Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/31/2012

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/31/2012Today seems to be the day for Twitter crimes at the Olympics. A Swiss soccer player was thrown out of the games for a “racist” tweet about South Koreans. A teenage boy in Weymouth was arrested for sending a malicious tweet about a British platform diver. And Twitter itself alerted the staff of NBC about a newspaper correspondent’s negative tweets about NBC coverage of the Olympics. The Twitter people also explained to NBC about how it could file a complaint.

In other news, the Swiss Central Bank is considering imposing negative interest rates — in effect, charging depositors a fee to park their money in Switzerland — in order to slow the inflow of capital, which is driving the franc up against other currencies.

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

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Fjordman, JD, JP, Nick, Nilk, RR, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

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.

Presione 2 Para Español

Institute of Islam, Houston


The rate of conversion to Islam among Hispanics in the USA has is such that a Spanish-language Institute of Islam has been founded in Texas.

The following report is from the Spanish-language version of Web Islam. Many thanks to our Spanish correspondent Hermes for the translation:

The institute for Islam is born

It was the demand of the growing Spanish-speaking Muslim community in the USA

The Institute of Islam has been created in order to respond to the demands of a growing Spanish-speaking Muslim community in the USA. But their objectives are not restricted just to the North American country.

In the beginning, they could be counted on the fingers of two hands, but later they began to increase by the dozens. Now there are hundreds. The number of converted Latinos choosing Islam as their new way of life increases weekly.

The Institute of Islam, an initiative of the Houston Institute of Islam, was created in light of this massive growth of the Muslim community. The purpose of the institute is to fill the gap of the institutionalization of Islam in the Spanish-speaking world, keeping itself far from political issues and focusing on Islamic knowledge as an acceptable perspective for other monotheistic religions. Apart from this, the Institute of Islam will promote and call on Muslims to an interfaith dialogue in order to achieve a better understanding between the different faiths.


The teaching staff of the Institute of Islam, a body which is formed by scholars and researchers working on a doctorate and master’s degree as well as other professionals from the field of Islamic theology, which had already been organizing conferences, seminaries, talks and events in order to spread knowledge about Islam, turns now into an independent body which will focus exclusively on the Spanish-speaking community. This independence will not imply an opening towards other Islamic communities, and the same principles about dialogue and mutual understanding will be applied regarding the relationship with them.

Internet users can find on their webpage videos answering the basic questions about Islamic principles, creation, the Quran, the prophets, etc… More videos about related issues will be added weekly to the multimedia archive. There will also be such sections as a “public library”, a forum in order to answer to questions regarding Islam, and a section containing jutbas for the Friday prayers. In this section, volunteers wishing to offer their jutbas to be recited in other mosques will have the chance to do it. Other sections will be added according to other requirements.

The Institute of Islam invites the whole Spanish-speaking Muslim community to visit its webpage and to make criticisms and suggestions destined to improve its services.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/30/2012

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/30/2012The latest reports indicate that British Muslims have traveled to Syria from Birmingham and Greater London to take part in the jihad against the Assad regime. A recently released British journalist who had been kidnapped in Syria heard Birmingham and South London accents among his captors.

In other news, the German minister for the environment says that despite his country’s cutback in energy use, new coal and gas power stations are needed to make up for the phasing out of nuclear energy.

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

Thanks to C. Cantoni, CSP, Fjordman, GM, JP, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

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.

Fanning Ourselves

Fan girl #1Cheradenine Zakalwe of Islam versus Europe has once again taken up the issue of “human rights” as the term is employed by members of the Counterjihad movement. He broached this theme several weeks ago, with specific reference to the Brussels Conference, which at that point had just concluded.

His latest piece approaches the same topic in a more general way, and raises a number of important questions that we would all do well to consider. The distinction between negative rights — the right to be left alone by the state, the right to be secure in one’s person and property, the right not to detained without due process — and positive rights — the right to “free” health care, the right to a job, a state-backed minimum income for every citizen, etc. — is crucial. At bottom, it is the difference between liberty and authoritarian socialism.

It is quite true that the term “human rights” has an alarming plasticity of meaning, and is bandied about without being properly defined. It is also true that the concept is frequently abused for corrupt political ends, to prop up the most illiberal regimes, expand bureaucracy, and strengthen intrusive state surveillance — all ostensibly to protect human rights.

Mr. Zakalwe is right to question the extent to which members of the Counterjihad subscribe to the tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But how monolithic are we in this regard? Do we, the opponents of sharia and Islamization, form a bloc that has a uniform and consistent position on “human rights”?

I can only speak for myself: I hold the UDHR in relatively low esteem. Parts of it are fine — the normal guarantees of liberty that one would demand and expect. But there’s also a lot of socialist claptrap, such as this:

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

And this:

Article 23. (2)

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

And this:

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

And even this:

Article 25. (1)

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

So the UDHR is not a document that I, as a red-blooded American patriot who reveres the Bill of Rights, would ever promote.

But I am not a European, and Europe is still almost uniformly socialist. There is no respite from socialism in Europe. From Oslo to Athens, from Helsinki to Lisbon: they all seem to love the paraphernalia of the welfare state.

As the statist economies of the Eurozone circle the drain, voters turn out in droves to throw out the center-right rascals and install the True Socialists — as if more socialism would cure the European Disease.

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


The above is just the prelude for a discussion of Cheradenine Zakalwe’s “Questions for the Human Rights Fanboys and Fangirls Within the Counterjihad Movement”. Leaving aside his contentious and adversarial tone — after all, this is the blogosphere, so we’re used to that — does what he say have merit? Are his generalizations valid? Are his questions worth addressing?

The answers are: a qualified yes; no; and definitely yes.

I’ve omitted some of his text for brevity’s sake; visit his blog to read the whole thing. Passages that deserve special attention have been bolded:

Any member of the Counterjihad movement who supports the idea of human rights must take a public position on the way the idea has been implemented in modern Europe. An abundance of news reports make it clear that human rights judges are facilitating the islamisation of Europe and its demographic conquest by third-worlders generally.

Why “must” we take a public position, within parameters defined by Islam versus Europe? I have made my own position abundantly clear many times, for anyone who cares to read it. What else is necessary?

Hear ye this triton of the minnows? Mark you
His absolute ‘shall’?


No, thanks. There’s no need for me to go over it again. And the rest of the Counterjihad can speak for itself.

Presumably, Counterjihadists do not support this. Yet still they do support the idea of human rights.

Who are “they”? What, specifically, do they support?

Is it the UDHR? Or something else?

…There has to be at least some doubt about the moral validity of supporting an abstract system of ideas while distancing yourself from all its real-world implementations. As I’ve said before, this is like the diehard Communists who claim real Communism has never been tried yet. […] But let’s skip this point for now and, for the sake of pursuing the discussion, generously concede that these Counterjihadists may support human rights without bearing any blame for all of its damaging real-world implementations.

This is a valid point. Anyone who supports all those loathsome socialist clauses of the UDHR is, consciously or otherwise, aiding and abetting those forces that are destroying Western Civilization.

The only question is: How many “Counterjihadists” actually do so? And who are they?

Go ahead and name names. We’re grownups; we can take it.

Even then the very fact that Counterjihadists distance themselves from the way the human rights racket operates in modern Europe undermines the validity of the concept itself. Our interpretation of what human rights should be differs from that of the judges, they would presumably retort. But the whole idea of human rights is that they embody fundamental moral entitlements. If decent, rational people can disagree about what these moral entitlements are, it suggests they are something less than fundamental. But if human rights do not embody primal moral claims but simply competing political agendas, the idea itself loses all ethical force. It becomes clear that human rights, like war of old, has simply become a continuation of politics by other means. But the appropriate way to pursue political agendas is through the ballot box. And the cheapened concept of human rights is revealed to be no more inherently deserving of respect than the average party political manifesto issued by the latest gang of crooks in power.

Once again, this is hard to argue with. Human rights, as commonly defined by “international law”, are nebulous and ill-delineated. They are widely abused by the governments of all Western (and non-Western) nations for corrupt and self-seeking purposes.

But how much of the Counterjihad espouses such pernicious flim-flam? Everyone I work with spits on “international law”.

Did I miss something?

[…]

Furthermore, these human rights supporters who oppose the advance of Islam ought to explain how exactly it is that they envisage the idea of human rights operating in Europe. I realise that, like the multicultists they claim to oppose, their commitment to bringing betterment to the lives of non-Europeans is so profound that it must be awfully boring for them to have their attention dragged back to their own continent. […]

Really, now.

Precisely who is demonstrating his “commitment to bringing betterment to the lives of non-Europeans”?

Most of us would allow the Third World to either rot or prosper, without our help, as it sees fit. What did I miss?

If we’re all to be tarred with the same brush, we at least need to know who some of the alleged culprits are.

Now we get to the meat of Mr. Zakalwe’s essay. He posed the following questions in a single paragraph, but I have listed them separately so that they may be individually addressed.

Here are some questions that need to be answered. Do you agree with the standard formulations of human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Except for the parts that agree with the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution: No.

If not, what version of human rights do you prefer?

See the answer immediately above.

Do you have a written formulation of what you believe our human rights are?

Ditto.

Do you believe that human rights should be justiciable in modern Europe?

No.

Or said differently: do you believe that we should have human rights courts with the power to invalidate laws passed by elected governments?

No.

If you believe human rights judges have got their interpretation of human rights wrong, how can you possibly justify creating an undemocratic monster with the power to invalidate laws?

I can’t, and I wouldn’t. Are you still beating your wife?

And once it has been created, and is making these “wrong” interpretations of human rights, what do you propose to do about it?

Non sequitur.

Since you have made it immune to democracy, because you don’t trust democracy […], what do you do when it starts to go rogue and make unsound decisions about issues critical to the future of Europe?

None of us really trusts democracy; we all know what it is capable of. But as far as I’m concerned, Sir Winston Churchill had the last word on that topic.

Next comes this assertion:

Your only strategy is to keep spreading anti-Islam propaganda in the hope that it will one day percolate through to the elites who comprise and appoint the human rights judges. But elite membership depends on public acceptance of the very moral ideals that are responsible for the islamisation of Europe. […]

This is not my only strategy, nor even my main one. Perhaps there is someone else in our movement who adheres to the stated plan, and could speak in defense of it. But not I.

There are never answers to these questions from the human rights fanboys and fangirls within the Counterjihad movement. There are no answers because there can be no answers. To even ask the questions is to expose the foolish inconsistency of the ideas and the fact that those who expound them haven’t properly thought the issue through. They are simply roping in the phrase “human rights” because it adds a bit of moral glamour to their cause and helps deflect accusations of racism/imperialism/islamophobia. But that’s not good enough. The idea that all religions are inherently deserving of respect is what is allowing Islam to make its advances. That idea comes straight out of the standard human rights charters. It’s not on our side. It’s what we’re fighting against.

Well, now there are some answers, at least from this one insignificant fanboy.

My guess, however, is that my answers are not good enough. They will fail the manifold rigorous tests of doctrinal purity, as they always have in the past.

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


Fan girl #2I don’t claim to be an expert on the entirety of the Counterjihad movement, so I can’t knowledgeably determine whether Cheradenine Zakalwe is in fact fighting a straw man.

All I can address is my own little backwater of the movement, which happens to be libertarian rather than statist in its general character. If you examine the writings of Henrik Ræder Clausen, or listen to Lars Hedegaard’s talk in Brussels, you’ll discover a strong emphasis on individual liberty, negative rights, and the free market.

One can only presume that the real issue that sticks in Mr. Zakalwe’s craw is the use of the phrase “human rights” at the Brussels conference and in the Brussels Declaration. Even though there was no reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he may be forgiven for assuming that this was in fact what the framers of our Declaration intended.

But this is not the case. As one of the organizers of the Brussels event, I can attest to how much careful attention was given to the wording of the Brussels Declaration, to make it compatible with both American values and those commonly held in Europe.

One of the clauses I read out in Brussels reasserted that “Human rights and liberties are universal, individual, equal, inalienable, and self-evident irrespective of philosophical, cultural or religious considerations, as a matter of long-held principle.”

There’s nothing in that text to justify the assertions made by Mr. Zakalwe in his essay. I wouldn’t have been willing to read it into the microphone if I weren’t ready to sign off on it.

Fan girl #3For our larger purposes, however, the phrase “human rights” is actually useful, even though it conjures up the shade of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because the UDHR contradicts the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.

That’s right. Despite its odious socialist clauses, and regardless of its statism, the UDHR cannot coexist with the Cairo Declaration. The two documents are fundamentally incompatible.

For those who prefer to think strategically, the occasional invocation of the UDHR is actually a good strategy. All Western governments are signatories of it, which means that all of them have repudiated the OIC, the Cairo Declaration, and Shariah. By waving the UDHR in their faces, we force our dhimmi leaders to make a crucial decision: to assert the incompatibility of the Cairo Declaration with our most fundamental liberties, or to submit to Islam.

For that reason the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has its uses.

For myself, however, I prefer this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But until Islam is consigned to the dustbin of history, I’ll take what I can get.

The Wearing of the Burka

Alain Wagner is the Chairman of the International Civil Liberties Alliance, and was one of the moderators and speakers at the recent Brussels Conference.

He appeared tonight on Michael Coren’s SUN TV program to talk about the incident last Friday in Marseille (reported here in the news feed a couple of nights ago; see the Telegraph article) in which a group of Muslims brawled with police over the latter’s attempt to enforce the no-burka law. The dénouement of the whole sordid affair came when political pressure forced the Marseille police to release the brawlers in order to appease Muslim sentiment during Ramadan.

Below is Alain’s report from Paris:

Olympic Opening Ceremony Hijacked by Far Left

Paul Weston has uncovered some repugnant background information on the illustrious cultural icons who designed the opening ceremony at the London Olympics.

The following article was published earlier today at the British Freedom website.

O*****c SSR


Olympic Opening Ceremony Hijacked by Far Left
by Paul Weston

The shocking details in this article really ought to be headline news around the world, but investigative journalism is not what it used to be. The London Olympics opening ceremony was hijacked by Communist sympathisers working for the main director Danny Boyle.

Labour Party MPs are already boasting that the opening ceremony was a socialist event and the “best advert for the party in years”. Conservative MPs are privately muttering about the very obvious left-wing bias — as well they might.

Danny Boyle worked with one scriptwriter and four selected assistant directors to stage the opening and closing ceremonies. The five are:

  • Frank Cottrell Boyce: Scriptwriter for the opening ceremony and a personal friend of Danny Boyle. Cottrell Boyce started his career writing for the far-left magazine Living Marxism which had initially been launched in 1988 as The Journal of the British Revolutionary Communist Party.
  • Stephen Daldry: Theatre and film director, producer, and three-time Academy Award nominated director; his films include Billy Elliott. Daldry was also a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) at Sheffield University in the 1980s, something he has said gave him a “political education”. The SWP describes itself as Anti-Capitalist and Revolutionary.
  • Catherine Ugwu: Creative Director and theatrical producer. Author of Lets Get It on: The Politics of Black Performance and Enigmas of Race, Difference and Desire. Her work is quoted on reading lists centred on Marxism and Black Liberation Theology.

The two remaining assistant directors are Hamish Hamilton, a TV and film expert and Mark Fisher who was responsible for the sets. Both appear politically impartial and were clearly chosen for their necessary skills only.

Many people around the world noted the overt political and multicultural slant of the opening ceremony. Now we know why.

The British government now needs to answer some serious questions. The Olympics are supposed to be politically impartial. Allowing the opening ceremony to be produced by communist sympathisers and a woman with links to black liberation theology is a political scandal of international proportion.



Paul Weston is Chairman of the British Freedom Party.

Previous posts:

2007   Jan   22   The Week Britain Died
        26   Britain’s Dystopian School Children
    Feb   2   Questioning the Sanity of Liberals
    Mar   1   Multiculturalism — Merits and Debits
        31   Is European Civil War Inevitable by 2025?
    Jun   26   The Big Story That Isn’t
    Aug   10   An Open Letter to Fellow Europeans
        24   A Brussels Perspective
    Sep   12   Democratic Europe R.I.P.
    Nov   2   The Coming Third World War
        21   Cool War — Warm War — Hot War: Part 1
        29   Cool War — Warm War — Hot War: Part 2
2008   Mar   27   The Face of Moderate Islam in Britain
2009   Feb   9   Wilders in Wonderland
        13   Who is Lord Ahmed?
        25   Temporary Peace Trumps Freedom of Speech
    Jul   1   Muslims, Mosques and Mosquitoes
        2   Islam, the BBC, and Young Children
        8   Review of “A Bridge Too Far”
        17   Socialist Propaganda in British Education
    Oct   15   Multiculturalism Has Destroyed the British Police
2010   Mar   16   Ethnically Cleansing the English
    Oct   7   Banana Republic Britain
        30   “We Will Hold You to Account”
    Dec   5   The Metaphorical Front Line of Islam
        5   The West Needs to Wake Up
        7   Land for Peace — Or Land for a Terror State?
2011   May   20   Why Is This Not Treason?
    Jun   1   One Week in the Death of Britain
    Jul   11   The Multi-Layered Betrayal of Britain
        29   The BBC, Breivik, the EDL and Islam
    Aug   7   Down’s Syndrome Babies, Sarah Palin and the BBC
    Sep   5   Clone These Men!
    Nov   27   The Totalitarian EU Tightens Its Grip
    Dec   6   One Rule for Them, One Rule for Us
        7   Muslim Misogyny, Feminist Indifference
        13   Interview with Paul Weston
2012   Jan   10   Racism and Media Double Standards in Britain
        13   How To Destroy A Country — Part 1
        14   How To Destroy A Country — Part 2
        15   How To Destroy A Country — Part 3
    Feb   20   “We Ran Out of Other People’s Money”
    Mar   1   NER Interview with Paul Weston
        1   Unite Against Freedom!
        2   Form Letter to MPs Who Endorse Unite Against Fascism
        2   Transforming Britain Into Lebanon
        12   Paul Weston: The CAN Interview
        13   Representing the Ideology and Law of Sharia
        15   Does Moderate Islam Really Exist?
        28   Muslim Paedophiles, Feminists and Future Civil War
        30   George Galloway, Islam and Britain’s Future
    Apr   12   Paul Weston at the British Freedom Party Meeting
        23   On Being English
    May   2   Celebrating Multicultural Madness
        12   Muslim Rape, Liberal/Left Complicity
        28   Saudi Arabia Buys Oxford
        30   Raceless Rape Exposes BBC Deceit
    Jun   8   The White Diamond Jubilee
        15   British Freedom’s 20 Point Plan
        15   Transcript of the 20 Points
        18   Multi-Culti Child Snatchers
    Jul   26   British Freedom: The Chairman’s Statement

Fjordman: Inside the Brussels Conference on Free Speech and Human Rights

Brussels 2012: Panel discussion


Fjordman has published an account of the Brussels Conference at FrontPage Mag.

To accompany Fjordman’s essay, Vlad Tepes compiled this video of conference highlights:



Steen kindly supplied a number of photos for the article, and they may be seen by visiting FrontPage.

Excerpts from Fjordman’s account are below:

After the meeting was concluded, Richard Howitt, a Socialist Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from England, demanded an investigation after so-called right-wingers allegedly “hijacked” the parliament’s facilities for a “hate” meeting involving people such as Tommy Robinson from the English Defence League (EDL).

Howitt challenged the European Parliament to probe what he called this “mis-use” of its premises, adding that “I have written to the president of parliament to complain about the use of our facilities to raise funds for such hate organisations.” For the record: No organization, neither the EDL nor any other group, engaged in fund-raising at the conference. Howitt’s statement was an absolute falsehood.

Richard Howitt has been a member of the Labour Party’s policy-making National Policy Forum since 1994 in Britain. On his own website, he states that among his main priorities are “using EU powers to fight discrimination and promote equality in all fields” and to work for the full EU membership of Muslim Turkey. He represents the true face of Eurabia.

The EU Parliament’s current president is Martin Schulz, a German career Socialist of over four decades who since 2004 has been the leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament.


As Lars Hedegaard commented dryly, MEP Richard Howitt is happy to meet with Muslim supporters of terrorism, but he wants peaceful supporters of liberty to be rejected by the European Parliament. Howitt has accepted visitors associated with the terrorist organization Hamas. Besides, the facilities had been made available for this meeting in a perfectly legal manner by the Belgian MEP Philip Claeys.

What impressed me the most about the audience at the event is that a depressingly large proportion of those who attended have experienced demonization in the press, sometimes legal harassment or had their careers impeded because of their politically incorrect activities. This clampdown on those who protest against Islam, mass immigration and Multiculturalism may well grow even worse in the future, as problems pile up and those most responsible for creating these problems in the first place look for some convenient scapegoats to blame for their mistakes.

Many of those who attended knew fully well that they might be targeted with more personal attacks and hate campaigns from the forces of Islam and their Western apologists, but they nevertheless remained steadfast in their commitment to this work. I have been continuously impressed by the dedication and personal courage these individuals and groups have displayed for years. They continue, despite the high personal costs.

I talked to a couple of friends after the meeting had been concluded. We agreed that it had been a major success. More people attended this meeting than any other since the previous Brussels meeting in 2007, and many of them were intelligent and highly motivated individuals from different countries. That displays real passion and determination.

One of my friends suggested that these people might be mentioned in the history books 50 years from now, and in a more positive manner than they are talked about in the mass media now. I’m not sure whether this is true, but you never know. It’s more interesting making history than reading about it.

All in all, I left Brussels with a renewed sense of optimism. I saw a lot of quiet courage on display. Those who participated knew that we have a large and growing proportion of the European public behind us. People are fed-up with being told lies about the alleged wonders of mass immigration and multiculturalism when our cities are sinking beyond the control of our laws and numerous suburbs no longer form a part of European civilization. They know that they are being lied to when their mass media and politicians claim that Islam is a religion of peace and a natural part of European civilization. It is not, never has been and never will be so.

The tide of public anger and frustration with dishonest political elites who no longer represent our best interests is rising. The ruling elites are trying to stem this rising tide through “racism” charges, intimidation and “hate speech” laws. This will only work for a while. Eventually, reality will catch up with them.

We will win this in the end, but the struggle could become longer and harder than most of us would like before this is over.

Read the rest at FrontPage Mag.



Previous posts about the Brussels Process:

2012   Jul   11   Beginning the Brussels Process
        11   The Brussels Declaration
        11   What is Sharia?
        11   The Brussels Conference
        11   Conference Agenda
        11   Conference Speaker Bios
        11   Brussels 2012 Defender of Freedom Award
        11   Proceedings — Brussels 2012
        11   Interview with Tommy Robinson at the European Parliament
        11   Press Release: Brussels Process Launched
        12   Pointing the Way for Freedom of Speech and the Press
        12   Brussels 2012: Prof. Hans Jansen’s Speech
        12   Tommy Robinson Speaks at the European Parliament
        12   The Death Throes of Free Speech in Europe
        13   “You Can’t Hide the Truth”
        14   Brussels 2012: Magdi Allam’s Speech
        14   The Crossroads of History
        15   “Toto, I Have a Feeling We’re Not in Sweden Anymore”
        15   Brussels 2012: Nidra Poller’s Speech
        16   The Islam Critics’ Conference in Brussels
        16   Brussels 2012: Gavin Boby’s Speech
        17   Tommy Robinson in Brussels
        17   Brussels 2012: Pierre Cassen’s Speech
        19   Brussels 2012: Alexandre del Valle’s Speech
        19   Brussels 2012: Pierre Cassen’s Speech, Subtitled in English
        20   The Reading of the Brussels Declaration
        21   Brussels 2012: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s Speech
        21   Déclaration de Bruxelles 9 juillet 2012
        21   Brussels 2012: Lars Hedegaard’s Speech
        25   Brussels 2012: Ingrid Carlqvist’s Speech
        26   Brussels 2012: The Panel Discussion
        29   Introducing Europe to the Jurisdiction of the Shariah State

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/29/2012

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/29/2012Fighting between Philippine soldiers and Abu Sayyaf mujahideen on the island of Basilan in the autonomous Muslim region of Mindanao has left sixteen people dead. Among those killed, twelve are reportedly soldiers.

In other news, Japan racked up a record trade deficit of more than $37 billion during the first half of 2012.

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

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Insubria, JD, McR, Nick, Nilk, Steen, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

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.

Introducing Europe to the Jurisdiction of the Shariah State

The following article about the Brussels Conference was published recently in the print addition of the German newspaper Junge Freiheit. As far as I am aware, no online version of the piece has been posted.

Many thanks to our Swedish correspondent LN for the translation, and for the scanned image of Junge Freiheit. The links in the article were added by me:

Harbingers of rigid censorship

The Islam-Critics Conference: experts warn of impending restrictions on freedom of expression

by Hinrich Rohbohm, Junge Freiheit, in Brussels

Junge Freiheit page


Will criticism of Islam soon be a criminal offense across the EU? This is at least what the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) fears: It refers to the resolution 16/18 which was initiated by the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2007, calling for a fight against intolerance and the stigmatization of religions.

A resolution that at first sounds good. But behind the veil of the benevolent-sounding verbiage a special purpose could be hidden: to prevent any criticism of Islam under threat of criminal punishment. In other words, a regulation which would be close to the jurisdiction of the Shariah state.

Back in 1990, at its 19th Conference of Foreign Ministers, the OIC had specified and decided the so-called ‘Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam’. And in it explicitly emphasized that only the Shariah is set as the basis for interpretation of the statement. The Cairo Declaration shall apply to the 57 OIC member states as a guideline in the field of human rights. The only question is, how seriously do the OIC-member-states then take the ‘UN Declaration of Human Rights’ of 1948?

Since UN resolutions for states, however, have little more than an advisory character, the OIC now obviously want to reload. Their goal: EU-wide legislation, making it possible to prosecute anti-Islamic media coverage as well as Islam-critical studies.

The EU has allegedly offered the OIC to serve as host this summer for the so-called Istanbul Process, which is to advance these efforts. Back in December of last year, the U.S. government under Barack Obama agreed to act as host for an OIC conference. Thus, with regard to the absence of political legitimacy for its unreasonable demands, the organization received a substantial revaluation of its reputation.


That the same thing in Europe also is also expected by the OIC is suggested by a report from the ‘International Islamic News Agency’ (Jina) after managers in the Department for Cultural Affairs of the OIC argued that a range of hosts in the EU was considered as a “highly promising approach to solving the problem”.

Islam-critics are alarmed, fearing that an OIC conference in Brussels would prompt new Europe-wide legislation criminalizing all criticism [of Islam]. In the past week therefore only the resistance to the efforts of OIC were formed. As part of an event hosted by the ICLA international conference on freedom of speech and human rights in the European parliament in Brussels, a counterpoint to the Istanbul process, a Brussels Declaration was adopted.

The initiators are well-known critics of Islam such as the Belgian MEP Philip Claeys, the author Sabatina James, who converted to Christianity [from Islam], the French author Nidra Poller, the Canadian journalist Mark Steyn and Bishop ‘Pére Samuel’ of the Syrian Catholic Church.

The latter warned of the “intolerance of Islam”. And of the fact that Muslims by way of the “taqiyya” if needed were allowed to hide their faith. Nidra Poller pointed out that on France’s part you could discern symptoms of an ongoing war. “It is a war that does not look like war and therefore is not perceived by ordinary people as a war,” she said at the congress. Although experts are well aware of the development. In conversations with neighbors and friends, a great lack of understanding is exhibited.

The West is “pretty stupid” in the face of the OIC’s plans, says the French political scientist Alexandre del Valle, who spoke of how Islam in Europe uses the accusation of fascism as a “powerful tool” to destroy the West. The European Left might rejoice in the Arab spring. “It brings them the Shariah.”

In the Brussels Declaration the Islam-critics demand that the political leaders of all nations explicitly distance themselves from invitations and events organized by supporters of the Cairo Declaration.



Previous posts about the Brussels Process:

2012   Jul   11   Beginning the Brussels Process
        11   The Brussels Declaration
        11   What is Sharia?
        11   The Brussels Conference
        11   Conference Agenda
        11   Conference Speaker Bios
        11   Brussels 2012 Defender of Freedom Award
        11   Proceedings — Brussels 2012
        11   Interview with Tommy Robinson at the European Parliament
        11   Press Release: Brussels Process Launched
        12   Pointing the Way for Freedom of Speech and the Press
        12   Brussels 2012: Prof. Hans Jansen’s Speech
        12   Tommy Robinson Speaks at the European Parliament
        12   The Death Throes of Free Speech in Europe
        13   “You Can’t Hide the Truth”
        14   Brussels 2012: Magdi Allam’s Speech
        14   The Crossroads of History
        15   “Toto, I Have a Feeling We’re Not in Sweden Anymore”
        15   Brussels 2012: Nidra Poller’s Speech
        16   The Islam Critics’ Conference in Brussels
        16   Brussels 2012: Gavin Boby’s Speech
        17   Tommy Robinson in Brussels
        17   Brussels 2012: Pierre Cassen’s Speech
        19   Brussels 2012: Alexandre del Valle’s Speech
        19   Brussels 2012: Pierre Cassen’s Speech, Subtitled in English
        20   The Reading of the Brussels Declaration
        21   Brussels 2012: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s Speech
        21   Déclaration de Bruxelles 9 juillet 2012
        21   Brussels 2012: Lars Hedegaard’s Speech
        25   Brussels 2012: Ingrid Carlqvist’s Speech
        26   Brussels 2012: The Panel Discussion

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/28/2012

Gates of Vienna News Feed 7/28/2012Former FBI Director William Webster said Rep. Michele Bachmann’s claim that Huma Abedin may be connected to the Muslim Brotherhood is “morally wrong”. He asserted that her statements undermine the war on terror.

In other news, Lebanon’s Olympic judo team refused to train next to Israeli competitors at a practice venue in London. A special screen had to be erected to separate the two teams.

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

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Diana West, Hermes, Insubria, JD, JP, RR, Takuan Seiyo, TV, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

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.

“It’s Pretty Late in the Day”

Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ, a man I hold in high esteem) questions Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez about the Obama administration’s commitment, or lack thereof, to First Amendment rights.

Mr. Perez’ appearance is just one of a long series of videos in which the underlings of the Obama administration waffle and weasel their way through congressional hearings. Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, and Paul Stockton have been among his illustrious predecessors.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

The End of National Sovereignty in Europe

The following video and essay from Germany were translated by Rembrandt Clancy, who describes himself as “one of your consistent readers from Canada”. Mr. Clancy also wrote the introductory descriptions for the material.

The topic is the European Stabilization Mechanism (ESM), a fiscal regime which would remove all control over financial matters from the member states of the Eurozone and transfer them to a completely unaccountable and unelected group of “experts” at the EU level. By sleeping through the introduction of the ESM, the nation-states of Europe are effectively consenting to the surrender of the last vestiges of their national sovereignty. In the future, elected parliamentary bodies and national governments will become mere figureheads, pushing piles of paper around and giving fine speeches, but having no meaningful power over their countries’ most important affairs.

Mr. Clancy sent his material several weeks ago, and it accumulated in the pile of “Brussels backup”. However, since the ESM remains in limbo as the Karlsruhe Federal Constitutional Court in Germany considers its fate, the issues described here are still current.

Before you jump all over me: Yes, I know who Lyndon LaRouche is. As a matter of fact, his headquarters is in Leesburg, right here in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Regardless of its source, this information about the ESM and the Fiscal Pact is generally correct, and right on the money (so to speak) as far as the future of Europe is concerned. This is it, folks: if the ESM goes through, Europe will undergo the final stage of its transformation into a totalitarian superstate.

The fact that this material was put together by Mrs. LaRouche is neither here nor there. As Thilo Sarrazin, the former head of the Bundesbank, once said: “If the NPD [neo-Nazis] says the world is round, I won’t say it is flat because they’re on the far right.”

Read the material. Watch the video. See what you think. And, if you’re a citizen of the Eurozone, take stock of what remains of your freedom.

From Rembrandt Clancy:

In view of the imminent developments in Europe over the European Stabilization Mechanism (ESM), I am sending a related German video (which I subtitled) and a short essay, which I also translated from the German — for your consideration. Both come from the same source (see below). I thought you might be interested since the ESM lies behind an article by M. Sattler called “Flight into Dictatorship”.

This 15-minute video was abridged from a 25-minute original called “Save Europe from the EU Dictatorship” (“Rettet Europa von der EU-Diktatur”). The film is the production of BüSoTV Berlin (source):



BüSo is the acronym for “Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität” (“Civil Rights Movement Solidarity”). The BüSo is a small party in Germany which was founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who has been its federal president since 1992, and is part of the world-wide LaRouche movement founded by her husband, Lyndon LaRouche, who is also a prolific writer (source: BüSo website). BüSo is currently part of a campaign to stop the implementation of the ESM Treaty.

I originally ran across the shortened version of the video on the Islam-critical site, SOS-Österreich, in an article entitled “The EU is not Europe, but its destruction”. I subtitled it before I found the longer original, which is just as well.

The topic of the video revolves around two treaties: the European Stabilization Mechanism (ESM) and the Fiscal Pact.

The essay, which you will find below, deals with the same two topics. It is written by Helga Zepp-LaRouche herself. It is an ideal introduction to the video since it contains specific background which makes the video easier to digest. Also, both essay and video are from the same source.

All the formatting in the essay is from the original. The few comments in square brackets are mine.



National Referendum on the ESM and the Fiscal Pact

We have the Right of Resistance
1 April 2012
Appeal by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
(Original source)

The countdown to a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions is advancing relentlessly. There is every indication that we are steering toward an historical mega-event through a combination of a growing danger of world war and the crisis of a globally collapsing financial system, which could mean the end of human civilization. Time is elapsing with merciless insistence, without stirring sufficient resistance up to now, or without most people even suspecting the looming danger.

Instead of admitting that the Euro is a failed experiment and that the casino economy is at an end, the EU, the German government and the opposition parties (except for the Left Party) are pressing for the Fiscal Pact so as to introduce debt ceilings in all EU states and to have the ESM [European Stabilisation Mechanism] treaty ratified by the Bundestag as soon as possible. This policy is as incompetent as it is dangerous, and it must be averted at all costs. For with the Fiscal Pact, a Brüning* style of austerity policy would be irrevocably consolidated, plunging the real economy in all of Europe into the abyss; while at the same time, with the ESM, a hyperinflation-producing mechanism, standing outside any democratic control, would be created, devaluing the national wealth.

The political and social consequences would be catastrophic — and above all would accelerate the dynamic of war. It is one second before twelve, but it is still not too late.

The euphemistically termed “democratic deficit” situation in the EU and Europe has taken on such a perilous dimension, that just a single, minute step to outright dictatorship is lacking. The combination of fiscal union and ESM is such an outrageous attack on the constitution, the basic democratic order and the public welfare of the population, in favour of the highly speculative financial system, that one can only be seized by cold terror in connection with what this reveals about the governments and parties which intend to railroad this package through. First of all, if the ESM is ratified, the Board of Governors, at any time, even against a German vote, can assume access to the German state finances — without limitation.

After an initial, ordinary capital of 800 billion Euros (Art. 8), of which, in the first phase, 80 billion Euros must be paid and in which Germany’s share is more than 27%, this ordinary capital is to be periodically increased; and in an emergency — for instance, in order to buy government bonds of a “risk state” or to provide banks of “systemic” importance with liquidity — the Board of Governors can demand additional hundreds of billions within seven days “irrevocably and absolutely” (Art. 9). In the event that other member states are unable to pay — and the list of these countries is becoming ever longer — the German taxpayer must undertake an ever larger share. If the Eurogroup decides on the creation of Eurobonds, that is, the pooling of new debts, this will already be possible under the terms of Art. 21 and requires no further alteration of contract.

The ESM is not required to be responsible to anyone: the Board of Governors, the Directors, and the employees are completely immune [from prosecution or investigation]; there is no disclosure requirement, and decisions are made without any public scrutiny. The Board of Governors and the Board of Directors can invest the capital at will and without oversight; no public prosecutor’s office can intervene in the event of incompetence or fraud. The wage level of the Board of Governors is secret and is not subject to income tax, and no financial supervisor of any kind, who could review the level of the rates, has jurisdiction.

Combined with the ESM, the Fiscal Pact is deadly. In the same way as the Lisbon treaty was pushed through behind the public’s back, so too was the Fiscal Pact decided with the greatest haste and without consultations with the national parliaments or even the heads of government or state. With the introduction of national debt ceilings and automatic correctional mechanisms, the EU Commission will see to it that, in the future, even during serious economic downturns, expenses will be automatically curtailed. In addition, it will profess the principals of monitoring institutions. Member states can file suit against each other before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), but the Commission will also maintain the right of action. There is no provision for a right of termination without notice: individual member states cannot unilaterally terminate the [ESM] contract; it can only be abrogated and changed unanimously by all member states.

From the standpoint of the physical economy the combination of the ESM-Fiscal-treaty is so atrociously incompetent and false that the suspicion suggests itself that the intention of its architects, that is, the financial oligarchy, is completely different than they profess. On the one hand hyperinflation is set in motion, in order to save the banks; on the other hand sovereign debts, which arose beforehand from the rescue of the banks, are shifted onto the real economy and the general public welfare. Here it is only a question of winning time (perhaps until a new war brings about the preconditions for a new order?), or is the development of the society to be driven back to the feudal level of the middle ages?

Resistance is so far insufficient

The consequences of this policy are obvious for anyone who wishes to see them. Otmar Issing, former chief economist of the Federal Bank [Deutsche Bundesbank], encapsulated it at an event held on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Börsenzeitung: The whole concept of forcing a “united Europe” controlled by a centralized bureaucracy per Fiscal Union, whilst the population are blackmailed with the argument of an urgent crisis, is false from the outset and can only lead to disaster. Whosoever would propagate Eurobonds should be so honest as to also inform the public of the consequences: dispossession, inflation and loss of sovereignty. The publisher of the Börsenzeitung mentioned the H-word — hyperinflation.

As the Science Service of the Bundestag emphasised in a commentary on this theme, the Fiscal Pact contains no provision for escape clauses. It was precisely over this point that Frau Merkel exulted during a press conference in the context of the Euro-summit on 31 January 2012: “The point is that the debt ceilings are permanently included in the legislation, that they are bindingly and perpetually in force.”

Yet again the question arises: what in heaven’s name motivates this woman? Why does she pursue a policy which incredibly contravenes German interests? Did she read the Lisbon-judgment of the Karlsruhe Federal Constitutional Court, which expressly tied an additional transfer of power to Brussels to the necessity of a referendum on a constitutional change? And why does she want rights in perpetuity for the fiscal union, when Karlsruhe, in the same judgment, explicitly ruled that this characteristic of perpetuity is only suited to fundamental rights, and that these must remain within the authority of the constitution, and must not be relinquished to the EU treaty?

It is good when economists such as Issing, experts in constitutional law, analysts, and the Left Party now organise themselves for resistance before the horse has bolted the barn once and for all. But it is just as important to be clear that the atrocity involving the ESM-Fiscal Pact, which threatens us now, was intended from the beginning by the architects of the Maastricht Treaty and the European Monetary Union. Issing is wrong when he thinks that the only mistake is not to have complied with the terms of the Maastricht Treaty. Jacques Attali, then advisor to Mitterrand, has openly admitted that a birth defect was consciously built into the concept of the European Monetary Union in order to later force a political union of Europe which was not in place at the time.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union it was the concern of the Anglo-American dominated financial oligarchy, from the outset, to erect a world-empire on the foundation of the Anglo-American special relationship. To that belonged the policy of regime change against governments which are not ready to submit themselves to this empire; similarly, the self-containment of the reunited Germany belonged in the straitjacket of the Maastricht Treaty. From the beginning, it was the intention (according to the words of Robert Cooper, the advisor to the so-called EU Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lady Ashton), to transform the expanding EU into the greatest empire in history. [See Robert Cooper’s essay, “The New Liberal Imperialism” — translator’s note]

The repulsiveness of the ESM-Fiscal Pact is only a secondary consequence of this intention. The ultimate consequence would consist in preferring to provoke a new world war rather than watch the downfall of one’s own empire, even though one risks thereby the end of civilisation.

The only alternative consists in the immediate introduction of a separate banking system [the separation of commercial and investment banking] in the tradition of the Glass-Steagall law of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and of a credit system which serves exclusively the financing of investments in scientific and technological progress for the betterment of productivity in industry and jobs. To that belongs the return to a system of fixed exchange rates and long-term, multilateral co-operation between sovereign nations for the reconstruction of the world economy.

The people must, in a referendum, be allowed to decide on which currency they would like to have, which constitution, and in which type of state they would like to live. Article 20 of the constitution gives us the right to resistance against anyone who threatens the character of Germany as a democratic and social state. Article 146 requires a national referendum when considering the ultimate transfer of power to Brussels.

For a national referendum on the ESM, the Fiscal Pact, the EU-treaties of Maastricht to Lisbon, and the recovery of sovereignty over our own currency and economic policies respectively



*   Heinrich Brüning (1985-1970) was a depression-era Chancellor of Weimar Germany who imposed severe austerity measures, including a range of taxes. — translator’s note

Remembering the Munich Massacre

In the following clip from Sun TV, British Israel Coalition spokesman Sam Westrop discusses the IOC’s refusal to commemorate the 1972 massacre of eleven Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists at the Olympics in Munich. Mr. Westrop also talks about the alternative minute of silence for the Munich victims that was arranged in Trafalgar Square.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Kevin Carroll For Police Commissioner!

Kevin Carroll in NYC


Kevin Carroll, a founder of the English Defence League and now the joint vice-chairman of the British Freedom Party, is standing for police commissioner in Bedfordshire.

In order to file for the election, Kevin needs to raise a deposit of £5000 (about $7860). Any Briton (or friend of Britain) who wants to see real political change in the UK should dig deep and help Kevin get his name on the ballot.

Like other leaders, members, and supporters of British Freedom, Kevin represents the age-old tradition of British liberty, which has been sorely neglected for the last few decades. As police commissioner he would be in a position to advocate for policies that would help restore true civil order to a country that has long been deprived of it.

According to the BF website:

Kevin Carroll For Police Commissioner!

In November 2012, for the first time ever, members of the public will be able to vote for a Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) to act as “the voice of the people and hold the police to account” in their police force area.

Police and crime commissioners (PCCs) will aim to cut crime and deliver an effective and efficient police service within their force area.

To provide stronger and more transparent accountability of the police, PCCs will be elected by the public to hold chief constables and the force to account; effectively making the police answerable to the communities they serve.

Police and crime commissioners will ensure community needs are met as effectively as possible, and will improve local relationships through building confidence and restoring trust. They will also work in partnership across a range of agencies at local and national level to ensure there is a unified approach to preventing and reducing crime.

PCCs will not be expected to run the police. The role of the PCC is to be the voice of the people and hold the police to account.

(Source: Home Office.)

British Freedom is pleased to announce Party co-Vice Chairman Kevin Carroll as PCC candidate for the Bedfordshire Police Authority. Kevin has strong views on policing and amongst other things will be campaigning for:


  • An end to cuts in the police service.
  • Substantial improvements to pay and conditions of officers on the street, who are at the sharp end of crime and disorder in Britain.
  • An end to political correctness, which is forced on officers by their politicised superiors, hampering their ability to deal with serious crime. Officers tackling crime out on the street need to know that they have 100% backing of their superiors.
  • An end to ‘two-tier’ policing. The law should apply equally to all sections of the community.
  • Strong policing of anti-social behaviour that blights the lives of many families.
  • No more police time wasted on manning speed traps.
  • A crackdown on the dealing of hard drugs.
  • The police force once again focused on dramatically reducing serious crime — criminals and organised gangs should fear the consequences of their actions.

For Kevin’s candidacy, we need to raise a deposit of £5000, and are asking members and supporters to give what they can, so that British Freedom can begin making Britain’s police service properly accountable to the law-abiding majority who pay for it.

Please visit the British Freedom website and help make Kevin Carroll the Bedfordshire Police Commissioner.