Tennessee: School enforces sharia, bans town hall on…sharia law

By Creeping Sharia:

via FBI-banned, DOJ classified unindicted terror funding co-conspirator, fed judge confirmed Hamas front group CAIR Welcomes Cancellation of Anti-Muslim Event in Tenn. School

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today said it has joined with concerned Muslims in Tennessee in welcoming cancellation of an anti-Muslim event scheduled for April 24 at a Knoxville high school.

Another American inflicted with Adult Onset Islam via Approval rescinded for Shari’a Law event at Farragut High School.

"It's kind of an aggressive tone on the flyer," said AbdelRahman Murphy.

“It’s kind of an aggressive tone on the flyer,” said AbdelRahman Murphy.

“Feel free hosting it anywhere else by renting out a banquet hall, but to host it at a public place is one that is not comfortable for the rest of us to know about,” said [AbdelRahman] Murphy.

6 News reached out to the Knoxville chapter of ACT! for America. They say it is about education.

“He is going to be coming to share with us his expertise on what Shari’a law can be doing to Tennessee and to America as a whole,” said John Peach with ACT! For America.

They also say the venue simply should not matter.

“We feel like it’s very important that we have our public institutions take part in this because it’s not meant to be a religious thing. It’s not a political thing. It’s particularly for education purposes,” said Peach.

There is no word yet if ACT! for America plans to hold the event in a new venue.

John Peach issued this statement late Friday afternoon:

“Why is it that Muslims engage in teaching about how good Islam is for Tennessee at the Cedar Bluff Library – a public building, but they feel “uncomfortable” when ACT! for America plans an event to show the opposite viewpoint at a public building? (This is documented as follows):

Muslims like the support the University of Tennessee gives them to host activities and venues on their campus. Furthermore, it likes its Muslim Student Association (MSA) to hold events at their tax supported public UT campus.

“Why is it that all Tennessee social study textbooks to be authorized for use in our public schools must be approved by Muslim affiliates? (Hundreds of reviews have exposed the fact that our textbooks are overwhelmingly biased toward Muslims over Christianity and Judaism, with Islam always portrayed as being more significant than all other religions).

“Political Correctness has gone amuck and is destroying our country. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If it’s right for Muslims to host events in tax-funded public facilities, then what is wrong with a group of citizens wanting the same privilege?

“Last December, ACT! for America – Knoxville Chapter was granted permission by Knox County Schools to use the facilities of Farragut High School to hold an educational forum including two speakers, followed by an opportunity for the public to answer any questions of the two. This we called the Town Hall – Farragut.

“We in good faith and urgent vitality have been promoting this event for the past four months, believing we were following all the guidelines given to us. We have spent over $1500.00 to advance this cause, including taking out a special insurance policy just to cover this occasion.

“The purpose of the meeting was to educate our local citizens about the dangers of Sharia Law, especially as it negatively affects our children, our churches, our law enforcement personnel, and our community leaders. Now, due to the fear of Muslims in the Knoxville area, the venue for the event that was open to everyone was cancelled. This is a great example of what Sharia Law is doing to America.”

 

 

CAIR Pressures Another College

CAIR has spoken out against numerous sections of the book, including portions that allegedly read, “Islam is an ideology of control, not for human and brotherly love,” and “Muslims would try to force their values and traditions on others callously. They would force their neighbors to cover their heads; otherwise they taunt them for not being modest; Muslim teachers would try to make their Christian students pray according to their Islamic religion.”

Muslim advocacy group calls for investigation by Oberlin College into lecturer’s ‘bigotry’

From: ChronicleOnline
By: Chelsea Miller, April 11, 2014

OBERLIN — The Cleveland chapter of the Council on America-Islamic Relations is asking Oberlin College to investigate a lecturer in the Arabic Language Department whom they say openly promotes “anti-Muslim bigotry and crude stereotypes of Muslims in his writings on campus.”

CAIR-Cleveland said lecturer Samir Amin Abdellatif is the publisher of a 290-page tract that “vilifies” Islam and Muslims. The organization said Abdellatif’s publication, entitled “The Unknown History of Islam,” promotes xenophobic views about Muslim immigration to the West, as well as supports “outlandish conspiracy theories.”

CAIR-Cleveland has requested that the college investigate Abdellatif’s teachings through a letter sent to Oberlin College President Marvin Krislov on March 11. In the letter, Shearson wrote, “We believe the reputation of Oberlin College is tarnished and students are done a disservice by having an Arabic language instructor who openly promotes anti-Muslim bigotry and who condones crude and ugly caricatures of Muslims.”

Full Article: http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2014/04/11/muslim-advocacy-group-calls-investigation-oberlin-college-professors-bigotry/

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

COMMENT/ANALYSIS: As is often the case, CAIR continues to attack and attempt to silence critics of  Islam.  The irony being that they are protesting a book that ” would try to force their values and traditions on others” … what CAIR regularly does as demonstrated with this incident.  It should be noted that the person that called CAIR on this matter is listed in the below article – accused of harrassment of another professor.

Related:

Facebook Exec to Headline Muslim Advocates “Countering Hate on the Internet” Dinner

Facebook-AFPBreitbart, by Pamela Geller:

Increasingly, the war in the information battlespace is being waged outside the hallowed halls of the enemedia. The Islamic supremacist group Muslim Advocates has announced that its Annual Gala 2014 on May 3 will host an “onstage conversation” about “countering hate on the internet” featuring Monika Bickert, the Head of Global Policy Management for Facebook, along with Muslim Advocates’ Executive Director Farhana Khera and Hilary Shelton of the NAACP.

