OSCE Warsaw: The Rights of Migrants vs. “Integration”

2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Tuesday, 18 September 2018

Working Session 12: Rights of Migrants

Intervention read by Christopher Hull, representing Secure Freedom (Center for Security Policy)

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Below is the prepared text for Mr. Hull’s intervention:

Continue reading

OSCE Warsaw: Dealing With “Fake News” Without Censorship

2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Tuesday, 11 September 2018

Freedom of the Media, Session 3

Intervention read by Henrik Clausen, representing Wiener Akademikerbund

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Below is the prepared text for Mr. Clausen’s intervention:

Continue reading

The OSCE Itself Violates Civil Society Participants’ Fundamental Freedoms

Below is the prepared text for an intervention read yesterday afternoon by Christopher Hull of the Center for Security Policy (Secure Freedom) at OSCE Warsaw. The video of the intervention will be along in due course.

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

Intervention before the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
Participating States and Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)

At the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM), Warsaw, Poland
Working Session 11: Fundamental Freedoms II

September 17, 2018

How ironic that this organization is itself violating fundamental freedoms.

For instance, at a February meeting this year, a senior official claimed that civil society must adhere to OSCE commitments.[1]

But we are not required to abide by those commitments — you are.

The OSCE Code of Conduct for Staff/Mission Members says you, and I quote, “shall comply with the… commitments of the OSCE.”[2] And what commitments?

1.   First, “respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience…or belief, for all without distinction as to…belief, political or other opinion.”[3]
2.   Second, taking only “measures which do not endanger freedom of information and expression” in this space[4]; and
3.   Third, that civil society members, “specifically those with relevant experience, are particularly encouraged to participate in the discussion of the selected topics and to provide their suggestions and recommendations.”[5]
 

But in spite of such requirements, ODIHR has now gone further.

For this meeting, you required us to acknowledge a new “Code of Conduct.” It says, “[p]articipants shall refrain from presenting…any slogans that might be provoking,… likely to give rise to violence, [or] discriminating [against] other persons on the basis of…religion or belief, political or other opinion.”

But that is what you are doing.

That’s why Secure Freedom joined 28 civil society representatives from 14 countries in speaking out against your repeated attempts to shut down our fundamental freedoms.[6]

That’s also why the U.S. Opening Statement objected “to content-based restrictions on the participation of civil society.”[7]

And yet last week, ODIHR used its power to interrupt Civitas Christiana Foundation for expressing concern about threats, repression and intolerance by those who hold radical views of sexuality.[8]

The truth? OSCE’s own Code of Conduct says:

Continue reading

OSCE Warsaw: Stephen Coughlin on Prior Restraint and the First Amendment

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

Working Session 10
Fundamental Freedoms I, Including Freedom of Expression

Intervention read by Stephen Coughlin, representing Unconstrained Analytics

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.

OSCE Warsaw: Dealing with Shadow Censorship

2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Tuesday, 11 September 2018

Freedom of the Media, Session 2:
Dealing with Shadow Censorship

Intervention read by Henrik Clausen, representing Wiener Akademikerbund

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Below is the prepared text for Mr. Clausen’s intervention:

Continue reading

Trump Administration Calls Out Eurocracy Over Free Speech

We’ve been following events at the OSCE for the past nine years (see the OSCE Archives) and observed the slow, gradual Islamization of the organization. The pace has accelerated this year, however, apparently due to intensified actions by the Red-Green alliance that now dominates the organization.

Chris Hull of the Center for Security Policy has written an article for The Daily Caller about the latest illiberal actions by the OSCE, as the Counterjihad Collective begins its interventions this week during the OSCE conference in Warsaw.

Trump Administration Calls Out Eurocracy Over Free Speech

by Christopher C. Hull, via The Daily Caller

This morning, the Trump administration officially objected to the latest attempt by a Europe-based multilateral organization to shut down free speech, joining a chorus of complaints by activists and even European members of parliament.

The United States Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (USOSCE) expressed concern in its opening statement about the largest European gathering of human rights organizations of the year, which takes place in Warsaw, Poland.

Referring to a new Code of Conduct required by OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights ( ODIHR ) to register for the meeting, the Trump administration statement said in part:

[T]he United States must object to certain provisions of the Code of Conduct promulgated by ODIHR.

A number of the provisions amount to content-based restrictions on the participation of civil society.

