that there were talks up to the last minute about alleviating — or for now only partly enacting — the so-called Terrorism Prevention Law, combined with strengthening of the Incitement Paragraph — which in truth proves to be a Support-of-Islamists Paragraph. It could just stay substantially the same. Every representative you talk to regretfully says with a shrug of the shoulders: We have to do it because of the EU…

Is this excuse correct? Only partly. In truth, in Austria — as in many other countries — there is a great deal of complicity in this law.

It is about extreme toughening of so-called incitement. Anyone who “makes contemptible or attempts to make contemptible” members of a certain group will in future be sentenced to up to two years in prison.

Thus, crimes purely of opinion are punished with prison, as in a dictatorship, even if the things expressed are the absolute truth.

And so, completely indeterminate terms like “make contemptible” are entered into the criminal code as crimes.

This damages the principle of equal treatment, since one may continue to make many groups contemptible, because they are not listed. It is permitted to make contemptible, for instance, entrepreneurs, farmers, priests, the rich, aristocrats, students, families, capitalists, Rotarians, fraternities, teachers, or Freemasons, but not groups defined by race, skin color, language, religion (including the most obscure sects), philosophy, citizenship, ancestry, national or ethnic origin, gender, handicap, age, or sexual orientation (camouflage word for homosexual).

With this, political correctness, which until now has only been concerned with nonsense like “daughter-son” becomes diktat, armed with the sharpest weapons of the state.

Herewith the otherwise taboo concept of “race” enters our law books, which promises some entertaining lawsuits. Until now any scientist or journalist who even used this abominated word was instantly flattened.

The coalition — with the minister of justice the prime culprit — cites the authority of a framework decision of the EU minister of justice of November, 2008 “on legally combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia.”

Therefore: Unfortunately, nothing can be done — at most, leave the EU? Which, despite all the mistakes involving Greece etc., would still cause much damage. Aside from the fact that this framework decision together with the current Austrian law will in fact encourage the sympathy for leaving the Union, it is just a lie to say that Austria and the other member states are mere helpless victims of the EU. For many reasons:


1.   That framework decision could only be enacted with unanimous consent. It is clear that Austria’s minister of justice expressly so agreed in November, 2008. On the basis of the internal constitutional situation, this agreement must have come at least tacitly from the ÖVP, as well and not just from the provisional minister of justice, Maria Berger (who must also live with the fact that, in her time as minister, a charge against her domestic partner was brought by the state prosecutor under dubious circumstances).
2.   This framework decision was consciously routed past any public debate by the politicians. They were completely concentrated on the after-effects of the elections. In the parliament, too, where many ridiculous minutiae are discussed, the decision caught no one’s attention. Most of the media have to this day not comprehended that they are very much victims of this law.
3.   Such frameworks are, according to EU law, by no means to be adopted on a one-for-one basis.
4.   This framework from 2008 explicitly offers the possibility of protecting groups other than those mentioned. An expansion to all social groups would at least have prevented damaging the equality principle of the Austrian constitution.
5.   An EU framework decision does not have the legal quality of an EU guideline or an EU ordinance. In contrast, it came about without the involvement of the EU commission and the EU parliament. Unlike them it is not directly legally actionable.
6.   The text of the framework decision allowed the states “to make punishable only actions which were carried out in such a way as to disturb public order or which represent threats, slanders or insults.” This restriction, too, was not implemented by the law-spinners in the ministry of justice, so in Austria in the future, even truth will be punishable.
7.   The framework decision would also have made it possible for Austria to set a maximum sentence of one year instead of two.
8.   The Austrian government also made no study of how restrictively or extensively other EU states were enacting this framework decision.
9.   The government made no effort to analyze such a drastic restriction of constitutional rights, at least according to the remittal of the framework decision.
10.   The framework decision explicitly emphasizes “the obligation to respect constitutional rights and the rule of law, including freedom of expression and assembly.” But there is no mention of this important qualification in the Austrian law. Naturally, the constitution is not negated by this silence. But this omission is a clear signal that the lawmaker is consciously trying to limit freedom of expression.
11.   The Austrian government is disguising this limitation of constitutional rights by inclusion in an anti-terrorism law, although it has absolutely nothing to do with combating terror.