The key to winning this war for freedom is in the war of ideas. So the apparatuses that truth-tellers and voices of freedom including my colleagues and me use, tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin, are of cardinal importance. When news from my website AtlasShrugs.com goes viral, invariably it is Facebook that drives it.

This makes sense. Facebook is the personal bulletin board for millions of Americans, on which they share family photos, personal victories or defeats, and news that they believe to be of critical importance. So of course Atlas Shrugs news items would be trafficked there frequently. And that’s why this particular news story about Monika Bickert’s appearance at the Muslim Advocates Annual Gala, although innocuous on its face, is of grave significance.

Islamic supremacists and stealth jihadists are very aware of the ways in which voices of freedom get the word out after having been blacklisted from conventional means of communication and information dissemination. And so these well-funded savages host expensive, silly dinners, galas, and conferences full of empty praise and flattery for clueless tools like Bickert. While Bickert’s name is clearly not on the lips and minds of most Americans, she has the keys to the proverbial kingdom. She is the gatekeeper.

Who exactly is Monika Bickert? As Head of Global Policy Management for Facebook, she is Facebook’s speech police. So is it any wonder that groups like Muslim Advocates would be feting her? Muslim Advocates is an organization of Sharia enforcers, enforcers of the blasphemy laws under Sharia. According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, in 2011 Khera wrote a letter, also signed by 57 Muslim and allied organizations, to then-Homeland Security Adviser John Brennan, demanding that he create “an interagency task force, led by the White House” to “review all counterterror trainers, so as to purge those that the Muslim organizations, which included many with Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood ties, found unacceptable.” FBI trainers such as Islamic scholar Robert Spencer were summarily dropped.

Khera also demanded that the Obama Administration:

“[P]urge all federal government training materials of biased materials”; “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training”; and more to ensure that only the message about Islam and jihad preferred by the signatories would get through to intelligence and law enforcement agents.

Counter-terror training materials were subsequently scrubbed of all mention of Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism, leaving our law enforcement agents completely unequipped to understand the foremost terror threat of our time.

Groups like these have millions of dollars and an obviously subversive mission, and for them someone like Bickert is a key player. How many of you who are reading this know exactly what I’m talking about? How many of you have been banned from Facebook for twenty-four hours for posting a jihad story or saying something that might offend Muslims? I myself have been banned numerous times for merely posting a link to a jihad article. The well-oiled machine of Islamic supremacists descends daily on Facebook and flags or reports stories that they deem unacceptable for the eyes of the Facebook user and American news consumer.

We cannot abandon Facebook or the other enormously popular social media outlets. We cannot cede the field. The freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to speak in the wilderness, where no one is there to hear us. That’s not what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech is the protection of all ideas, not just those that global jihadists deem to be Sharia-compliant.

Despite this fictional narrative about a “lucrative Islamophobia industry,” counter-jihad freedom fighters don’t have the funds to fete a tool like Bickert. Only groups like Muslim Advocates do.

These “galas” such as the one that Muslim Advocates is holding should chill you and compel you to action. Many of my colleagues, such as Anders Gravers of Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) have been silenced. His personal Facebook page and organization page have been disabled, shut down, and silenced by these same supremacist cretins.

Most Americans assume that we all share a value system based on freedom and individual rights. But such an assumption can no longer be made. You can’t expect that such freedoms will be automatically protected. We have to fight every single battle. Every attack. We have to counter every hostile attack on our freedoms with an equal or more powerful response. Otherwise, make no mistake: we will lose our freedom of speech. Its continued existence is not guaranteed. Its survival depends on us.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

Megyn Kelly Embarrasses CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper

download (90)Answering Muslims:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) exists for one primary purpose: to silence critics of Islam. The best way to silence critics of Islam, however, is to masquerade as a civil rights organization. Thus, CAIR pretends to be concerned about Constitutional rights, while demonizing anyone who dares object to jihad, sharia, and the abuse of women. 

Sadly, the American media have been falling for CAIR’s tactics for years. Megyn Kelly is one of the few exceptions. Here’s her recent two-part obliteration of CAIR’s spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper. 

PART ONE

 

PART TWO

 

Check out Discover the Networks profile on Ibrahim Hooper

 

CAIR Reacts to Brandeis University’s Plan to Honor Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Brandeis University recently announced that it would be honoring women’s rights advocateAyaanHirsi Ali. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), however, despises Ali for her criticisms of Sharia and Jihad. Afternumerous complaints, Brandeis University bowed to Sharia, and cancelled its plans to honor Ali.This video is an attempt to introduce CAIR to the concept of consistency.
In case you missed the original parody, here it is: 

 

Enforcing Islamic Law at Brandeis

AHABy Diana West:

When Brandeis University withdrew an honorary degree for Ayaan Hirsi Ali after a student-professor firestorm branded her an “Islamophobe,” the campus in effect declared itself an outpost of Islamic law, American-style. Officially, Brandeis is now a place where critics of Islam – “blasphemers” and “apostates,” according to Islamic law – are scorned and rejected.

Not that Brandeis put it that way in its unsigned announcement about Hirsi Ali’s dis-invitation, which notes: “She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world. That said, we cannot overlook … her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”

Translation: Hirsi Ali’s advocacy on behalf of brutalized women is Good, but Hirsi Ali’s “past statements” – advocacy that connects such violence to Islamic teachings – are Bad, or, in faddish twaddle, “Islamophobia.” As a dhimmi (non-Muslims under Islamic law) institution, Brandeis cannot possibly honor the infidel.