We need not — and do not — agree with all of the ideas espoused here to defend the right of civil society to participate.

When we disagree with the ideas presented, we should respond with alternative viewpoints, not censorship.

We are disappointed that the Code of Conduct appears to formalize the latter approach.

It should be revised.

The Code of Conduct is, in part, a reaction to a free speech delegation that has attended the annual meeting for a decade, according to senior U.S. officials and meeting participants.

That delegation, led by Austrian freedom fighter Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, expresses concerns in ODIHR meetings about restrictions on freedom of expression put in place by European nations specifically with respect to unfettered immigration, Jihad violence and the growing threat of the totalitarian Islamic law known as Sharia.

The free speech delegation released a letter to ODIHR Director Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir at the end of last week expressing similar concerns to those raised by the U.S. government’s statement today.

That letter, signed by 27 representatives of civil society organizations from a dozen countries, documents a series of attempts to restrict free expression on immigration, Jihad and Sharia over the course of at least two years.

It calls on Director Sólrún to make specific changes in the Code of Conduct, as well as in ODIHR’s behavior going forward.

Today’s statement by the USOSCE also follows on the heels of a meeting last week at the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C., in which two senior Trump administration officials originally publicly signaled this official opposition.

Continue reading

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.

John Bolton’s Policy Speech on the Eve of 9/11

John Bolton is a forceful conservative. Some discount him as a neocon, but that dismissive sobriquet fails to do justice to his principles.

He grew up in Baltimore, the son of a fireman, so Bolton learned early what an aggressive defense is and how to employ it effectively. He is the quintessential tough guy you want on your side. In other words, he is one answer to Barack Obama’s dithering lack of a genuine and robust foreign policy.

Bolton’s principled sense of justice included taking Clarence Thomas under his wing during their friendship at Yale Law School and then, later, offering advice and comfort during the ugly mess that constituted Thomas’ eventual confirmation to the Supreme Court. As Thomas said, what he endured in the bullying during his hearings was a “high tech lynching”.

Bolton’s speech came on the eve of 9/11, and that is not coincidental. America is standing up to globalists and trans-nationalist criminals like the ICC, founded in the year after 9/11. Such thugs are long overdue to be disbanded. Many of us agree with Bolton: the ICC and the UN need to go away, joining the other extra-national groups in a vast political graveyard, interred there along with The League of Nations.

Here is a list of John Bolton’s Ten Rules of Statecraft. They belong to a world neither Obama nor Clinton understands, and these rules are peculiarly American in their sentiments and form:

1.   “My philosophy is not a bean-counting, accounting ‘look at this.’ It is a philosophy that smaller government is better government, and government that is closer to the people is best of all.”
2.   “Our biggest national security crisis is Barack Obama.”
3.   “People say you favor assassination, what do you think war is? Except that it’s assassination on a much larger scale—a much more horrific scale.”
4.   “Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests.”
5.   “Negotiation is not a policy. It’s a technique. It’s something you use when it’s to your advantage, and something that you don’t use when it’s not to your advantage.”
6.   “My priority is to give the United States the kind of influence it should have.”
7.   “Everybody pursues their national interests. The only one who gets blamed for it is the United States.”
8.   “You could take several stories off the buildings of most U.S. government agencies and we’d all probably be better for it too.”
9.   “As somebody who writes op-eds and appears on the television, I appreciate as well as anybody that… there is a limit to what that accomplishes.”
    And the pièce de résistance:
10.   “There is no United Nations.”
 

If you would understand John Bolton’s worldview, read this brief book. You’ll grasp the sense of solidarity that is the fundament of conservatives and others on the Right. You may even understand President Trump and those who voted for him.

Meanwhile, this major policy speech is an elucidation of Trump’s ruling philosophy. To understand what Trump’s about, listen to Ambassador Bolton.

No to the Anti-Defamation League in Glendale and Elsewhere

David Boyajian sends this overview of the ADL’s continuing opposition to the official recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. government.


Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan receives Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) ‘Courage to Care’ award from ADL’s director Abraham Foxman at the ADL headquarters, New York in 2005 (Credit: David Karp and St. Louis Jewish Light).

No to the Anti-Defamation League in Glendale and Elsewhere

By the Armenian Americans for Human Rights

You may recall the national and international firestorm that broke out in 2007 when Armenian Americans in Massachusetts took action against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the most well-known Jewish organization in America.

Colluding with Turkey and Israel, the ADL was denying and/or diminishing the Armenian Genocide and lobbying against its recognition by the U.S. Congress.

It is the height of hypocrisy for an American organization to continually demand commemoration of and legislation on the Holocaust while simultaneously working against the same for a Christian genocide.

Over a span of months, the Armenian community, human rights advocates, and many principled Jews expelled ADL programs such as “No Place for Hate” from over a dozen Massachusetts cities because the ADL’s actions contradicted the civil/human rights principles that it claims to uphold. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing all the state’s cities and towns, also rejected the ADL.

Demonstrations against the ADL took place throughout the U.S. including in New York City, Michigan, and San Francisco. Glendale also did its part.

On December 4, 2007, supported by ANC-Glendale Executive Director Elen Asatryan and GUSD Board President Greg Krikorian, Herbert Hoover High School cancelled a scheduled three-day ADL “World of Difference” program.

Armenians appreciate, of course, those principled Jewish organizations and individuals, including historians and elected officials, who have always accepted the factuality of the Armenian Genocide and supported its recognition.

The AAHR letter

A few months ago, the Massachusetts-based Armenian Americans for Human Rights (AAHR) organization sent a copiously documented 24-page letter to Glendale’s Mayor, City Council, and GUSD’s Board of Education and Superintendent. AAHR sent similar letters to several Massachusetts cities which, like Glendale, had previously expelled the ADL.

AAHR’s letter details not only the ADL’s actions against Armenians but also its appalling conduct in American society over the course of decades. The letter concludes by asking Glendale and other municipalities to continue to exclude the ADL from their communities and schools.

A very bad deal

However, two years ago, Newton, MA schools — whether inadvertently or otherwise — invited in an ADL program despite the fact that in 2007 the city’s Human Rights Commission and then-Mayor David Cohen had ousted the ADL due to its anti-Armenian activities.

Unfortunately — and contrary to the advice of Boston-area Armenian activists who had initiated and continued the 2007-8 campaign against the ADL — a small group of Armenians unwisely rushed in and in 2016 made a terrible deal with the ADL.

The ill-advised deal resulted in ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt’s acknowledging — but only on the ADL website’s “blog” page — the Armenian Genocide and claiming that his organization “would support” (notdoes support” or “will support”) an Armenian Genocide resolution in Congress.

Only the ADL’s National Executive Committee and National Commission, however, not Greenblatt, can make official ADL policy. It’s unclear whether these two bodies have ever formally done so.

Moreover, as the AAHR letter points out, the ADL has yet to publicly confirm that it actively supports the Armenian Genocide resolution. Indeed, the ADL has never fulfilled Armenian Americans’ original demand of 11 years ago — namely, that as partial atonement for its reprehensible behavior, the ADL must lobby as vigorously for an Armenian Genocide resolution as it has for Holocaust legislation.

Even a former top ADL leader has called Greenblatt’s 2016 “blog” post “inadequate … assets, land … everything that Holocaust reparations … has represented should be on the table.”

AAHR’s letter also notes that the ADL has never once apologized for its many wrongdoings against Armenians. Nor has the ADL explained, and opened its files regarding, its collusion with a foreign power — Turkey — to sway a U.S. Congressional vote.

Continue reading

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 Party-Line Infighting Over Kavanaugh Begins

Ted Cruz outlines the dastardly Dems’ plans to eviscerate the Consitution, which is one reason they’re playing kabuki theatre in the Senate. Evidently the mud was being flung all over the place by these jokers, before Cruz (who lost to Trump) reminded everyone why they are there:

Note the bumptiously obscene numbers of documents the judge handed over. And note, too, why their call for confidential papers that passed over Kavanaugh’s desk during his tenure as Bush ’43’s staff secretary. They make these juvenile demands knowing full well that no one in Kavanaugh’s position would ever do such a thing.

I chose not to watch the ugly chaos on display as an introduction to these hearings. However, it’s sad that Kavanaugh’s daughters felt the need to flee the scene. No child should have to watch the attempted smear of his or her father’s life, career, and character.

[But meanwhile notice the cutie in the back and to your right, behind Senator Cruz. The cool dude in the white shirt and forest green tie? Yes, he smirked a bit, but that’s okay: eye candy has its privileges, no?]

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.
    Afterword
    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.