All these serious sins by Austria indicate a targeted ideological impetus on the part of the Ministry of Justice, in which leftist lawyers have set the tone for decades. And the ÖVP, which is presently leading the ministry, is absolutely incapable of restoring even a suggestion of its one-time juridical competence — from a Walter Hauser through a Felix Ermacora to a Michael Graff. Instead of their like, the ministry is being led for the second time by a token woman. But even among the male colleagues in the ÖVP, there are no qualified jurists.

With a certain schadenfreude, the observer is convinced that many of the representatives who voted for this law will most likely in the coming years be victims of green as well as blue criminal complaints. These charges will provide them a long period of unease.

Independent of these points of national blunder, the decision of the EU minister of justice is itself a scandal. Pure thought-crimes — even the mere mention of real facts — shall bring you before a judge. The EU very likely intends a massive restriction of freedom of expression. If not, then the whole framework decision would have been superfluous — at least where it is directed not only against deeds but against words.

Does anyone still remember that the Union took its place as a protector of basic freedoms and a counter-force to a dictatorship that suppressed freedom of expression?

PS: The first sentence of this text — “Everything bad comes from the EU” — was used by Hugo Portisch (whom I value greatly) at a press conference for the introduction of his new book. Actually, only to distance himself from it. Portisch is of a polar opposite opinion. For him, everything good comes from the EU. With all respect to Portisch: This point of view was still justified in the 1990s. Not any more. And it is exactly an all-too-apologetic and one-sided defense of the EU that puts the Union today in a bad light. And it robs of their credibility all those who think that “Europe” is still sensible in spite of everything.

A Post-Breivik Finland

The Finnish blogger Vasarahammer posted the following guest essay at Tundra Tabloids earlier today. His topic is the post-Breivik crackdown on “Islamophobic” dissidents in Finland, which was much the same as in other Scandinavian countries — and indeed the rest of Europe.

See the original article for the accompanying photos.



A Post-Breivik Finland
by Vasarahammer

Breivik’s terror attack occurred in July at the time most of the Finns enjoy their summer holiday. That did not prevent the media storm that followed. It was made worse by the fact that a Finnish MP was quoted in Breivik’s manifesto even though indirectly. Fjordman quoted Jussi Halla-aho in one of his essays, which was copy-pasted to the manifesto created by the mass murderer Breivik.

The most hostile reaction came from the Social Democrats. The party secretary Mikael Jungner (pictured left) demanded that Halla-aho should resign from his position as the chairman of the Administrative committee in the Finnish parliament.

The stated reason was the fact that the mass murderer Breivik mentioned Halla-aho’s name in his manifesto. It did not matter to Jungner or the Finnish MSM that it was not Breivik who quoted Halla-aho but Fjordman. Still, a “second-hand” quote was enough to launch a witch hunt.

The biggest Finnish daily, the Helsingin Sanomat, had previously “revealed” that Halla-aho has connections to the “anti-Islamic” Gates of Vienna blog.

Aftermath

The Helsingin Sanomat article written by Jukka Huusko painted a grim picture of Halla-aho’s ties to the sinister Counterjihad movement. Huusko relied heavily on information provided by Jussi Jalonen, a war historian from the University of Tampere and a long-time critic of Halla-aho.

The article included a picture of Gates of Vienna blog and it said that Halla-aho was listed as a correspondent. This implied that Halla-aho was an active participant of the anti-Islamic subculture and that he drew the ideas from there. The target was to belittle Halla-aho and to present a view that Halla-aho is not an original thinker of his own right but just passively imitating ideas coming from abroad.

The biggest shock for me was, of course, that yours truly was also mentioned by Helsingin Sanomat as a correspondent of the infamous Gates of Vienna blog. My real name was not mentioned but HS published the identity of the man behind the Tundra Tabloids without his consent. The Finnish MSM would never publish the name of a suspected criminal belonging to a minority reserved for special protection, but KGS’s real name was there in the article under the heading “Mass murder in Norway”.