Islamic blasphemy laws sanction the death penalty for exactly the kind of criticism of Islam ex-Muslim Hirsi Ali has engaged in: hence, the innumerable death threats she has received for over a decade; and hence, the ritual Islamic slaughter of Hirsi Ali’s co-producer, Theo van Gogh, for “Submission,” their short film about specifically Islamic violence and repression of women. In the U.S. (so far), punishment for such “transgressions” against Islam usually resembles an aggressive form of blackballing. There are horrifying exceptions, however, including the decision to prosecute and incarcerate Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of “Innocence of Muslims,” for “parole violations.” To be sure, when it comes to participating in the 21st-century public square – in this case, donning academic robes and making valedictory remarks – “Islamophobes” need not apply.

This has long been the case. But we have reached a new nadir when a courageous figure of Hirsi Ali’s stature is publicly lashed for expressing herself about the perils that Islamic teachings pose to women’s rights and, more generally, human rights. Brandeis, however, deems such opinions “hate speech” – exactly the phrase used in an online student petition against Hirsi Ali. After all, name-calling is so much simpler than having to mount an argument. And so much more effective as a political weapon.

In our post-Orwellian time, “hate speech” means publicly reviled speech. A “hate-speaker” thus becomes fair game for public humiliation – exactly what Brandeis chose to inflict on Hirsi Ali. The humiliation, however, is Brandeis’ alone.

For what “core values” is Brandeis protecting? Denial. Orthodoxy. Cant. Lori Lowenthal Marcus, writing in The Jewish Press, excerpted Facebook comments by Bernadette Brooten, a Brandeis professor of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies, in which Brooten described the anti-Hirsi-Ali letter she and 85 other Brandeis professors signed. “We stressed that we recognize the harm of female genital cutting, forced marriages, and honor killings, but that this selection obscures the violence against women that happens among non-Muslims, including on our own campus,” Brooten wrote. “I recognize the harm of gendered violence wherever it occurs, and I applaud the hard, effective work of many Muslims who are working to oppose it in their own communities.”

Whether Brandeis counts as a hotbed of “gendered violence” aside (let alone the predominantly Islamic phenomena of female genital mutilation, forced marriages and honor killings), Brooten has underscored the source of animus against Hirsi Ali. Her “selection” for university honors “obscures” non-Muslim violence against women, Brooten writes, but what I think disturbs the professors more is what Hirsi Ali has done – what her whole life experience signifies – to highlight the violence against women and children that is legitimized and inspired by specifically and authoritatively Islamic sources. Thanks in part to Brandeis, such sources are increasingly relegated to the list of post-9/11 taboos.

Never say Islam has anything to do with terrorism. Don’t ever, ever draw a cartoon of Muhammad. Oppose “gendered violence” (there’s no such thing as Islamic-rooted violence against women). Ostracize or humiliate “apostates” like Hirsi Ali (at least until real Islamic apostasy law becomes applicable here). In other words, protect, coddle and swathe Islam from the barbs and scrutiny that all other religions receive – or else. Or else what? Citizens might decide to halt Islamic immigration or “refugee resettlement” because it brings Islamic law to the West.

Then again, those laws are already here – and in force at Brandeis.

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

As for the politics of all this, Mark Steyn nails it in an interview with Jamie Weinstein of The Daily Caller:

MARK STEYN: Well, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali woman, a black, feminist Somali who was raised in a brutal, extreme Islamic upbringing where she underwent female genital mutilation, and she was put in an arranged marriage and all the rest of it. And she managed to escape to the Netherlands and get elected to the Dutch Parliament, and she made a film about the state of Muslim women, about the life of women in the Muslim world called Submission. She wrote the film. The guy who directed it is Theo Van Gogh. The film so outraged Muslims in Amsterdam that one of them murdered him, all but decapitated him in the street. His last words were, “Can’t we just talk about it?”, and the guy didn’t want to talk about it. He all but decapitated him, and his final act was to pin a letter and use a knife to stab it through what was left of Theo Van Gogh’s chest, pledging among other things to do the same to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Now she could have done what a lot of people would do. She could have moved to New Zealand, gone into hiding… changed her name, had a quiet life. And instead, she has lived with that death threat and many others, and had the courage to speak out against it. Most of us are never called upon to be that brave. Most of us will never have to actually weigh those odds the way Ayaan did. And no one’s asking these ghastly squishes at Brandeis to show that kind of courage. All this pathetic president – I want to get his name right, I’ve got it written down here… Frederick Lawrence. All this wretched nothing eunuch man, Frederick Lawrence, had to do – he didn’t have to show courage on that scale – all he had to do was not cave in to pressure group bullies and allow this woman to speak and receive the worthless honorary degree from his worthless institution. These guys won’t defend western civilization, and so western civilization will die, because it depends on the defense of losers like this guy.

JAMIE WEINSTEIN: And people when they get honorary degrees, it’s not like they only go to non-political people. Universities have awarded them in the recent past to people that want Israel to be wiped off the map and destroyed. Is that not right?

