 by Newt Gingrich After the Christmas Day near disaster in Detroit, it is time for Americans to demand effective anti-terrorist actions.
Over eight years after 9/11 and 30 years after the Iranian illegal seizure of the United States embassy and the 444 day Iranian hostage crisis, Washington is still avoiding being intellectually honest about the war we are in.
Our Politically Correct Government is Making Life More Miserable For the Innocent. America is long overdue for a serious global strategy that includes targeting threats such as the terrorist killer at Fort Hood, the individuals recently arrested in Detroit, Denver and New York, and the five Americans detained in Pakistan. The scale, persistence and sophistication of the enemy requires an honesty, a clarity, and a scale appropriate to the response. Once again, instead of targeting the source of the threats, our politically correct government decides to make life more miserable for the travelling public by imposing hopelessly meaningless rules such as not allowing passengers to leave their seats in the last hour of the flight. Bound by cultural sensitivities, the default reaction of the bureaucracy is to review the procedures and wring its hands ineffectively. Today, because our elites fear politically incorrect honesty, they believe that it is better to harass the innocent, delay the harmless, and risk the lives of every American than to do the obvious, the effective, and the necessary.Before a lot more Americans are killed we must acquire the courage to tell the truth and to act on that truth.It is time to be honest about what we know. We know our opponents are radical extremists of the irreconcilable wing of Islam (Islamists, some would call them). We know they have an ideology which is anti-female, desires to impose fundamentalist Sharia as a form of law, is hostile to other religions and is prepared to kill the innocent to achieve their goals.We know how to identify these enemies but our elites have refused to do so. In the Obama Administration, protecting the rights of terrorists has been more important than protecting the lives of Americans. That must now change decisively. It is time to know more about would-be terrorists, to profile for terrorists and to actively discriminate based on suspicious terrorist information. The United States should track down the owners of every website that promotes terrorism and systematically root them out. It should be as dangerous to a person promoting terrorism as it is to execute an act of terrorism.The same should apply to the electronic communications of every known radical (and using these communications to track down every unknown radical). The people behind these websites should be barred from getting a U.S. visa if not in the United States (concurrently, we should make it easier -- not harder -- for non-terrorists to get visas because we want to encourage the law abiding while discriminating against the potential terrorist). An integrated data base for threats should have been expected, we now learn that it does not exist. This must be fixed. It should be reasonable for the flying public to have expected that when the Nigerian terrorist's father reported he was going to a terrorist training camp he should automatically have been barred from getting a visa and from flying into the United States. The emergence of Yemen as the new planning, equipping, and training center for terrorism should remind us we need a worldwide "grand national strategy" (to use the World War II term) that is far bigger than our current debate over Afghanistan. Americans should also note that ABC News is reporting that two of the plotters to blow the Amsterdam to Detroit flight out of the air were released from Guantanamo in 2007, attended an “art rehabilitation program” in Saudi Arabia, were released and took up senior leadership positions in al Qaeda in Yemen. Americans should also know that nearly half of the remaining detainees in Guantanamo are from Yemen.The recent arrest of five Americans in Pakistan and the report there are 25 British citizens training to be bombers in Yemen should remind us this is a global war. Moreover, the report that 74 Guantanamo detainees who have been released are back in the war trying to kill Americans should stop any further effort to close Guantanamo or to release terrorists. This new honesty about the threat should end any thought of a civilian trial in New York for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammad with its dangers for exposing American intelligence information. All terrorists including would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be tried in military tribunals as part of a serious war strategy. The Attorney General and every Justice Department appointee whose law firms provided pro bono counsel for terrorists should be fired and replaced with lawyers who believe the lives of Americans are more important than the rights of terrorists. The United States must have a policy of effective interrogation to understand our enemies and disrupt their planned attacks (read Marc Thiessen’s column from yesterday). Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's claim that the Detroit bomber was allowed to board a plan with explosives hidden in his underwear proved the system worked is proof we need a new Homeland Security Secretary who knows we need a new strategy and a new focus. These are the first steps toward defeating the extremists. We should take them before there is a tragic attack that kills a lot of people. We have been warned. Again. Will we now act? Your friend, 
Human Events
