OSCE Warsaw: “Islamophobic” Intervention Interrupted

2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Monday, 17 September 2018

Working Session 11
Fundamental Freedoms I, Including Freedom of Expression

The following intervention was read yesterday by Debra Anderson, representing Mission Liberty. Ms. Anderson was discussing the attempts by Somali Muslims to implement sharia in Minnesota when she was interrupted by someone — not a member of the OSCE staff — who said that her intervention must be shut down, because it was Islamophobic.

Interestingly enough, the OSCE moderator did not terminate the intervention, but reprimanded the person who interrupted, and allowed Ms. Anderson to continue.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

Stephen Coughlin at OSCE Warsaw: Is Pointing Out the Facts Bigotry?

2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Monday, 17 September 2018

Working Session 11
Fundamental Freedoms I, Including Freedom of Expression

The following intervention was read yesterday at the OSCE conference in Warsaw by Stephen Coughlin, representing Unconstrained Analytics.

The principle topic of the intervention was the Turkish religious affairs directorate Diyanet (official government website, Wikipedia entry), which claims jurisdiction over all Turkish Muslims in Europe unto the nth generation, and which is said to be crucial for assuring calm and lawful behavior by ethnic Turks in urban neighborhoods throughout Europe. Maj. Coughlin’s principal point is that discussing such matters is now considered “bigotry” by the OSCE’s Code of Conduct.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

For more on the OSCE’s Code of Conduct, see “The Successful Subversion of the OSCE”.

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

The Successful Subversion of the OSCE

For the past nine years the Counterjihad Collective has been participating in and reporting on the gradual Islamization of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). It’s been a long, tedious, and exhausting process, but now the subversion of the OSCE is all but complete. For readers who are interested in the details, see the OSCE Archives.

As with other trans-national institutions, the Islamization of the OSCE was accomplished via an alliance between Muslims (in this case, primarily Turkey) and the progressive Left. This year, for the first time, the OSCE has officially established a framework to silence critics of Islam and sharia. For an organization that was founded to promote free speech, that’s quite an accomplishment.

I’ve already posted material from the 2018 ODIHR (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) meeting of the OSCE in Warsaw, and will be posting more. For future reference, rather than repeatedly quoting it, here is the directive from OSCE headquarters mandating tolerance, inclusion, non-discrimination, etc blah yak. The relevant section is excerpted below, but the entire document may be downloaded (Word format) from the official OSCE website.

Under “§ 3. Other provisions”, the OSCE Code of Conduct states:

1.   Participants shall refrain from presenting or shouting any slogans that might be:

a.   provoking or urging to disturb order and safety,
b.   likely to give rise to violence,
c.   discriminating other persons on the basis of their race, color, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (Maastricht 2003, Ljubljana 2005),
d.   condoning terrorism or the use of violence.

ODIHR reserves the right to instruct HDIM moderators to interrupt any Participant who speaks in violation of these principles. In case of repeated non-compliance ODIHR reserves the right to void the Participant of the right to speak at the session, or as a last resort of the right to further participate at HDIM.

See also the op-ed about the OSCE by Chris Hull of the Center for Security Policy.

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

Mental Illness and “Allahu Akhbar!” at the Lyon Saint-Exupéry Airport

Many thanks to Ava Lon for translating this article from Les Observateurs:

Lyon: a man tries to run over passers by while yelling “Allahu Akbar” on the tarmac of an airport

September 10, 2018
source: Le Figaro

Air traffic was totally suspended this Monday after a car chase between a man and law enforcement on the tarmac of the Lyon Saint-Exupéry airport. He was shouting “Allahu Akbar”, according to the police sources, and he claimed to be “God’s emissary” when he was arrested.

A man was apprehended this Monday late morning by law enforcement after he trespassed on the tarmac of the Lyon Saint-Exupéry airport with his car, it was announced by the prefecture. He [rammed into and] broke two glass entrance doors of the Terminal 1, without injuring anybody.

He was shouting “Allahu Akbar” according to a police source and claimed to be “God’s emissary” when he was arrested. The Lyon Saint-Exupéry airport was closed. All flights have been diverted to Geneva.

Against the traffic at the highway

This vehicle was reported earlier, while cruising at high speed against the traffic, for tens of kilometers from l’Ain on the A46 and the A42, according to police. He was driving a Mercedes registered in Luxembourg. He was first stopped in the traffic by the Special Police Force, then he fled in his car and sped towards the Business Aviation Airport in Bron, trying, unsuccessfully, to run people over as he passed. Then he turned towards Part-Dieu, attempting to hit passersby there as well. To no avail.

He then allegedly continued his route in the direction of the Saint-Exupéry airport. While he was going towards the tarmac he was shot at four times by the police, but wasn’t hit, then [shot at] by a gendarme who also missed. A deputy security officer finally managed to subdue him with his baton. The suspect was arrested. According to a source from the Interior Ministry, the investigation is for the moment concentrating on the possibility of a mental disorder.

Did We Forget?

Seventeen years is a long time.

Or it is for younger people; for someone of my advanced age, events of seventeen years ago seem like just the other day. Assuming I can remember them at all, that is.

September 11, 2001 is one of those days I can remember quite clearly: what I was doing, the course of events during the day and for the next few days. I assume it’s the same for many people in my age bracket: those hours are now permanent markers, stuck fast in the brain until the final dissolution removes everything.

In contrast, consider someone who has just graduated from high school. He was just a tiny infant back then, so everything he knows about 9/11 — assuming he is aware of it at all — he learned from his parents, or his teachers, or the TV, or his phone.

A young woman who just graduated from college this past spring is not that much better off. She was probably aware that the adults around her were upset and acting strangely. She probably saw some confusing and disturbing images of destruction and panic on television. But other than that, her knowledge of 9-11 would be from her elders, the TV, her phone, and her college professors.

The cohort who took their doctorates last spring — with a median age of what? 26, maybe? — fare slightly better. They were in grade school at the time, and in the days following surely they heard discussion in class from teachers who had not yet fully assimilated the politically correct line on what happened in Manhattan and Washington on that beautiful fall day.

And so it goes, on up through the age groups until you reach us geezers, who definitely remember. Or at least some of us do.

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

I saw a hash tag yesterday: #NeverForget911.

My reaction was immediate and cynical: It should read #WeForgot911.

But how much forgetting has really taken place? Of those who were adults in the fall of 2001, how many paid attention, assimilated the memories, and incorporated them into a meaningful structure that was permanently retained? And how many simply went back to the way they had lived before, letting 9/11 become a brief blip in an otherwise undisturbed succession of life experiences?

I don’t know the answers to those questions. My intuition tells me that many younger people — who have been subjected to far more relentless indoctrination than I ever have — regard 9/11 through the politically correct lens that their education and the media have so painstakingly constructed for them.

My intuition also says that those of us who were over fifty when it happened probably retain a slightly less propagandistic memory of it. But only slightly, most of us — my generation stares at the vidscreen a lot, too.

For some of us, however, the events of September 11, 2001, were the beginning of seventeen years of close investigation of Islam. Back then I had read V.S. Naipaul’s Among the Believers. But nothing else. The Sword of the Prophet by Srdja Trifkovic was to come later. The writings of Robert Spencer later still. And then Reliance of the Traveller and Steve Coughlin. And much more in the years since.

In seventeen years I have learned enough to know that the dominant Western cultural narratives about Islam are simply false. If you do your investigations with due diligence — and especially if you follow Maj. Coughlin’s advice, and read sources written by Muslims, intended for a Muslim audience — you learn the extent to which you have been lied to and misled by your own leaders, who themselves have listened to the whispers of Muslim Brotherhood infiltrators.

The construction of what became the current Narrative began shortly after 9-11 with President George W. Bush, the man who inspired us all when he stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center. Islam was proclaimed to be the Religion of Peace (and eventually the “Religion of Peace and Love”, by Condoleezza Rice). A great religion had been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. The words “Islamism” and “Islamist” were coined to provide good cover for our friends, the nice Muslims, the “moderate” Muslims. The word “Islamophobe” gained greater and greater currency to describe those who refused to swallow the Narrative.

And so on and so forth, until we arrive at the present day, seventeen years later, when it is no longer possible to publicly assign the problem to Islam itself. Islam unmodified, without prefixes or suffixes. The core ideology, which is not religious, but political. A totalitarian ideology which has world domination as its long-term goal — 1,400 years and counting.

You can’t say those things and expect to hold onto your job, even if it’s with a private corporation. If you wear a slogan like that on a t-shirt, you risk a public beating.

And there are more Muslims now in all Western countries, and more official or unofficial rules against offending them, more public recognition of their sacred days and customs and sensibilities.

Yes, #WeForgot911.

At least enough of us did to facilitate the eventual victory of the Sword of the Prophet.

The War Against the West? Still Going Strong!

In the following essay our Dutch correspondent H. Numan provides a refresher course (or introductory course, in the case of newly-minted “Islamophobes”) about the history of Islam’s continuous war against Europe.

The war against the West? Still going strong!

by H. Numan

The war for the West isn’t going to start any day soon, as most people seem to think. It’s already underway. Or more accurately: it has never stopped since 622 AD. Most people only know a little bit about some major conquests, and not a lot of those. Nothing about the many countless smaller battles and wars that continued almost non stop. Some people know about the Battle of Roncevalles or Roncevaux in 788 AD, mainly because of the Song of Roland. Fewer people know about Charles Martel, who defeated the mohammedan invasion decisively earlier in France. Fewer people still know about the many invasion attempts deep into France almost to the Swiss border. And it didn’t stop there. Of course here at Gates of Vienna we know about the siege of that city in 1683.

Did you know that hussars were a Hungarian answer to Turkish invasions? I’ll bet you win a lot of drinkies in the bar if you challenge your friends with that one. Not the first time the Hungarians bore the brunt of the attack.

We don’t learn about it. It’s not politically correct. You have to figure everything out for yourself. If you read up, as I did, you will notice our war began in 622 AD and never really ceased. All you can hope for is for a Chamberlainian ‘peace for our time’. Not for your children, certainly not for your grandchildren. Islam is very much like cancer. You have to eradicate it completely. Otherwise it will grow back. Usually much stronger and far more aggressive. The virus very much learns from past experiences. Let one single cell be, and you are mortal peril. That’s a bold statement, but regretfully, it’s the truth. Dr. Bill Warner counted over 700 battles for Europe, from 622 AD until today.

“But we can live in peace with muslims; we have done that always,” whine politically correct dhimmis — left and right. No, we didn’t. But we don’t read about it. You have to dig for it. We didn’t in the past, as you can’t learn everything from history. The relatively unimportant parts were left out. Those parts are coming back to hound us now.

That’s why we discovered America. After the end of the crusades — which we lost — Constantinople had fallen to the Turks. They now controlled the Silk road to China. The sultan wasn’t interested in continuing trade, not even at extortionate rates. An alternative route had to be found. Sailing along the coast of Africa was highly dangerous, because of the Barbary coast pirates (next paragraph). That is one of the reasons why Columbus tried to sail to the west. It was at least an indirect consequence of the crusades.

We have to do it all over again. This time not with spices but with oil. There is a lot of oil in the world, but most of it lies below Arab countries. Back then our need of spices was used to strangle the West, now they do it with oil. When spice prices got high enough, it became commercially viable to take the dangerous and expensive sea route instead of the overland route. Likewise, we will have to find alternatives for Arab oil. Shale oil becomes an economical alternative if OPEC holds onto its monopoly. The same for alternative energy sources. History repeats itself.

Forgotten are the many Barbary wars we had to fight. Not only Dutch fought them, but the West in general. Like England and France. Even America had to. Your founding fathers were just as dumbfounded about mohammedanism as we are today. Few people are aware that the area of the North African coast was known as the Barbary Coast for centuries. Its rulers extracted tribute for allowing ships to trade along the African coast and into the Mediterranean. That tribute was jizya. Our Michiel de Ruyter had to fight several battles and wars against them. So did your Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson once asked a Barbary representative why they couldn’t leave people alone and why they levied such high fees and never kept their side of the agreement. The muslim was very much surprised. Why, you have to pay jizya, of course. You are a non-believer. We can do anything we want with unbelievers. He even said the ultimate goal was world domination. Yes, even back then. He didn’t commit Taqiya, which is unusually rare for a muslim.

Continue reading

The Knife of Peace Comes to Amsterdam Central Station

As reported in last night’s news feed, a “youth” (now identified as Jawed S.) stabbed two people in the main train station in Amsterdam before he was shot and wounded by police. As the article below reports, young Jawed is a “German” and not a “Dutchman”.

The article doesn’t include the news that the two lightly-wounded victims were American tourists. For more on that development, see for example this BBC report.

JIM is not mentioned in any of these articles, but the Dutch authorities have been forced to admit that Jawed S. had a “terrorist motive”. Are we surprised?

Many thanks to FouseSquawk for translating this article from De Telegraaf:

Station stabber Jawed S. had a terrorist motive

AMSTERDAM — The 19-year-old man who stabbed two people on Friday at Amsterdam Central Station is Jawed S. His first statements show that he had a terrorist motive. The municipality of Amsterdam announced this on Saturday.

“Of course, the research is still in full swing to discover everything around this suspect and his motive. This involves intensive contact with the German authorities,” according to the municipality. At the request of Dutch judicial authorities, the German police conducted a search in the suspect’s home in Germany.

“Among other things, multiple data-storage devices have been seized and will be investigated. The suspect will be brought before the examining magistrate next Monday. He is under all restrictions, and that means that the suspect has no contact with the outside world except with his lawyer.”

“As a result of the incident, the Amsterdam triangle (police, justice and municipality) looked into whether it was necessary to take additional security measures in Amsterdam. The firm actions of the police yesterday show that Amsterdam is prepared for these kinds of incidents. The Amsterdam triangle currently sees no reason to take additional measures. They is close contact with the NCTV.”

‘Unfortunately fits in threat assessment’

Dick Schoof, the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV), reacted directly on Twitter to the news that Jawed S. said in statements that he had a terrorist motive for his act. “As announced by the local triangle, the investigation of the incident in Amsterdam shows it was based on a terrorist motive. This objectionable act unfortunately fits in with current threat assessment.”

The highest threat level is used when there are concrete indications of a new attack, but according to the NCTV this is not the case now. “The threat level remains at 4 on a scale of 5. We are following developments. No reason for extra measures.”

The Pakistani Veto

Geert Wilders has cancelled the Draw Mohammed contest:

Right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders has canceled a planned ‘draw Muhammad’ cartoon contest in the Netherlands after Islamic terrorists threatened to attack the event.

The announcement follows a threat by a Pakistani Muslim who posted a video to Facebook vowing to assassinate Wilders before he was arrested.

“The threats resulting from the cartoon contest are running out of control,” Wilders said in a statement posted to Twitter. “Now other people are in danger because of extremist Muslims who see not only me but the Netherlands as a target.”

“If innocent people are murdered then they and no one else are responsible. To avoid the risk of victims from Islamic violence, I have decided to cancel the cartoon competition,” he added.

Wilders made the decision to cancel the event after an Islamist posted a video to Facebook announcing he was in the Hague and ready to kill the Dutch politician.

Tweet by Geert Wilders:

Here’s the video (thanks to C for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling):

As everyone who reads Gates of Vienna knows, Geert Wilders has lived with tight security protection since 2004. It’s too bad Pakistanis — or any other majority Muslim country — can publicly tell the world about life-threatening attacks against those in the West they disagree with, ensuring a shut down of the venue.

Fox News has the latest.

We saw what these miscreants did in Denmark, and then in Texas. Now they repeated the same game plan in the Netherlands. Threaten, attack, and silence. What other country would be willing to host this contest? Which country is free enough?

The Five Choices

Sweden — The Partition of India

Update from the Baron:I was using Dymphna’s computer, and forgot to log in as the Baron before posting. But this really is one of my posts.

Ten years ago, El Inglés wrote his ground-breaking essay about the dilemma that Western Europe is currently facing, “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”. It made heads explode even among certain of our supposedly “conservative” allies.

Last week we discussed partition, which is a third option.

Now our long-time commenter RonaldB has added two more options in remarks about the fall of Uppsala. He was specifically addressing the situation in Sweden, but his descriptions are equally applicable to all of Western Europe and the UK, with Canada and Australia moving along right behind them. Even the USA will face the same dilemma, at least in some of our major metropolitan areas, within fifteen or twenty years, so this is something we should all be thinking about carefully.

Option #5 is “Genocide”, but I would assume it includes ethnic cleansing, which might be called “Genocide Lite”.

Remember: The most important thing about these options is not whether one or another of them is the one you prefer. There are two important questions to consider (besides the morality of the chosen solution):

1.   Is the choice politically possible? For instance, I often hear statements to the effect that “All seditious Muslims must be immediately deported, all the mosques must be closed, and all the globalist elite traitors must be tried and executed.” OK, I hear the suggestion. But it is not politically possible, neither now nor for the foreseeable future. So why bother discussing it?
2.   Is the choice viable? That is, even if it is politically possible, would it work? Can it accomplish its goals, or is it almost certain to fail? It’s my contention that partition might be just barely possible in political terms (after all, it was implemented in India in 1947), but it is not viable — it would fail, and fail quickly. Western Europe and India are very different cases.

Dymphna and I will shortly be going out for a little while. Y’all can start the discussion, and when we get back, we’ll moderate the comments.

Here’s what RonaldB had to say:

1.   Surrender
    This is indistinguishable from what they’re doing now. Withdraw the police, allow sharia law, sharia enforcement police, sharia courts to do as they wish, and continue sending in welfare and public assistance, including housing and medical care, for any Muslim from the area who applies for it.
2.   Partition
    Build a wall or impenetrable fence around the area, move any Muslims or immigrants in the surrounding area into the partitioned territory, and leave it alone. The main difference between this and surrender is that people from inside the area will not be allowed into Sweden, and no assistance will be given. They can apply to the EU, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else who wants to give them money. Whether they starve will no longer be a concern.
3.   Mass expulsions
    This will take some real planning, as a place must be found to expel the immigrants to. The Israelis had the right idea: pay a head tax to some local despot for every head he accepts, and don’t concern yourself too much with what happens to them after they get there.
4.   A horrific crackdown, completely discarding individual rights
    A simple military movement will not have much effect, because the organized Muslims can simply assassinate anyone who gets in their way. You would have to have a security apparatus akin to Saddam Hussein’s secret police, or Savak or the British Tans who controlled Ireland. The city would be treated as occupied territory. Unfortunately, the welfare and aid would probably continue under this scenario.
5.   Genocide
    There are so many other ways of handling this that genocide would be profoundly immoral.
    Those are all the possibilities I can think of. I don’t think there is a possibility of putting a lid on the situation and pretending it’s been settled. The Muslims feel its time to assert their control, so they’re now in the last stages of jihad and aren’t about to pull back for bribes or appeals to reason or civic pride.

What Mohammed? What Koran? What Mecca?

The following video is an excellent introduction by Dr. Jay Smith to the deconstruction by Western scholars of the Koran, Mohammed, and Islam itself. Using hermeneutics, textual analysis, archaeology, and other modern disciplines, he demonstrates that the three principal elements of Islam could not possibly be factually true in the way they are traditionally expounded:

1.   Mohammed                                                            
2.   The Koran
3.   Mecca

The archaeology and relevant historical documents simply do not support the traditions of Islam. Something happened in Arabia between the 7th and 10th centuries, but it certainly wasn’t what is described in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira.

A large part of Dr. Smith’s analysis focuses on the qiblas in the oldest mosques, which did not point to Mecca, but to Petra, in what is now Jordan. He explains the likely significance of the switch from Petra to Mecca, which was prompted by the conflict between the Abbasid and Umayyad dynasties in the late first millennium. He also explains the political necessities that likely motivated Abd al-Malik to invent and backdate Mohammed, the Koran, and Islam itself:

Hat tip: acuara.

Is Partition a Viable Option?

UPDATE: I thank you all for an interesting range of comments; there’s plenty of good discussion to read. However, I think most of you may have missed my primary question, which is NOT about what is likely to happen, but whether partition is a viable option in Western Europe.

I don’t have any idea what is likely to happen. I just don’t think partition à la India or Gaza is a viable option. It’s not just that I don’t think it will happen, but that it can’t possibly work in the event that some misguided government (or supra-national power) attempts to implement it.

On last night’s post about the BBC, RonaldB left a comment concerning the possible eventual partition of Britain into separate Muslim and non-Muslim states. That got me thinking about the issue of partition, which has been discussed here in the past from time to time.

The most Islamized country in Western Europe is France, so the first of any partitions is likely to occur there. Marseille in particular comes to mind. But Britain, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany are close behind.

This was my comment in response:

One thing to bear in mind about partition: the new “stans” will consist primarily of urban residential areas, with no significant manufacturing plant or other productive assets. There will be no agricultural land, and the commercial base will be negligible. Unless the other side of the partition agrees to continue the delivery of jizya, the new emirates will be unable to support themselves. The kuffar would basically have to do what Israel does with Gaza: supply electricity and other necessities for free, or for a nominal charge.

I suppose a partition agreement could include the mandatory eviction of landowners from portions of prime arable land, which would then belong to the new entity. But even then, the new owners would hardly be likely to use it effectively — Muslims have a history of destroying agricultural land through bad husbandry; it seems to flow naturally from Islamic practices.

I don’t see any way in which partition could work for them. I think they will require full submission, with dhimmitude and/or enslavement for the former owners in perpetuity.

I can’t think of an outcome for all this that isn’t very, very ugly.

In recent times, we really only have three models for partition to draw on:

Continue reading

Has the BBC Changed its Mind About Mosques and Terrorism?

Tommy Robinson has been a relentless critic of what is being preached in mosques. The BBC has just as relentlessly demonized him for his point of view.

Could that be changing?

Vlad Tepes pointed out this BBC report linking Islamic preaching and the mosque in Manchester to the violent message contained in Islam, which the BBC had avoided at all costs up until that point:

And here are excerpts from the accompanying article:

Manchester Mosque Sermon ‘Called for Armed Jihad’, Say Scholars

A sermon at the mosque where the Manchester bomber worshipped called for the support of armed jihadist fighters, according to two Muslim scholars.

An imam at Didsbury Mosque in December 2016 was recorded praying for “victory” for “our brothers and sisters right now in Aleppo and Syria and Iraq”.

Scholars Usama Hasan and Shaykh Rehan said it referred to “military jihad”.

The imam, Mustafa Graf, says his sermon did not call for armed jihad and he has never preached radical Islam.

The recording the BBC obtained is of Friday prayers at the mosque six months before Salman Abedi detonated a suicide bomb following an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena in May 2017.

Abedi and his family regularly attended the mosque and his father sometimes led the call to prayer.

I didn’t agree with Vlad’s take on the report. I saw this as a strategic and temporary retreat by the Beeb and the British establishment.

Here’s a digest of our discussion on skype:

Baron:   It’s an attempt to cauterize the wound for Muslims, by elevating those “scholars” and making a scapegoat of the imam.
    I wish Steve Coughlin or Bill Warner had been there to ask those scholars some pointed questions.
    This is a skilled shot at strengthening the grip of Islam, to keep it from being fully exposed. It’s their strong fallback position, a tough line of defense. A very smart strategic move.
Vlad:   But its a full line of defence behind their primary line.
Baron:   It doesn’t threaten the ascendancy of Islam at all.
Vlad:   Well, the real danger is that the Beeb will gain authority amongst skeptics by this.
Baron:   Yes, that, too.
    I’m telling you: This is the BBC mounting an effective strategic defense of Islamic Britain. The structure and functioning of Islam in Britain will remain untouched. One mosque and one imam will be sacrificed for the good of the whole.
    And most importantly, this enshrines Muslims themselves — the “scholars” — as arbiters of what jihad is, and what is meant by certain terms and passages in Islam. That precludes any independent analysis by anyone not already sympathetic to Islamic ideology.
    This is very clever, very skilled propaganda.

Sure enough, in a follow-up article the next day, the BBC walked back even the weak dishwater that its “scholars” had offered:

Continue reading

Tommy Robinson vs. the Daily Mail

A man named James King is apparently a photographer and/or reporter for The Daily Mail. He was recently tasked with finding Tommy Robinson and his family in Greece Tenerife, where they were on holiday. But Tommy sussed him out, confronted him, and uploaded this video of their confrontation.

There are couple of things worth noting about the exchange between Tommy and Mr. King. First of all, when Tommy asks him whether he thinks it would be a good thing if Britain were to become dominated by Islam in the next twenty or thirty years, the reporter dodges the question. All he’ll say is, “I don’t think it’s going to happen.” He won’t say what he would think of it.

But this exchange between Tommy and Mr. King is priceless:

Tommy:   So would it be OK, then, if I followed you on holiday and took pictures of you and your family?
King:   But I’m not a public figure.
Tommy:   You are now, mate — you are now!

Tommy’s right. He has millions of followers, subscribers, and fans. James King’s face will soon be well-known to them, so that when he returns to Blighty, it’s not unimaginable that some of them will recognize him on the street, or in the supermarket, or driving his kids to school. What then, eh?

Maybe he’ll look nervously over his shoulder when he’s out in public, the same way Tommy has had to do for the last nine years.

Listen to their exchange. Tommy is a real bulldog — he hounds the reporter into rhetorical corners from which he can’t escape:

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.