MS: Yeah, that’s true. And that was Brandeis, a guy called Tony Kushner… I stand back and occasionally roll my eyes at the dreary left-wing hacks invited to give commencement speeches, garlanded with state honors, things that if you trend to the right side of the spectrum, you know you’re going to be labeled ‘controversial conservative’, and you’ll never get anywhere near. But this woman is a black, feminist atheist from Somalia. And so what we’re learning here, which is fascinating, in the hierarchy of progressive-politics identity-group victimhood, Islam trumps everything. Islam trumps gender. The fact that she’s a woman doesn’t matter. It trumps race. The fact that she’s black doesn’t matter. It trumps secularism. The fact that she’s an atheist doesn’t matter. They wouldn’t do this if it was a Christian group complaining about her, if it was a Jewish group complaining about her. But when the Islamic lobby group says oh, no, we’re not putting up with this, as I said, these jelly-spined nothings at Brandeis just roll over for them.

Ali: Brandeis Offered ‘Very Feeble Excuse’ to Rescind Honorary Degree

ayaan and kelly2

‘We send our kids to school so they can be confronted with ideas that they are not comfortable with’

BY: 
April 9, 2014 10:00 pm

Women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali appeared on The Kelly File to discuss her response to the “regrettable” decision by Brandeis University to cow to Islamic pressures and not give her an honorary degree and speaking platform at the graduation ceremony.

The Somali-born Ali has spoken out against such atrocities as honor killings and genital mutilation and been the subject of intense criticism by Muslims. She called the idea that Brandeis was suddenly made aware this week of some of her past controversial statements “a feeble excuse.”

“What surprised me is the decision by Brandeis first to say we want to give you this honor,” she said. “We know what you do, and in the age of Google, all of that is out there. It’s all public, and to come around and say we really didn’t know some of these things, I think it’s a very feeble excuse. I don’t want this to distract us from what I wanted to say during that commencement, which is to tell these students how incredibly privileged they are, especially the female students among them, that they are growing up in a world that is free where they have proper education. The way to get a better world, a world of peace, is to get the ability as young people to learn how to think critically. I know my presence for Muslims students at Brandeis is offensive, whatever they call it, insulting. It is controversial. But I thought that’s exactly what universities are for. We send our kids to school so they can be confronted with ideas that they are not comfortable with.”

Ali said the decision by Brandeis “made her sad” and was possibly done out of fear that there would be violent repercussions if she were allowed to speak.

“I think if you insult Jews in this country, if you insult Christians in this country, if you insult Mormons, I watched ‘The Book of Mormon,’ you will get people that will write to you about their outrage, but there is always this fear that if you insult Muslims, there is going to be some kind of violent repercussion,” she said. “That may have been part of the decision to do that, but they are not doing their students any favors and they are not doing the Muslim students any favors because to really be a simulated into American society, to become American is to accept the idea that you can have a robust debate and there is no other place better to do that than on university campuses, and the decision of Brandeis University is really regrettable. It makes me sad.”

Here is the entire segment including part one of Megyn Kelly’s interview with Ibrahim Hooper (part two will air tonight)

Banned in the British Library

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
April 8, 2014

Prominent counter-jihadis like Geert Wilders, Michael Savage, and Robert Spencer have the distinction of being banned from entry into the United Kingdom – and, now, Her Majesty’s Government, in its wisdom, has also banned two websites connected to me. It’s not quite the same, admittedly, and I am working to get this ban removed, but I also wear it as a perverse badge of honor given that government’s shameful record vis-à-vis Islamism.

Say you’re in the British Library, the national depository library and a government institution, roughly equivalent to the Library of Congress in the United States or the Bibliothèque nationale in France. Say you want to read what David Brog writes about declining Evangelical support for Israel in the latest Middle East Quarterly. You type in MEForum.org and get the following result:

Or perhaps you wish to learn why I distinguish between Islam and Islamism, or why I worry about Islamist aggression in Britain, so you type in DanielPipes.org only to find this:

The distinction between the two sites particularly charms me. The British Library categorizes MEForum.org as “Religion, Intolerance” and DanielPipes.org as “Religion, Adult Sites, Intolerance, Blogs.” (It’s probably titles like “Arabian Sex Tourism” that won me the X-rating.) Oddly, both sites are blocked for the same reason: “Intolerance.”

Should you, however, be in the British Library and wish to develop hatred toward Jews, no problem! Here are some antisemitic sites, all accessed in the past few days:

  • Exposing the Holocaust Hoax Archive: the name tells it all
  • Gilad Atzmon: the personal website of a toxically antisemitic Jew
  • Jew Knowledge: contains learned inquiries into Jewish control of Hollywood, Jewish connections to 9/11, and the like
  • Muslim Public Affairs Committee, UK: an antisemitic jihadi group
  • The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: the “warrant for genocide” is available in multiple versions

Then, if you need firing up to go murder people on jihad, the British Library makes rich pickings available to you:

  • Al Muntada: runs some of the worst hate preachers in Europe and stands accused in Nigeria of funding Boko Haram
  • Anjem Choudary: possibly the most extreme of British Islamists, he praised the perpetrators of the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks
  • FiSyria: promotes the Sunni jihad against the Assad regime in Syria
  • Friends of Al-Aqsa: a pro-Hamas British group
  • Hizb ut-Tahrir: an international movement seeking to replace existing countries with a global caliphate
  • Islamic Education and Research Academy: a Qatari-funded Salafi group that includes a number of openly pro-terror operatives. Its trustees openly incite hatred against Jews, women, et al.
  • Muslimah’s Renaissance: an anti-Semitic, anti-Shia group
  • Al-Qassam: the military wing of Hamas, widely categorized as a terrorist organization
  • Palestinian Forum of Britain: a Hamas front
  • Palestine Return Centre: another Hamas front
  • Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: deemed a terrorist group by both the European Union and the U.S. government