 Bosnia's constitution violates European human rights law by banning Jews, Roma and other ethnic minorities from running for president or the upper chamber of Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights ruled. Two prominent citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina -- one Jewish, the other Roma, or Gypsy -- took the former Yugoslav republic to Europe's highest court over the provision. Jakob Finci and Dervo Sejdic "complained that ... they were prevented by the Constitution ... and the corresponding provisions of the Election Act 2001, from being candidates for the presidency and the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly solely on the ground of their ethnic origins," the court said in its ruling. That "amounts to discrimination and breaches their electoral rights," the court said. A 17-judge panel found in the citizens' favor by a vote of 16-1 on the law banning them from running for president, and 14-3 on the one keeping them from becoming members of the House of Peoples. A human rights group that worked on the case welcomed the verdict. "By forbidding whole communities the right to participate fully in the country's political process, Bosnia's constitution and electoral law violate fundamental human rights standards," said Lucy Claridge, the head of law for Minority Rights Group International. "The European Court of Human Rights acknowledges this fact today." It was the first time the court has found a violation under the European Convention's Protocol No. 12, which generally prohibits discrimination, the rights group said. Bosnia and Herzegovina has a recent and bloody history of ethnic violence, suffering years of war in the early 1990s as Yugoslavia tore itself apart. The court acknowledged that the country's constitution was designed to bring that bloodshed to an end. The constitution created a three-member presidency, with one member from each of the country's three main ethnic groups -- Serbs, Croats and "Bosniaks," who are Muslim. The complex structure was intended to reunify two parts of the country that were at war with each other, and to keep any two factions from imposing their will on the third. The constitution distinguishes between Bosnia's "constituent peoples" and "others" -- those who are not Serb, Croat or Bosniak. "This system, put in place at a time when a fragile cease-fire had been accepted by all the parties to the inter-ethnic conflict that had deeply affected the country, pursued the legitimate aim of restoring peace," the court said of the arrangement negotiated in 1995. But "the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (has) improved considerably since the Dayton Peace Agreement and the adoption of the Constitution," the court said. The case is Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06). The verdict cannot be appealed. The 1992-95 Bosnian conflict was the longest of the wars spawned by the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Backed by the government of then-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, Bosnian Serb forces seized control of more than half the country and launched a campaign against the Muslim and Croat populations. Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs at the time, is now on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, facing charges of war crimes and genocide. He was removed from power in 1995, when the Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnian war barred anyone accused of war crimes from holding office. Milosevic died in 2006 while on trial before the tribunal. CNN 
 Kurdish demonstrators have clashed with Turkish police a day after Turkey's pro-Kurdish political party was banned by the constitutional court. A crowd threw firebombs and rocks at police vehicles including an armoured bus in the town of Yuksekova close the border with Iraq on Saturday. Police detained about a dozen protesters in the neighboring city of Hakkari, officials said. The move came after after a mob attempted to lynch two police officers but were prevented by local Kurdish politicians, the state-run Anatolia news agency reported. Protests took place elsewhere in the region and the western cities of Ankara and Izmir, Anatolia said. Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Turkey, said: "We've seen an escalation of street protests, we're now seeing fatalities." The violence followed the banning of the pro-Kurdish DTP party, which Turkey's constitutional court had found guilty of co-operating with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has been fighting for autonomy in Turkey's mainly Kurdish southeast in a conflict that has lasted 25 years and claimed 40,000 lives. Ahmet Turk, the chairman of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) and one of two pro-Kurdish legislators who were expelled from parliament, said on Saturday the entire group had withdrawn from the assembly and would boycott parliamentary sessions. "Our group has withdrawn from the parliament effective today," Turk said.
The Kurdish party had a total of 21 seats in the 550-seat assembly before the court shut it down. The court also barred Turk and Aysel Tugluk, another legislator, from joining any political party for five years along with 35 other party members - including Leyla Zana, a prominent Kurd who served a decade in prison on charges of separatism. Abdullah Gul, Turkey's president, defended the court decision during a visit to Montenegro on Saturday. "What else can the court do when there are party administrators who declare the terrorist organisation to be their reason of existence," the Anatolia news agency quoted Gul as saying.
The ruling is likely to hamper Turkey's efforts to join the European Union, which had warned Ankara that banning the party would violate Kurdish rights.
