Pat Condell on BREXIT
In other news:
Here’s a link dump from the Religion of Peace
Pat Condell on BREXIT
In other news:
Here’s a link dump from the Religion of Peace
|Feminists Flee Stockholm as Islamists Take Over…|
|Saudi Woman Laughs as Maid Throws Herself Out Window…|
|Iran’s Moral Police Tell Christian Women to Wear Veil in Church…|
|Wife Beaten to a Pulp for Opening Facebook Account…|
|Church Opens Doors to Imam Who Calls for Killing Christian Converts|
|Canada: Only 10% of Refugees from Syria Have Left Welfare for Work|
|Swedish Newspaper Blurs Faces of Sexual Predators Sought by Cops…|
|Iran Sentences Man to 5-Years for Converting to Christianity…|
|Refugee Parents Who Killed Their Own Child Get Compensation…|
|Polio Vaccination Center Torched…|
|Muslim Countries Asked: “Where are Your Jews?”…|
|Magazine Calls Justin Trudeau a ‘White Supremacist Terrorist’…|
|Caliphate Trains Children to Kill Prisoners…|
|Christian Shot to Death for Refusing to Work on Sunday…|
61% of French adults say Islam is incompatible with their society and 79% support banning headscarves in universities, new poll shows
Sixty one per cent of French people believe Islam is incompatible with their society, according to a new poll.
That figure had been falling sharply until the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January 2015, and has been steadily growing ever since, an Ipsos survey found.
That is compared with six per cent of people who believe Catholicism is incompatible and 17 per cent who believe Judaism is incompatible.
In total 61 per cent of French adults surveyed this month said that the way Islam is practiced today means it is incompatible with their society
All Muslims, like all dogs, share similar characteristics.
Imam given space to worship at an Anglican church justifies the KILLING of Muslims who renounce their faith under Islamic law – and claims Jews ‘were behind the LGBT agenda’
An imam given space for his worshipers to pray at a Perth Anglican church has justified the killing of ex-Muslims under Islamic law and suggested Jews are behind a gay agenda.
Feizel Chothia has published a Facebook post titled, ‘The Islamic Punishment for Apostasy’, only days after Daily Mail Australia captured the leader of a fundamentalist Islamist group calling for the death of former Muslims.
The imam has also made the declaration only weeks after he appeared on ABC television hailing his friendship with Anglican Reverend Peter Humphries.
Imam Chothia compared the killing of ex-Muslims for apostasy to Western nations executing citizens for treason, but he did not explicitly call for them to be executed.
Feizel Chothia has written a lengthy Facebook post about the Islamic punishment for apostasy
He compared the killing of apostates, those who leave Islam, to punishment for treason
‘Just as states such as Britain or the United States consider high treason a major crime, so Islam prescribes capital punishment for apostates,’ he said on Wednesday.
‘Certainly, the protection of society is the underlying principle in the punishment for apostasy in the legal system of Islam.’
His sentiments comes only four days after Daily Mail Australia exclusively recorded Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar at a public forum in south-west Sydney explaining how he supported the death penalty for ex-Muslims.
‘The ruling for apostates as such in Islam is clear, that apostates attract capital punishment and we don’t shy away from that,’ Mr Badar said in the presence of children at Bankstown library.
All white Australians are incorrigible racists who must be muzzled lest they “offend” or “insult” certain protected species. Right?
Corruptocrats in the senate killed free speech, again. 18C, a law imposed on us by socialist subversives, remains unchanged.
The despicable corruptocrat Tony Burke, who’s miserable existence depends entirely on the Muslim vote, is euphoric:
This virtue signaling corruptocrat holds all decent Aussies in contempt for wanting their G-d given free speech rights restored. The idea that free speech, the cornerstone of Western civilisation, only exists to vilify minorities is abhorrent and insulting. If Aussies weren’t so hopelessly a-political they would bring out the pitchforks and march towards Parliament House.
The barbarians are winning in their campaign to shut up their enemies.
At 10.30pm last night, in the face of a veto from Labor, the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team, the government dropped its plan to change section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it an offence to insult, offend, humiliate or intimidate people because of their race. It failed in its attempt to create the new offence of “harass” as well as its plan for a new “pub test” meant to set a wider standard for complaints.
Now Sydney’s Anglican Archbishop, Glenn Davies, warns that the Left and the new tribes it protects is meanwhile persecuting Christians – the faith that has traditionally stands against totalitarians and tribalists:
There is only one upside from the recent attacks and unprecedented abuse directed at an academic and the directors of Christian organisations: people are beginning to wake up and take notice. They are starting to understand that the campaign for same-sex marriage is not sailing on a raft of rainbows but on a barge of bullies.
Last week there was the IBM executive whose position was questioned because he was a director of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute…
What kind of diversity is so monochrome that it does not allow differing expressions of opinion in the debate?