And then, perhaps the worst of all:

  • Tawhed: al-Qaeda’s Arabic-language ideological website which promotes writings by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman az-Zawahiri

There could be a technical explanation for this bizarre situation. The British Library issued a press release in December 2013, “Web filtering on the British Library’s WiFi service,” explaining that

in our public areas where there are regular visits by school children, we filter certain online content, such as pornography and gambling websites. We have recently introduced a new WiFi service. It’s early days in the implementation of this service and we are aware that the new filter has been blocking certain sites erroneously. We are actively working to resolve this issue.

Might this be the problem? I have written the library and requested that it unblock the sites. Now, let’s see if the censorship was “erroneous” or intentional.

(In contrast, the British Library has not yet excluded me from the UK union catalog of books; so, the same organization that bans my website permits my books. That makes as much sense as the rest of the British government’s policies.)

Apr. 9, 2014 update: For updates, see “No Longer Banned in the British Library!

Erdogan Bans Twitter, Vows to Show “Power of Turkish Republic”

protest of Erdogan's ban on twitter

Turkey’s membership in NATO should be on the table. The NATO website says, “NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defense and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.”

BY RYAN MAURO:

The so-called “moderate” Islamist government of Turkey, led by Prime Minister Erdogan, exhibited its undemocratic tendencies again, this time by blocking Twitter. The move came after Erdogan vowed to “wipe out” the social media network that is used by 10 million Turks.

The restriction on free speech and flow of information fulfilled a pledge Erdogan made a day earlier. Twitter refused Erdogan’s demands to censor certain links, so the Turkish government got permission from a court to stop the population from using the website.

“We now have a court order. We’ll eradicate Twitter. I don’t care what the international community says. Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic,” he declared.

He also recently threatened to ban Facebook and YouTube.

In its official blog, the U.S. State Department called the censorship “21st Century book-burning.” Chiding Erdogan, the blog argued, “[Censorship] doesn’t make anyone stronger. This brand of suppression affects all of us: In an era in which the Internet serves as the world’s community forum, censorship anywhere is a threat to freedom of speech everywhere.”

Yet in an indication of the soft-balled response we can expect from the U.S., the blog continued in a conciliatory tone, saying, “Sometimes even our friends make this mistake,” and confessed that, “The United States’ history on freedom of expression has …slipped at times.”

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, tweeted: “The freedom to speak out and to connect is a fundamental right. The people of Turkey deserve that right restored.”  Britain, Germany, Canada and a number of other nations all voiced their objections to the censorship.

Since the court order went into effect, when Turks try to access Twitter, a message pops up from the Turkish official that oversees telecommunication.

The ban coincides with the release of a hyper-nationalistic video encouraging Turks to rise to defeat some kind of enemy assault.

***********

When Turkey joined the alliance in 1952, it was a different country. Now, it is run by an Islamist government that is supportive of Hamas, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. It clamps down on the democratic values that NATO says it exists to promote.

Turkey came to this point incrementally, in accordance with the Islamist doctrine of gradualism. At first, the 2002 election victory of Erdogan’s party was hailed as a potential move towards democracy. As Turkey became increasingly hostile to the West’s interests, the West dismissed these hostilities as manageable differences between like-minded allies.

The change Turkey underwent from 2002 to 2014 isn’t only a lesson about Erdogan and his supporters. This is the gradualist doctrine in action.

Read more at Clarion Project

Don’t Give Away the Net

1117337656Center for Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

On the afternoon of Friday, March 14, 2014, the Obama administration announced that it was taking a step – without prior notice or evident consultation with Congress – to “support and enhance the multi-stakeholder model of Internet policymaking and governance.” Like so many other of Team Obama’s unilateral decisions, this one is not just contrary to the national interest.  It amounts to fraud.

Specifically, according to a press release issued by the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration , the NTIA says it intends to “transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.” To that end, “As the first step, NTIA is asking the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS).”

The administration says this step will lead to a new management arrangement for the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) that will, effective in September 2015, repose that responsibility with some other entity than NTIA. According to remarks at a March 14th press conference by the agency’s administrator, Lawrence Strickling, this transition “must have broad community support” from both Internet users, governments and companies. He also asserted that the forthcoming governance model has to “maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet Domain Name System.”

It is not clear precisely how the U.S government will be able to assure such outcomes having already announced that it is terminating the present arrangement.  Businesses and non-governmental organizations that have endorsed this initiative with the caveat that they expect these conditions to eventuate are either kidding themselves or deceiving the rest of us.

That is especially so given that it is a safe bet ICANN will fall under the effective, if not de jure, control of the United Nation’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU).  Should that happen, neither the security, stability nor resiliency of the Internet’s Domain Name System can be assured.  Indeed, this sort of arrangement has long been demanded by such enemies of freedom and free expression as: the governments of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran; multi-national groups like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; and the UN bureaucracy.