Turkey's Kurdish population, whose language was outlawed for years, has long complained of discrimination. But Hasim Kilic, the constitutional court chairman, said the party's closure "was decided due to its connections with the terror organisation and because it became a focal point of the activities against the country's integrity". The ruling comes after weeks of clashes between police and protesters angry at the the prison treatment of Abdullah Ocalan, the founder of the PKK.
Earlier this week a protester was shot dead as 15,000 pro-Kurdish protesters marched in the city of Diyarbakir. The DTP was founded in 2005 as a successor to several Kurdish parties that were forced to wind up for collaborating with the PKK. The PKK is listed as a "terrorist" group by Turkey and much of the international community.
The party says it has "no organic links" with the separatists, but insists the group should be considered an interlocutor in efforts to resolve the Kurdish conflict. Cengiz Aktar, a columnist with the Turkish Hurriyet Daily News, said there are "some links" between the DTP and the PKK but criticised Turkey for making party closures "a habit". "The links apparently are there, according to the constitutional court. But in modern democracy, party closures are very seldom," he told Al Jazeera. "This one really comes at a very unfortunate moment when the country was making a very important opening towards its Kurdish minority. "It's a totally new era and suddenly comes this unacceptable decision that may overturn the whole democratisation process and bring the country to the verge of chaos." Al Jazeera
 A statement on the Wilders trial: The 20th of January 2010 will be a crucial day for defending our freedom. This is the day when the political trial against Geert Wilders will start.
Yesterday, Geert Wilders was summoned by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) on behalf of the Court of Justice of Amsterdam.
The indictment reads: group insult of Muslims, incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims due to their religion and incitement to hatred and discrimination against non-western immigrants and / or Moroccans due to their race. Geert Wilders: "On the 20th of January 2010, a political trial will start. I am being prosecuted for my political convictions. The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing. If a politician is not allowed to criticise an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom. However I remain combative: I am convinced that I will be acquitted." In earlier stages, the PPS did not see any reason to prosecute Mr. Wilders.
Bram Moszkowicz, the lawyer on the case at hand, has submitted a notice of objection to the summons on the point of group insult on behalf of Geert Wilders. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that even though it is indeed punishable to insult a group of people, it is not punishable to insult a religion as such. Due to this the order of the Court of Amsterdam on this point is deemed incorrect. And here is the summons, from the District Court, Office of the Public Prosecutor, in Amsterdam: SUMMONS OF THE ACCUSED To: name: Wilders
first names: Geert
born on: 06 September 1963 in Venlo
residing in: 2513 AA The Hague
address: Binnenhof 1 A I hereby summon you to on Wednesday 20 January 2010 at 09:00 o'clock appear as the accused at the hearing of the three-judge criminal division in the district of Amsterdam, Parnassusweg 220, in order to be tried on that which is specified below. More at JihadWatch
 MADRID — A Muslim lawyer in Spain said Wednesday she was ejected from a courtroom for wearing a head scarf and has filed a discrimination complaint with the body that oversees Spain's judiciary system. Spanish law stipulates that trial lawyers must wear black robes but says nothing about head scarves. The General Council of the Judiciary, which supervises the Spanish court system, said it has opened a preliminary probe of the judge named in the complaint. An official with the council said he could not recall a similar incident. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in line with council rules. The attorney, Zoubida Barik Edidi, a Moroccan-born Spaniard, said she was attending an Islamic terror trial Oct. 29 at the National Court when Judge Javier Gomez Bermudez kicked her out of the room because of the purple scarf. Barik Edidi, 39, was sitting next to a colleague acting as defense attorney, but was not formally part of the defense team. The judge said defense attorneys or prosecutors at a trial cannot wear such a garment, she told The Associated Press. "Madam, you cannot remain in this courtroom," she quoted the judge as saying. Barik Edidi noted that she was not a defense attorney per se, and had attended the previous day's session without the judge complaining about her scarf. Gomez Bermudez said he had erred and should have thrown her out the first time. "This is my courtroom and here I give the orders," Barik Edidi quoted the judge as saying. Barik Edidi said her complaint accuses the judge of discrimination and abuse of authority, and that she is concerned about his action possibly being copied by other judges. "The fear I have is that I will not know what courtrooms I am allowed into and which ones I am not," she said. During that same trial — involving nine men accused of recruiting suicide bombers to go to Iraq — Gomez Bermudez expelled a witness who wore a burka-style outfit and refused his request that she show her face. The judge said Spanish court rules bar people from testifying with their face concealed. Read more here,,,, Source: FoxNews
 KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Malaysian authorities have confiscated more than 15,000 Bibles in recent months because they referred to "God" as "Allah," a translation that has been banned in this Muslim-majority country, Christian church officials said Thursday. The alleged seizure of the Bibles, imported from neighboring Indonesia, is certain to reignite complaints by religious minorities that their right to practice their faiths freely has come under threat as the government panders to the Muslim majority. A growing sense of discrimination among the minorities is chipping away at Malaysia's reputation as a harmonious multiethnic nation that practices a moderate brand of Islam. The Rev. Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, said authorities seized a consignment of 10,000 copies sent from Jakarta to Kuching in Sarawak state on Sept. 11 because the Indonesian-language Bibles contained the word "Allah." Indonesian language is similar to Malaysian language, both of which use "Allah" as translation for God in both Islamic and Christian traditions. Another 5,100 Bibles, also imported from Indonesia, were seized in March, said an official from the Bible Society of Malaysia, who asked not to be named for fear of angering the government. A Home Ministry official said he was not aware of the seizures. He said he couldn't be named without his superiors' clearance. Malaysia has banned non-Muslims from using the word "Allah" in their texts, saying the word is Islamic and may upset Muslims.
About 60 percent of the country's 28 million people are Malay Muslims while 25 percent are ethnic Chinese and 8 percent are Indians. Many of the Chinese and Indians are Christians. The Roman Catholic Church is challenging the "Allah" ban in court, saying it is unconstitutional and discriminates against those worshipping in Malay language. The case has been stuck in preliminary hearings for almost two years. Shastri said the church council is concerned over the continued detention "of our holy book, which is depriving congregations ... and denying them the use of their Bible." "For most of the Christians, this is not an issue of going against the authorities. They have been using (the word "Allah") for a long time," he said. Church officials say Allah is not exclusive to Islam but is an Arabic word that predates Islam. Besides the Bible seizures, Malaysia has been embroiled in other religious disputes. Some were over the conversion of minors to Islam and the religion of deceased people who are said to have converted to Islam secretly before their death. Hindus have also protested the demolition of several temples by authorities. Source: FoxNews
 By Robert Spencer This would, of course, render us mute and hence defenseless in the face of the advancing jihad -- and that is just what it is designed to do. Free Speech Death Watch Alert: "Objections to Muslim and Homosexual Practices to be Unlawful in Europe - Media MIA," by Paul Belien for Hudson NY, October 26 If all goes as planned, the 27 member states of the European Union will soon have a common hate crime legislation, which will turn disapproval for Islamic practices or homosexual lifestyles into crimes.
Europe's Christian churches are trying to stop the plan of the European political establishment, but it is not clear if they will be successful. Last April, the European Parliament approved the European Union's Equal Treatment Directive. A directive is the name given to an EU law. As directives overrule national legislation, they need the approval of the European Council of Ministers before coming into effect. Next month, the Council will decide on the directive, which places the 27 EU member states under a common anti-discrimination legislation.