I could not have imagined when I started my blog Vasarahammer five years ago that the name of the blog would one day be mentioned in these circumstances in the pages of Helsingin Sanomat. However, I also realized that it was not me who was the target of witch hunt, but Halla-aho.

I also knew how Halla-aho became a correspondent in the infamous Gates of Vienna, since I translated Halla-aho’s first article at Gates of Vienna, a blog that has always been willing to publish articles concerning Finnish affairs for an international audience.

The fact that Gates of Vienna lists yours truly and Halla-aho as a correspondent is not evidence of some sinister conspiracy but a compliment that proves the common decency of the GoV administrators. They give credit where the credit is due and do not steal other people’s ideas and present them as their own.

Analysis of the Counter jihad movement

Jussi Jalonen has at times found it difficult to hide his contempt of Halla-aho and the so called “immigration-critical movement” as the Finns opposed to mass immigration and often critical of Islam are described. He has previously predicted that the movement will soon fade and be forgotten. He found his chance to hasten the demise of immigration critics when Breivik fired his fatal shots at Utøya island.

The problem with Jalonen is not the lack of contempt but the shallowness in his analysis. Jalonen attempted to paint a picture of a sinister network of counterjihadists who hate Islam and Muslims with a passion. He was given a chance to describe the Counterjihad movement as an expert in the Yle current affairs program, but he only managed to utter a few words about “former Maoist” Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller’s drinking problem. Even though the Yle journalist browsed sites like Brussels Journal and Gates of Vienna, Jalonen failed to capitalize his moment in the limelight. Jalonen describes Gates of Vienna blog:

The administrator of Gates of Vienna, who uses a pseudonym Baron Bodissey, is a typical example. They practically hate Muslims and oppose Islam in its entirety in a very blatant way.

It is painfully obvious even for an ignorant viewer that Jalonen is out there to smear and not to analyze.

Toby Archer from the Finnish Institute of International Affairs did not go as far as Jalonen but was equally dismissive in his analysis of Counterjihad in his essay “Learning to love the Jews: the impact of the War on Terror and the counter-jihad blogosphere on European far right parties”.

Archer acknowledges that “the Counter-jihad” movement is a loose network and not a conspiracy. However, he fails to understand the root causes and tries to present the Counterjihad and European far right politicians as Jew-loving Nazis. Archer claims that the ideology of Counterjihad is essentially based on Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia conspiracy theory.

The support of Israel is seen by Archer as a window dressing. He describes the so called far right parties in Europe:

…populist right parties in Europe that have adopted a pro-Israeli position ensure logic of the counterjihad discourse and, in doing so, it has provided them with a number of advantages. Firstly they have constructed a new, non-race based anti-immigrant politics whilst shielding themselves from the most obvious criticism leveled at the far-right in the past — that of antisemitism and being seen as a legacy of Nazism and, hence, connected to the destruction that Nazism wrought on the continent. In disavowing antisemitism, they are reconstructing themselves as more mainstream parties within the European context, whilst gaining electoral advantage by criticising Islam which has become a concern of many in Europe. It has also provided these parties with allies across the Atlantic, and with greater distance from the street level of European politics they have found less critical access to more mainstream conservative media and opinion formers in the United States.

While there may have been some rethinking of positions concerning Israel, Archer tries to question the sincerity of support for Israel by presenting it as naked opportunism. Also the Counterjihad movement is not the product of real concerns, but only a reaction to globalization. As Archer puts it:

the counter-jihad discourse is a reaction to the instability wrought by globalization, that as well as bringing levels of wealth and comfort to the majority of Europeans not seen before, also brings change to societies and economies and means they have much to lose.

Neither Jalonen nor Archer see the actual causes and events that made it happen. Islam is just an imaginary threat created by paranoid internet bloggers. They think that globalization just happens and equate Islamization with globalization. Jalonen has publicly stated that there is no such thing as Islamization.

I would argue that most of those critical of Islam and supportive of Israel realize the nature of the threat faced by Israel. Palestinians are not a nation seeking independence but Muslim Arabs who hate the Jews and aim at the destruction of the Jewish state. It is actually not very hard to see this, but it is much harder to recognize it because it goes against the picture painted by the school system, leading politicians and mass media of Palestinians as innocent victims of Israeli aggression.