Not only has this minority view tried to swamp the public debate with its introspective, authoritarian denial of free speech, it has struck at the heart of Australian democracy and the freedoms that we all cherish…
I was one of the Christian leaders who convened a meeting of church leaders in Sydney last year, to be held at the Mercure Hotel. No sooner had we set the venue than staff were subjected to an ugly campaign of harassment and threats.
For the safety of staff and guests, the hotel cancelled the booking…
Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous was taken to the brink in Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal for espousing views on marriage that accord with Australian law, let alone being the view of his church, as well as all churches and that which civilisations have held for millennia. The avant-garde opponents of these time-honoured mores had hoped to silence him.
What kind of a society calls someone before a tribunal because they are defending the law of the land? What kind of state legislation allows such a travesty of justice to occur? Has our society been that deprived of common sense and love of freedom that a carefully articulated defence of commonwealth legislation can be deemed offensive merely because someone wants the law changed and is offended because their views are at odds with the current law?…
In what kind of “diversity” do we as Australians really believe? I want to live in a land that respects the individual, that allows freedom of expression and freedom of faith. I want to be able to be free to convince my fellow Australians that Jesus Christ is Lord of all creation and that true freedom is only to be found in him. I also want to live in a land where others can contradict my views and espouse their own beliefs without fear of persecution or intimidation. That is true diversity. That is true freedom of speech and freedom of religion of which we ought to be justly proud and that I would happily defend with my life.
Here is a for-instance. Gay rights activist Michael Barnett has told Macquarie University it was a “bad look” to hire history and politics academic Steve Chavura, also a member of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, a training organisation established by the Australian Christian Lobby.
Anne Aly has for years been an Islamic supremacist foe of free discourse. In August 2014 I wrote here about her false claims that Islam doesn’t sanction beheading and grants equality of rights to women. Instead of responding on substance, which I understand that she could not really do since I had produced numerous Qur’an verses that rather directly showed her to be lying. So instead she claimed that she had received “hate mail” from Jihad Watch readers; six months later that claim had morphed into death threats. Predictably, that became the story, as dubious as her claims were, not her deceptions.
Now, if she gets her way in Australia, she could just have me arrested — not for the alleged hate mail or death threats, but for my initial post exposing her deceptions. This proposed law clearly would establish Muslims as a protected class, beyond all criticism, which would have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.
“Australian MP Wants to Make It Illegal to Cause Religious Offence to Muslims,” by Kieran Corcoran, Heat Street, March 30, 2017 (thanks to JW):
An Australian MP has called for tougher speech laws so that it is illegal to offend Muslims because of their religion.
Anne Aly, Australia’s first female Muslim MP (pictured), said that race discrimination laws should be expanded to cover insults based on religion as well.
Restrictive speech laws Down Under have banned people from saying anything which could “offend or insult” people because of their race.
As Heat Street has previously reported, the Australian government is mounting a push to rewrite the legislation so that words must “harass or intimidate” before they become a matter for the courts.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the legislation in question – Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – has “lost its credibility” and needs to change.
However, Aly proposes doing the opposite – keeping the lower standard for the law, and adding “religion” to the current list of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.
Speaking to The Australian, she said: “I find it a little bit strange that someone can call you a ‘dirty Arab’ and that be covered under the bill, but if they called you a dirty Muslim you’re not covered.”…
Thanks to TT for this excellent insight into the botched Garland assassination attempt, which seems to have been sanctioned by the Obama regime.
Despite all the predictable politically correct whitewashing and appeasement, CBS did a good job of highlighting a curious and still unexplained aspect of the attack: the FBI clearly knew the attack was coming (although it didn’t bother to inform us or our security team), as the FBI agent was right there, following behind the jihadis, whom he had encouraged to “tear up Texas.” But even though they knew the attack was coming, they didn’t have a team in place to stop the jihadis. They had one man there, and one man only. The jihadis were not stopped by FBI agents, but by our own security team. If the jihadis had gotten through our team, they would have killed Pamela Geller and me, and many others. (They would no doubt have loved to kill Geert Wilders, but he left before they arrived.)
FBI agent was at the Garland jihad attack, egging on the attackers.
60 Minutes ran a feature Sunday night about the FBI curious role in the May 2015 Garland jihad attack at a free speech event co-organized by Pamela Geller and me. It was, predictably enough, viciously biased, sloppy, and incomplete, but it was nonetheless illuminating in raising a hard and unanswerable question: did the FBI want Pamela Geller and me dead?
Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”
The contempt fairly leapt from the screen. “A self-described free speech advocate”? Did 60 Minutes mean that Pamela Geller didn’t have the requisite degree in free speech advocacy? Or that she wasn’t really a free speech advocate? What they really mean, of course, is that she is not on the Left, and so cannot be celebrated as a free speech advocate the way the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were all Leftists, can be.