The directive's definition of discriminatory harassment is so broad that every objection to Muslim or homosexual practices will be considered unlawful. On April 2, the European Parliament passed the "directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation," 363 votes to 226. The directive applies to social protection and health care, social benefits, education and access to goods and services, including housing. American citizens and companies doing business in Europe are also required to adhere to it. Originally intended to serve as an equal treatment directive for the disabled by prohibiting discrimination when accessing "goods and services, including housing," activist European politicians and governments had the directive's scope expanded to include discrimination on the basis of religion, age and sexual orientation. Under the directive, harassment - defined as conduct "with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment" - is deemed a form of discrimination. Harassment, as vaguely defined in the directive, allows an individual to accuse someone of discrimination merely for expressing something the individual allegedly perceives as creating an "offensive environment." The definition is so broad that anyone who feels intimidated or offended can easily bring legal action against those whom he feels are responsible. Moreover, the directive shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, who has to prove the negative, i.e. demonstrate that he or she did not create an environment which intimidated or offended the complainant. If the accused fails to do so, he or she can be sentenced to paying an unlimited amount of compensation for "harassment." [...] The same phenomenon, a lack of interest on the part of European and also American public opinion, is apparent with regard to the semi-legal initiatives taken at the level of the United Nations. On October 2nd, the UN Human Rights Council approved a free speech resolution, co-sponsored by the US and Egypt, which criticizes "negative racial and religious stereotyping." American diplomats said the decision to co-sponsor the resolution was part of America's effort to "reach out to Muslim countries." The resolution passed unanimously, with the support of all Western nations. Though the resolution has no immediate effect in law, it provides Muslim extremists with moral ammunition the next time they feel that central tenets of Islam are being treated disrespectfully through the creation of what they perceive to be an 'offensive environment.' Source: JihadWatch
 by Shirin Ebadi The post-election crackdown has not quelled our spirit: democracy will help us achieve equality. Iran today is a country where women are more educated than their male compatriots; more than 60% of university students are female, as are many university professors.
Iranian women obtained the right to vote and become members of parliament half a century ago – earlier than women in Switzerland, who achieved this right in 1971. Since that time at least a small number have been present in Iran's parliament.
Even the present parliament, which is monopolised by hardliners, has 13 women members. In governments, women have often held senior positions.
Even the health minister in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's cabinet is a woman. All this is proof that women have managed to rise within the ranks of the fundamentalists. And yet despite the cultural, social and historical heritage of Iranian women, the Islamic Republic has imposed discriminatory regulations against them.
A man may marry up to four wives and divorce them whenever he desires. But mere will is not enough for a woman to divorce her husband. Similarly, according to Iranian law, the life of women is worth half of the man's life in terms of blood money. When drawing up compensation after an accident, women receive half the amount allocated to men. During a trial, a declaration by a man is worth twice that of a woman. Women also require their husband's permission to work, travel or leave the country. These laws run counter to the role of women within Iranian society. Should the health minister wish to attend a meeting of the World Health Organisation, she must receive her husband's assent. It remains unclear what would happen if her husband refused – Iran's seat at the WHO might remain vacant. The laws imposed on Iranian women are incompatible with their status and, consequently, the equality movement is very strong. Although lacking a leader, headquarters, or branches, the movement is located in the home of any Iranian who believes in equal rights for men and women. Read more here,,,, Source: The Guardian
 Larry Auster The following is only a part of a speech, “A Real Islam Policy for a Real America”, that Lawrence Auster gave at the Preserving Western Civilization conference earlier this year. It has been recently published in a book:
To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is. The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.
The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life.
The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.
This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness.
But let's say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration.
The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion.
This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today's society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.
To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question.
The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien.
But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can’t even be thought.
H/T: David F.
Discrimination Against Non-Muslims in U.S. Must Stop
Monday, September 21, 2009 - Tawfik Hamid
Upon landing in the United States on Sept. 13 after speaking at a conference in Poland, I noticed that the first picture welcoming international visitors at Washington Dulles International Airport was of two Muslim women wearing the hijab. The photo also portrayed a mosque and the crescent as a symbol for Islam. I have noticed on other visits to the airport that the same photo is in the same position at Window A1 of the immigration hall, where travelers show customs officials their documentation. I have checked the other pictures in the hall to see if other religions are represented in the same manner. To my surprise, there are none. The only religious symbols that exist in such a manifest manner are Islamic. This situation raises an important question: Why don't airport authorities acknowledge other faiths as well? If the answer is that Muslims are a minority, then why aren’t other religious minorities acknowledged? Aren't they humans who deserve respect for their faiths, too? Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists are also minorities in the U.S., yet their faiths are neither recognized nor respected by the airport authorities to the same extent that the Muslim faith is. It is not only unfair but also discriminatory when Islam is the ONLY faith that is respected in such a manner, while other faiths are ignored. Read more: http://www.newsmax.com/tawfik_hamid/muslims_islam_dulles/2009/09/21/262671.html
Time and again religious minorities have demanded repeal of the Anti-blasphemy
law often used to target minorities, but the government remains indifferent.Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy law, enacted by President General Zia-ul-Haq in1986 and later amended by the parliament in 2004, is one of the most stringent laws. The penalty includes a mandatory death sentence for defaming Prophet Mohammad and life imprisonment for desecrating the Holy Quran. According to official reports, to date, over 500 people have been charged for breaching the Blasphemy Law. Dawn.com traces the history of some of these cases that have been highlighted in the media since 1990. Read more ...Source: DawnH/T: Jihad Watch
Khaled Abu Toameh April 22 Jamal Zahalka is an Arab member of the Knesset who complained at the UN's World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Tolerance in Geneva that he's a victim of "Israeli racist apartheid." Hamed Bitawi is a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council who was shot and wounded by a Palestinian security officer as he walked out of a mosque in the West Bank city of Nablus. This incident occurred almost at the same time that Zahalka was depicting himself as a victim of racism and apartheid. Also while Zahalka was spewing his hate statements, the authorities in Kuwait arrested Khalifa al-Kharafi, an election candidate, for criticizing members of the ruling al-Sabah family. Another Kuwaiti parliamentarian candidate was arrested days earlier over a similar issue. Former Islamist MP Daifallah Buramia had been quoted as saying that the country's defense minister, a senior member of the royal family, was incapable of becoming prime minister. In Lebanon, four parliament members have been assassinated since the killing of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. The spree of assassinations, believed to be ordered by Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, prompted 40 members of the Lebanese parliament to hide in a heavily-guarded hotel in Beirut for several weeks. In Jordan, former lawmaker Toujan al-Faial was convicted and sentenced a few years ago to 18 months in jail for “harming the state’s dignity” when she accused a former prime minister and his cabinet of financial corruption. The Jordanian government now claims that she is ineligible to run for Parliament. Al-Faisal declared in response: "Here, the head of a corrupt government decides who can and cannot run for office. They want a Parliament that won’t hold the government accountable for corruption.” These are only a few examples of the dangers facing members of parliament in the Arab world. But as far as Zahalka, the Arab member of the Knesset, is concerned, the plight of his Arab fellow parliamentarians is not an important case worth mentioning at the Durban II conference. Zahalka forgot to mention in his speech that thanks to Israeli "apartheid" and "racism," he is a democratically elected member of the Knesset. He also forgot that when he was sworn in, he voluntarily made an oath of loyalty to the state of Israel. Zahalka was elected on a platform that promised to bring better services and equal rights to the 1.4 million Arab citizens of Israel. It is hard to see how participating in an anti-Israel conference in Geneva along with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad and other Israel-haters will help solve the serious problems facing the Arab sector in Israel, such as unemployment, lack of infrastructure and poverty. The opposite is true. Zahalka's participation and fiery statements only play into the hands of those in Israel who are trying to depict the Arab citizens as a "fifth column" and an "enemy from within." If Israel were an "apartheid" state, Zahalka would not be sitting in the Knesset, enjoying all the social and economic privileges of an elected lawmaker. While there is no denying that the Arabs have long been suffering from a policy of discrimination in many fields, especially in the allocation of public funds and building zones, Zahalka and his friends are doing the blacks of South Africa injustice by drawing a parallel between their suffering under the former (and real) apartheid system and the problems facing the Arab minority. And if Zahalka really cared about racism and apartheid, why doesn't he endorse the case of the detained Kuwaiti parliament candidtaes or that of the terrified Lebanese lawmakers who are often afraid to walk out of their homes or that of the Palestinian legislator who was shot in the leg? Source: Hudson New York
ISTANBUL, March 27 (Compass Direct News) – Just over a month since Pakistan’s fertile Swat Valley turned into a Taliban stronghold where sharia (Islamic law) rules, the fate of the remaining Christians in the area is uncertain. Last month, in an effort to end a bloody two-year battle, the Islamabad administration struck a deal with Taliban forces surrendering all governance of Swat Valley in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). Sources told Compass that after the violence that has killed and displaced hundreds, an estimated 500 Christians remain in the area. Traditionally these have been low-skilled workers, but younger, more educated Christians work as nurses, teachers and in various other professions. The sole Church of Pakistan congregation in Swat, consisting of 40 families, has been renting space for nearly 100 years. The government has never given them permission to buy land in order to build a church building. Read more ...Source: Compass Direct NewsH/T: Jihad Watch
 By John Armor The ACLU has attacked an information-sharing center in Dallas for "discrimination" against Muslims for reporting facts about associations between Muslim terrorists abroad, and Muslim groups in the United States. If it prevailed, the ACLU position would cripple the effectiveness of these 58 Homeland Security centers around the country. The facts for this article, but not its legal conclusions, come from an article in the Dallas Morning News on February 26, 2009. The ACLU was objecting to the contents of a memo, leaked from inside a "Fusion Center." Read more ...Source: Family Security Matters
Then ...
... and now
This year's campaign contained ample evidence of distrust and very little resistance to this discriminationBy Allie Shah Sifting through the mountain of campaign literature stuffed into my mailbox this fall, only one piece stood out. It was a flier urging me to vote for Barack Obama, but instead of describing his qualifications and vision, it offered answers to "legitimate questions" I may have had about Obama's religion. Questions such as "Is he a Muslim?" and "Why is his middle name Hussein?" topped the list. Rest assured, the flier seemed to suggest as it informed me that Obama is in fact a Christian, that he regularly attends church and that he was named after his father. Read more ... Source: Star Tribune
 Monday, September 22, 2008
A Muslim minister from Ivory Coast, on an official visit to Israel as a guest of the Foreign Ministry, was required by the Supreme Muslim Council (Waqf) of Jerusalem to recite verses from the Koran before entering the al-Aqsa Mosque in order to prove that he is Muslim. The insulted minister left the Mount immediately.
Minister Moussa Dosso is in charge of professional training and technical education in the Ivory Coast government. His visit to Israel was part of the Jewish state's efforts to tighten its cooperation with African countries.
During the trip, which was deemed a success, Dosso visited welfare institutes and institutes for youth rehabilitation and professional and technical training in tours organized by the Foreign Ministry's Africa department.
The minister also toured the Old City of Jerusalem with an escort appointed by the Foreign Ministry, and asked to pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque.
As he arrived after the official closing hours, police officers stationed at the entrance to the site asked Waqf officials to approve his entry. The Supreme Muslim Council officials asked to see the minister's identification card, but he told them that he had left his passport at the hotel and was an official guest of the Foreign Ministry.
"My name is Moussa Dosso and I am Muslim. All I want is to pray on the Mount," he said
But the Waqf officials were determined not to let him without an identification card. According to Dosso, they asked him to prove that he is indeed Muslim and demanded that he recite the opening verses of the Koran.
"I am a faithful Muslim. There is no reason for me to start reciting verses here. You have insulted me," he told the officials before leaving the place. Source: My Right Word 'Blogspot
Fast food restaurants have employee dress codes not only for appearances, but for hygiene and safety. With that in mind, this case is sounding a lot like the case of the women wanting to wear Islamic attire in a Midwestern tortilla factory. The local health inspector isn't going to take kindly to long sleeves potentially brushing perishable food, and/or the grill and fryer oil, to say nothing of guidelines for hand-washing (see also: the debate over short sleeves in British hospitals). Then there is the matter of long attire and the potential need to make a quick exit in the event of a fire or robbery. There are many functional reasons for demanding standardized attire, but there is also the matter of allowing special treatment for a small part of the work force. And would the uniform issue be the end of the demands for accommodation? For example, would these women refuse to make a burger with bacon? Read more ...Source: The Detroit NewsH/T: Dhimmi Watch
By Eli Lake WASHINGTON - A new Freedom House study of Iranian textbooks finds that the Islamic Republic is teaching its children to embrace Islamic supremacism, preparing them to enter a political system that discriminates against women and non-Muslims. The study, "Discrimination and Intolerance in Iran's Textbooks," is the most comprehensive to date of Iran's textbooks, analyzing 95 compulsory textbooks for grades one to 11. The main author of the study, Saeed Paivandi, is a sociologist at Paris-8 University and one of the few Western scholars to specialize in Iran's post-revolutionary education system. Source: New York Sun
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
by Newt Gingrich 
Posts