When it comes to the threat posed by large scale Islamic immigration, it is not difficult to find examples of failed integration, welfare dependency and open hostility to the infidel nation-state among Muslim immigrants in Europe.

Breivik as a tool for smearing

Anders Breivik has turned out to be a handy tool not only to those wanting to smear the Counterjihad, but also to feminists and far-left academics. Jemima Repo, a young scholar of political science in the University of Helsinki explains in an op-ed published by Helsingin Sanomat, wrote how anti-feminism and misogyny played a large role in Anders Breivik’s thinking.

Repo finds out that Breivik was also inspired by anti-feminists such as Robert Bork and Fjordman. According to Repo, the policies of secularized welfare state have helped to increase indecency of women, feminization of men and decay of marriage. This leads to “the extinction of Nordic race”. Repo concludes her article with a bold statement:

“Racism, in which far-right thinking is based, is strongly connected to other hate ideologies and it cannot be fought against without taking into account far right misogyny and anti-feminism. They are dangerous ideologies that must be denounced in the same way as racism.”

Repo wants to imply that opposition to feminism and its excesses puts you in the same camp as Breivik. There is no mention of Islamic misogyny in Repo’s article, which, of course, is hardly surprising.

Another Finnish academic who featured prominently in the post-Breivik scapegoating was far left academic Mikko S. Lehtonen, Professor of Media Culture in the University of Tampere. Lehtonen’s background is in the pro-Soviet Taistoist movement of the 1970’s, and he also participated in the activities of heavily politicized student organization Teiniliitto (Teen League).

Lehtonen has recently published a book called The meaning of 9/11 (Syyskuun yhdennentoista merkitys). The mass murder in Utøya prompted Lehtonen to rewrite the foreword to his book, and in his new foreword, which can be found on the internet in Finnish, Lehtonen switched the focus from 9/11 to 7/22.

In a typical far left fashion Lehtonen turns things around in order to present a view that fits his worldview. He describes the initial reaction to Oslo bombing:

The perpetrators were spontaneously assumed to be radical Islamists, even though the manner of operation pointed to another direction, namely to the 1995 Oklahoma city bomber Timothy McVeigh. He also created his bomb using ammonium nitrate, used Glock 17 pistol and Ruger Mini 14 rifle.

The target of the Oslo bombing was to cause a maximum number of civilian casualties. This pointed to radical Islamists. The choice of bombing material and weapons was not known initially and probably was not considered significant at the time.

Lehtonen moves on to explore the “root causes” of Breivik’s act. The man was not crazy but heavily influenced by “hate speech”:

The immediate context of the Oslo massacre is the far right thinking and activism that has gained ground in Europe during the recent decades.

Several commentators have emphasized that the mass murderer was not a lone nut. As terrorism expert Marc Sageman pointed out, the writings of the counter-jihadists were the necessary prerequisite that created Breivik.

The talk of Oslo killer as a lone nut turns attention away from far-right hate speech, which should be handled with zero tolerance.

Lehtonen is not the first far-left, anti-racist academic to use the term “zero tolerance” in this context, but in the aftermath of Breivik’s attacks it more or less became fashionable to advocate censorship in this way. Lehtonen’s book is intended for Finnish audience so logically he does his best to demonize Jussi Halla-aho and the immigration-critical movement:

Halla-aho’s culturally tuned racism works so that he first divides people into two groups, “us” and “them”. “Us” is the starting point in the comparison, a given norm. It provides the foundations, with which the world is placed in order and with which strong positive or negative feelings are combined.

Lehtonen first states that Halla-aho is not responsible for Breivik’s act in the judicial sense. However, he still thinks that Halla-aho is “ethically responsible”:

…he should ask himself, whether he has participated in the development and spreading of the patterns of thought that resulted in denying dozens of people the fundamental human right- the right to life.

The fact that the postmodern left equates thought with action hardly surprises anyone. Moving further in Lehtonen’s footsteps would lead to censorship and persecution of dissidents very much the same way as in the Soviet Union, formerly the model society of Lehtonen and his ilk.