Will the dimbulbs who keep telling us that Muslims only migrate for “a better life” in the West change their tune now? I won’t hold my breath.
Venice’s chief prosecutor Adelchi D’Ippolito said the suspects had celebrated the Westminster attack in London which saw Khalid Masood kill four people and injure up to 50 others on March 22.
Three men from Kosovo and an unidentified minor have been arrested on suspicion of plotting to blow up Venice’s Rialto Bridge.
Fisnik Bekaj, Dake Haziraj and Arjan Babaj were detained in overnight raids after it emerged that they had undergone ‘religious radicalisation’.
One of the suspected jihadist plotters boasted that they would ‘go straight to heaven’ if they put a bomb under the bridge, a wiretap conversation revealed.
They were reportedly inspired by the Westminster terror attacks in London and had discussed plans to join Islamist fighters in Syria.
Raids were conducted at 12 addresses in the historic city centre to find the men.
‘With all the unbelievers there are in Venice, you put a bomb under the Rialto and you go straight to heaven,’ the alleged plotter said.
‘That was one the most worrying and alarming remarks we heard,’ said Venice prosecutor Adelchi d’Ippolito said at a press conference.
Two of the men worked as waiters in Venice, according to local media. One of the suspects was arrested in an apartment close to La Fenice, Venice’s opera house.
Police had been monitoring the group since last year, it emerged.
The suspects appeared to have been studying how to build explosives but did not have the necessary components for making a bomb, the court heard.
The country’s counter-terrorism bureau said there is a ‘serious and current threat’ of a terror attack targeting the region, and in particular Israeli tourists.
The Red Sea region includes the tourist destinations of Sharm el-Sheikh, Hurghada, Marsa Alam and Luxor, which are popular with British holidaymakers.
Israeli tourists in the Red Sea region have been told to leave immediately and those planning to go have been told to cancel plans over fears of an imminent ISIS terror attack
Eitan Ben-David, the head of Israel’s counter-terror bureau, told The Telegraph: ‘We don’t want to cry wolf, wolf. We really believe that the threat is serious.’
The great lament of leaders and lawmakers has always been that you can’t legislate against stupidity. And yet, in one of life’s great ironies, we are so stupid we keep trying to.
The perfect example is the current debate about free speech, which has been so deluded and hysterical you could be forgiven for wondering if we’ve mastered the power of speech at all.
At its core is Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, a once innocuous piece of law that has become such a lightning rod of discontent that our Prime Minister’s survival may rest upon it.
Killing the messenger after the London attacks
After last Wednesday’s deadly attack outside London’s Houses of Parliament, the left-wing British media expressed outrage – not at the appalling way in which Islam and Islamic terrorism have transformed life and sown death throughout the Western world, but at the purported moral depravity of those who dare to connect the dots.
In the Guardian, Jon Henley and Amber Jamiesen sneered at Marine Le Pen for “linking the London attack to migrant policy, despite the attacker being British.” (My emphasis.) They smeared as “xenophobic” Nigel Farage’s argument “that the London attacks proved Donald Trump’s hardline immigration and anti-Muslim policies were correct.” The Independent‘s Maya Oppenheimer censured Farage’s comments, too, countering his critique of multiculturalism by saying he’d “failed to mention the fact many of the victims of the attack were in fact foreigners themselves.” (My emphasis again.) Needless to say, the issue wasn’t Britishness vs. foreignness; it was Islam. But to say so was verboten. As Theresa May said (in what already seems destined to become an immortal statement), “Islamist terror” has nothing do with Islam.
Accusing non-Muslims of doing to Muslims what Islam commands Muslims do to
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center
A little known fact: When Muslims persecute religious minorities in their midst, they often justify it by projecting the worst aspects of Islam onto the “infidels.” A well-known phenomenon, “projection” is defined as “the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people.” One academic article dealing with violence and projection states, “Projection allows the killer to project his (unacceptable) desire to kill (torture, rape, steal, dominate, etc.) onto some target group or person. This demonizes his target, making it even more acceptable to kill.”
Accordingly, anyone who listens to the last video made by ISIS inciting violence against Egypt’s Copts would think the Christian minority is oppressing the Muslim majority, hence the need for “heroic” ISIS to “retaliate.” Similarly, after ISIS slaughtered 21 Coptic Christians on the shores of Libya in 2016, it made a video portraying its actions as “revenge” against the Coptic Church, which ISIS bizarrely accuses of kidnapping, torturing, and forcing Muslim women to convert to Christianity. (Apparently the killing of nearly 60 Christians in a Baghdad church a few years earlier—which the jihadis then also portrayed as revenge to the Coptic Church’s forced conversion of Muslim women—was not enough).