As former senior State Department official Christian Whiton has observed, there are predictable consequences to having the “directory and traffic signals of the Internet” come under the control of such hostile forces, including the following:

  • Greater control over the content of the Internet, including censorship, by governments who regard it as a threat to their holds on power.
  • Impediments to technological innovation as bureaucrats and hostile governments seek to dictate what can and cannot be done with the net.
  • UN taxation of domain name registrations and, in due course, other Internet transactions.  Such international taxation will make the United Nations even less accountable and afford it the latitude to fund activities detrimental to U.S. interests and those of its allies.
  • Control of the Internet can allow it to be used as an instrument of warfare. While the United States has refrained from making such use, allowing actual or potentially hostile powers to exercise such control may mean the Internet is simply disabled at a critical moment, or perhaps employed against us.

The United States has managed the Internet for the benefit of the whole world since it created first the DARPANet and then the World Wide Web. There is no good reason for abandoning what remains of that role – especially in favor of what is virtually certain to be a vastly inferior management arrangement.

Some have compared this surrender of what has been, as a practical matter, an American asset to President Carter’s decision to give-away of the Panama Canal. The difference is that at the time the Canal was given away, we could not be sure it would wind up in unfriendly hands (although it was predictable and predicted that it would, and the Chinese have proved us right).  But in this case, we have every reason to believe — despite the administration’s obscuring of who will take over from us — that the internet will wind up under the thumb of our enemies.

Congress must oppose this latest example of the Obama Doctrine – diminishing our country, emboldening our enemies and undermining our friends.  Tell your representative to act to keep the Internet an instrument of freedom and technological innovation (www.DontGiveAwaytheNet.com).

Also see

Will the infamous 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals make First Amendment exception for Islamists by forcing Google to remove Muhammad movie?

W2Florida Family Association:

Click here to send your email asking 43 appellate court judges to affirm First Amendment over Islamist exception.

By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Google on February 26, 2014 to remove the controversial movie“Innocence of Muslims” from Youtube.com. This movie that sparked protests across the Muslim world “depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.   In a 13 minute 51 second trailer, the Islamic prophet is made to look like a murderer and adulterer as well” according to TheBlaze.com

Cindy Lee Garcia filed a law suit against Google on October 17, 2012 seeking a restraining order that would require Youtube.com to remove“Innocence of Muslims”  from their web service.  Garcia claimed that she had a copyright for a five second video that was incorporated into the film and that she had not given permission for its use in the movie.  She also claimed that she would suffer irreparable harm if the movie were not removed from access on the World Wide Web.

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order on November 30, 2012 DENYING Garcia’s petition to the court (in part) because: 

  • Garcia failed to “establish that she is likely to succeed on the merits, that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” 
  • The Film was posted for public viewing on YouTube on July 2, 2012 – five months ago.  Given this five-month delay, Garcia has not demonstrated that the requested preliminary relief would prevent any alleged harm.
  • As was the case in Aalmuhammed v. Lee , 202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000), the Film “is a copyrightable work, and it is undisputed that the movie was intended by everyone involved with it to be a unitary whole.”  Id. at 1231. Additionally, a copyright in a work “vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.” 17 U.S.C. § 201(a). 
  • Garcia does not argue that she is the sole author of the Film, nor does she argue that the Film was a joint work of which she was a co-author. According to the United States Supreme Court, the “author” is the “person to whom the work owes its origin and who superintended the whole work.” Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d at 1233 (citing Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 61, 4 S. Ct. 279, 28 L. Ed. 349 (1884)). By Garcia’s own allegations and argument, she does not meet this standard with respect to the Film. Furthermore, Garcia concedes that she does not have joint authorship over the Film or joint ownership of the copyright in the Film. (See Reply at 12 n.11).

Plaintiff Garcia appealed District Judge Fitzgerald’s ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.  By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the appellate court reversed the lower court ruling.  The panel ruled that Garcia did have a copyright claim to her five second segment, could suffer irreparable harm and ordered Google to remove the video from Youtube.com.  Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said Garcia was likely to prevail on her copyright claim, and having already faced “serious threats against her life,” faced irreparable harm absent an injunction.

In a statement, Google said:  “We strongly disagree with this ruling and will fight it.”  The film has now become an important part of public debate, Google argued, and should not be taken down.  “Our laws permit even the vilest criticisms of governments, political leaders, and religious figures as legitimate exercises in free speech,” Google said.  Google’s statement indicates that they believe that the motivation behind the appellate panel ruling has more to do with the negative portrayal of Muhammad than it does with the Chief Judge’s newly created doctrine regarding partial copy right.  The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruling in Garcia vs Google appears to be more about appeasing Islamists than it does about defending the fullness of the First Amendment, following the rules of judicial construction and respecting established legal precedent.

A sua sponte request filed on March 6, 2014 indicates that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals will RECONSIDER the appeal En Bancbefore the full appellate court.  The parties to the litigation were instructed to file their briefs with the court by 5:00 PM Pacific time, Wednesday, March 12, 2014.

Now the full 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals will reconsider the appeal from the district court as well as their panel’s troubled ruling.  They need to know that American’s treasure their First Amendment and do not want special exceptions for Islamists.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to the forty three 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals justices urging them to affirm the First Amendment rights that all Americans cherish by reversing the panel’s troubled ruling and affirming the district court’s decision.  Florida Family Association is taking a position in this case based upon judicial principle and without regard to the parties involved or content of the movie.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.  

Please click here to send your email to forty three 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals judges.

Go to Florida Family Association for the judge’s individual contact information

Appeal to Ninth Circuit Filed after Federal Court in Seattle Upholds Censorship of Anti-Terrorism Advertisement

censoredThe American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed its opening brief on Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appealing a lower federal court ruling that denied AFLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  AFLC’s motion requested that the court order the King County, Washington, transit authority to display an anti-terrorism bus advertisement that it had refused to display.