In the Marxist utopia there were not to be any class differences. In Lehtonen’s multiculturalist utopia people are not divided into “us” and “them”. Supporters of any political utopia do not respond kindly to criticism but rather attempt to silence those who dare to express forbidden ideas. They label the critics as “enemies of the people” or, as today’s multiculturalists do, “racists and xenophobes”. In doing this they are guilty of the same crime that they accuse their opponents of. They divide the world into “us” who think the right kind of thoughts and “them”, who don’t.

One thing that Breivik managed to do in addition to murdering dozens of innocent people was to provide more ammunition to those seeking to shut down the debate about multiculturalism and the influence of Islam in the West.

Towards a “Responsible” Freedom of Speech in Europe

OSCE logoAs we reported last night, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff represented Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa yesterday at an OSCE meeting in Vienna. The Austrian news paper Der Standard reported on the event yesterday evening in the following article.

Many thanks to JLH for the translation.

Congress in Vienna

European Muslims Demand Guidelines Against Islamophobia

“Freedom of speech in Europe entails responsibility”

Vienna — The initiative of European Muslims for Social Solidarity is demanding guidelines against Islamophobia in public discourse. Freedom of speech in Europe implies responsibility, which is often forgotten by political leaders and journalists, said General Secretary Bashy Quraishy on Friday in Vienna at a congress of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europa (OSCE).

Islamophobia has established itself in public discourse in Western society, lamented participants of the congress against discrimination and intolerance against Muslims. “From prejudices, we have advanced to an institutional racism in which any visible sign of Islamic faith is perceived as a threat,” said Ermine Bozkurt, Socialist representative in the European parliament.


Muslims do not want special treatment, but the same protection that has existed for a long time against homophobia and anti-Semitism, opined Quraishy.

Criticism of the congress came from Citizens’ Organization Pax Europa (Bürgervereinigung Pax Europa [sic, should be Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa]). There was, said delegation leader Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, no reason for special treatment of Muslims, since they had the same rights as all others anyway.

Earlier this year, the OSCE had already discussed anti-Semitism and crimes against Christians.



Previous posts about the OSCE and the Counterjihad:

2009   Jul   25   A Report on the OSCE Roundtable
    Sep   30   ICLA Tackles Fundamental Freedoms at the OSCE Meeting in Warsaw
    Oct   1   The ICLA Meets the OSCE, Round 2
    Nov   5   The OSCE: Islam and Violence Against Women
        7   Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding Under Fire At OSCE Meeting in Vienna
        7   “Hate Speech” Accusations at the OSCE Meeting
        8   What is Medica Zenica?
        10   Report on the OSCE Supplementary Human Rights Dimension Meeting
2011   Oct   28   ESW: Liveblogging In Vienna
        28   Steering Public Discourse
        28   Fallacies That Deserve Correction

Gates of Vienna News Feed 10/28/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 10/28/2011A young Muslim from Serbia named Mevlid Jasarevic used an AK-47 to fire shots at the American embassy in Sarajevo today, wounding two security guards. The assailant hung around across the street afterwards, and a few minutes later was shot and wounded (some reports say killed) by a police sniper.

In other news, the unemployment rate in Spain has reached a record 21.5%.

And now for the weather. This is not in the news feed, but our regional forecast says that we will have sleet tomorrow morning. Can you believe it? Sleet! On October 29th, in Central Virginia!

I might as well move to Aalborg. At least the beer would be better there.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Egghead, Fjordman, Freedom Fighter, Insubria, JP, Kitman, Nilk, Srdja Trifkovic, Steen, Van Grungy, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Must Catholics Make Room for Muslims?

A controversy erupted a few days ago at Catholic University in Washington D.C., where a lawyer filed a civil rights complaint about the university’s alleged failure to accommodate Muslim students adequately.

The video below features a heated argument on the issue from Sean Hannity’s TV program. It’s a shame Mr. Hannity and Jay Sekulow spent so much time shouting down Ibrahim Ramey, the Muslim spokesman on the show. I would have been interested to hear him answer the questions fully.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video: