Islam’s Violent Assault on Democracy
by Michael Copeland
Islam uses violence. That is a given. It is its modus operandi. Part of this violence is directed against democracy, the “man-made law” that Islam instructs Muslims to despise — “Man-Made Law Go To Hell,” says the placard.
Take, for instance, the recent demonstration in defence of free speech in Sweden. In an action that is perfectly legal, a Koran was set on fire. Within a short time, thanks to Western-invented mobile telephones, a crowd of Muslims, many unemployed and therefore available, was summoned to respond. They did so by burning tyres and cars, smashing windows, and hurling projectiles at not only police, but also fire service and ambulance personnel.
“We have an ongoing violent riot. We do not have the situation under control and it is worrying in the whole area,” Rickard Lundqvist, press spokesperson for the police in Malmö, told SVT.
Swedish police were outnumbered. They were obliged to admit defeat.
…after a risk assessment, the authority has concluded that the threat posed by violent Muslim groups is so extensive that the security of the demonstrators cannot be guaranteed or that third parties and property are not subjected to Muslim hate attacks.
Reprehensibly, and in a failure to uphold the law, they decided to move the goalposts: they announced that they were banning Islam-critical demonstrations in ALL places.
What is going on here? This is step-by-step capitulation. In effect, Swedish police are now administering Sharia law (where Koran-burning is prohibited). This calls to mind the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Explanatory Memorandum”, which set out their plan:
“a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”
Note “by their hands”. Swedish police have sabotaged democracy “by their hands”. Islamic mission accomplished.
Many Western governments are following the same pattern. Criminal riots in Paris cleared the way for Islamic No-Go Zones. The Manningham riots in Bradford UK were organised to establish that No-Go Zone. The carefully planned New Year’s Eve mass sexual assaults in Cologne were an attack on Western mores, Western dress, and the Christian calendar.
What reporters fail to draw attention to is that these “riots” are organised. They glibly say that they have been “triggered” by some Western action. No. They are INSTRUCTED in the mosques. The “Day of Rage” is a standard Islamic response, a show of force designed to intimidate the governing authorities into compliance with Islamic demands. A classic case was the Day of Rage outside the Danish Embassy in London. This was not “triggered” by cartoons of Mohammed in Danish newspapers. As this writer explained in “And Take Their Wives as War Booty”:
It was a demonstration dishonestly orchestrated by imams: they are, after all, authorised to lie. Forged cartoons were added that had never appeared in the Western press, and one imam toured the Muslim world to drum up support for a show of force. Whipped up by their imams in the mosques, the Soldiers of Allah dutifully carried out their orders. All this was some four months after the publication, not spontaneous in the slightest.
The simpleton media, especially the Islam-compromised BBC, obligingly rushed to portray the event as a righteous protest against a blasphemous insult, instead of what it was — a malignant assault on free speech and democracy. Apparently they cannot see through a staged “Day of Rage” to perceive the motive behind it. The criminal violence achieved its end, a drying up of cartoons through self-censorship. The message? Thuggery pays.
The introduction by so many European states of laws against so-called “hate speech” — an everlastingly extendable category — has eroded democracy while conveniently coinciding with Sharia, and is further Step-by-Step Capitulation.
If this were a military theatre instead of an abstract area of concepts the erosion would be easier to see. Say a regiment is charged with keeping an area guarded. Squatters from outside, some of them armed, arrive and begin to set up camp in that area. There are large numbers of them. The honourable response is to defend the area. If the numbers are against the defenders the desirable initiative would be to call for reinforcements. For the regiment to decide “We will not disturb the new arrivals because there are too many of them” is not honourable. This calls to mind Churchill’s prophetic rebuke:
You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.
Churchill warned us.
For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.