The proposed advertisement, which was submitted by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and its executive directors, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, included pictures, names, and a similar message from an earlier anti-terrorism advertisement sponsored by the U.S. State Department, which was accepted for display on King County buses.  The State Department advertisement depicted the “Faces of Global Terrorism” in an effort to “stop a terrorist” and “save lives.”  In addition, the advertisement offered an “up to $25 million reward” for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists.

Moreover, in the State Department advertisement, thirty out of the thirty-two listed terrorists had Muslim names or are wanted for terrorism related to organizations conducting terrorist acts in the name of Islam.  After complaints from a Washington State politician and two Muslim-American advocacy groups that claimed the list of wanted global terrorists appeared to include only Muslim terrorists, the federal government terminated its “Faces of Global Terrorism” advertisement campaign.

In response to the government’s decision to remove its advertisement, AFDI created its own, similar advertisement to replace it.  Despite originally accepting the government’s advertisement, King County rejected AFDI’s ad, claiming that it was offensive to Muslims.

On January 27, 2014, David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, presented oral argument before Federal Judge Richard A. Jones, sitting in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. [See video of oral argument here.]  Yerushalmi argued that King County’s refusal to run the advertisement was an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech and therefore the court should order the agency to display the advertisement immediately.

Nevertheless, Judge Jones ruled that King County’s decision to reject the advertisement was “reasonable,” specifically noting that displaying pictures of Muslim and Arab terrorists and labeling them jihadis is offensive to Muslims.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “We are confident that the Ninth Circuit will reverse this decision.  The trial court sacrificed Free Speech for political correctness.”

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented: “Simply put, the government’s position is inconsistent with reality – namely, sharia-adherent jihadists pose a significant threat to our national security.  This case is a classic articulation of political correctness as a form of tyranny, which violates our fundamental right to freedom speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

Also see:

GOVERNMENT BANS CALLING TERRORISTS ‘JIHADIS’ (wnd.com)

Google ordered to scrub film blamed for Benghazi attack

googlelogoa_a_l_copyWND, by PAMELA GELLER:

As the Constitutional Convention was ending in 1787, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got: a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.” Apparently, we can’t.

Last Wednesday, a U.S. appeals court ordered Google to remove “Innocence of Muslims,” the Muhammad video that Obama blamed for the Benghazi jihad attacks, from YouTube.

Freedom of speech in the age of jihad. Freedom of speech – another relic of the enlightened era before we entered this dark and sinister age.

Reuters reported that “by a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Google’s assertion that the removal of the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the U.S. Constitution.” The cowards on the Ninth Circuit took us down to the level of the brute in a 2-1 vote.

The Ninth Circuit kicks America in the teeth. Again. The ruling was an affront to every freedom-loving American. How do liberal hypocrites look at themselves in the mirror? This ruling is wrong at the most basic level. This is a First Amendment case. And I thank Google for fighting it so vigorously. (Believe me, I despise so much of Google’s business practices, but this is a whole other thing.)

Cindy Lee Garcia, the clueless clown who sued Google to take down the Muhammad film trailer, is probably clucking and preening and patting herself on the back. But she knows not what she did. She’s another leftist lapdog furthering Islamic supremacism and Shariah law.

But the Ninth Circuit knows full well what it has done. The mother of all freedoms has been abridged so as not to offend savages. That’s where we are in America 2014, with the full support and approval of the president of the United States.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling was a craven capitulation to the dictates of the Shariah, based on technical copyright law. Imagine if every actor and actress sued to remove a film in which the producer changed the story or their lines were dubbed. We’d have very little cinema (with the garbage Hollywood produces these days, not an altogether bad thing). Did Cindy Lee Garcia sign a release, or did she not? And if she didn’t, why not just blur out her craggy face and give us all a break?

Garcia should be suing the filmmaker, not Google. She is in the film for all of five seconds. He redubbed her. So what? If it were anything else, would she have subjugated herself in the service of such oppressors? Did she sign a contract explicitly laying out what exactly the film was and/or would be used for?

Google said, rightly: “The panel has adopted a novel interpretation of copyright law that will invite uncertainty and chaos for the entertainment industry, documentary filmmakers, amateur content creators, and for online hosting services like YouTube, allowing bit players in movies, videos, and other media to control how and when creative works are publicly displayed.”

But when it comes to appeasing enraged Muslims, it doesn’t matter what destruction these dhimmis cause.

When the morally superior Judge Alex “Cow” Kozinski isn’t taking a wrecking ball to our freedoms by ordering Google to take down videos, he’s posting photos of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal on his website.

The dhimmi judge who ordered Google to take down the YouTube video that set off our now constant companion – the hair-trigger violence of the Muslim world – is a pervert who won’t offend Muslims, but thinks nothing of degrading women and sharing his predilection for bestiality. Selective censorship.

First, the filmmaker was jailed (the only person jailed for Benghazi) for the expression of his ideas. Now Google is forced to submit to the Shariah – in America. RIP.

I pray Google takes this all the way, all the way to the Supreme Court. For the nation, for our freedoms, and against the tyranny of savages.

Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND Books title “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”

U.S. Court Orders Google to Remove Anti-Islam Video

InnocenceClarion Project: In a 2-1 vote, a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a lower court’s decision and told Google, Inc. it must take down the “Innocence of Muslims” video from its website “YouTube.”

Google will take the case to a higher court. “We strongly disagree with this ruling and will fight it,” the internet giant said in a statement.

The company was taken to court by Cindy Lee Garcia, one of the actresses that appeared in the film. Garcia requested that the video be taken down after seeing that it included a clip she had made for a completely different film. The clip was partially dubbed and had Garcia asking, “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”

The video (which was billed as a trailer to an upcoming film) generated an onslaught of anti-America protests across the Muslim world in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. The Obama administration originally tried to blame the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi by Islamists on the video, although it was later proven that the attack was premeditated.

Although Google blocked the video in Egypt and Libya as well as a number of other countries, it refused to remove the video in the U.S. despite pressure from the White House.

Google argued to the court that Garcia only appeared in the video for five seconds. Although Google acknowledged that she had a potential a case against the director, they argued that posting the video did not violate copyright laws. Further, Google argued that removal of the video would be a violation of free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution. In addition, Google argued that the video had become an important part of public debate and hence, should not be removed.

“Our laws permit even the vilest criticisms of governments, political leaders, and religious figures as legitimate exercises in free speech,”Google wrote.

The judge, Alex Kozinski, ruled that the video must be taken down since it was likely that Garcia would win her copyright claims. Without an injunction to remove the video, the judge said that Garcia faced irreparable harm, especially since she had already faced “serious threats against her life.

“It’s disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that Garcia needed to sue in order to protect herself and her rights,” the judge wrote.

Turkey: Erdogan Moves to Tighten Grip On Judiciary, Internet

 

Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Recep Erdogan

Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister Recep Erdogan

Clarion Project:

A proposal by Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP party to tighten its control on the judiciary branch of government by giving the government a greater hand in the appointment of judges and prosecutors triggered a brawl in the Turkish parliament during a debate held yesterday.

Punches were thrown, flying kicks were delivered, and water bottles, document folders and even an iPad’s were used as missiles during a fight that erupted when a member of a judicial association came to the parliament to argue that the proposed changes were unconstitutional.

“If I am being kicked at here as a representative of the judiciary, all prosecutors and judges will be trampled on when this law passes,”said Ömer Faruk Eminağaoğlu, head of the professional association.

 

 

“These regulations concerning the independence and impartiality of judges … will be in contravention of the constitution,” said Ahmet Hamsici, deputy chairman of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK), in a 66-page report. “It is clear that this situation represents a contravention of the principle of judicial independence (and) the separation of powers,” said the report.

The move is viewed is viewed as just one of a series of government actions taken by Islamist Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and his AKP party to prevent further damage to its reputation incurred during the summer protests and currently being played out in the enormous corruption scandal at high levels of the Erdogan government.

Following a ruling by the Criminal Court of Peace, the Turkish government has recently blocked the use of Vimeo, a U.S.-based video-sharing website.

This move was made on the heels of yet another government proposal to censor the use of the internet by the AKP party, which recently introduced an amendment to Turkey’s law on cybercrime that would allow the government to block websites and social media and create profile internet users.

The latest amendment gives authority to the ministry of family and social policy, as well as the head of the telecommunications directorate, to block websites without having to obtain a court order.

Read more at Clarion Project

Censorship by Fear

20130101_Rita_Hayworth_as_Gilda_LARGEby EDWARD CLINE:

Joseph Conrad, the writer, was astonished to learn early in the 20th century that Britain, his adopted country, had a “Censor of Plays.” In a 1907 essay* he wrote about the character of an individual who would assume the power and harbor the hubris as the supreme arbiter of what appeared on the British stage. Needless to say, he does not “appreciate” the existence of a censor:

“…I have come to the conclusion in the security of my heart and the peace of my conscience that he must be either an extreme megalomaniac or an utterly unconscious being.

“He must be unconscious. It is one of the qualifications for his magistracy. Other qualifications are equally easy. He must have done nothing, expressed nothing, imagined nothing. He must be obscure, insignificant and mediocre – in thought, act, speech and sympathy. He must know nothing of art, of life – and of himself. For if he did he would not dare to be what he is.”

While the Church had been censoring written and spoken speech for centuries, government censorship of plays in Britain began in earnest with the Stage Licensing Act of 1737, to protect then Prime Minister Robert Walpole from criticism by satire and mockery on the stage, and ended with the Theatres Act of 1968. But other forms of censorship subsequently were enacted in Britain, many conforming to the legislative censorship of the European Union, rendering freedom of speech in Britain contingent on those laws, which amounts to a byzantine maze of “negatives.”

Article Ten of the European Convention reads:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Given the woozy state of any definition of freedom of speech today, or even its practice, in virtually any country, Article Ten not so much guarantees freedom of speech, but wraps it in a Rubik’s Cube-like conceptual straightjacket which only a puzzle-master or a consummate politically correct judge would be able to grasp. It is burdened with so many qualifications and exceptions it may as well decree: “We will let you know when you are ‘free’ to say anything. Until then, be quiet, or it’s a fine and the lockup for you.”

For example, a Swedish man has been charged with “intentionally disrupting a religious or spiritual ceremony,” in this instance, the Friday call to prayers outside a Stockholm mosque, by honking his car horn. This is an example of Sweden’s fatal dhimmitude and deference to its growing Muslim population. But, I am betting that no one has ever been charged with the same offense for honking a horn outside a church while its bells were ringing.

Of course, the local Swedish law must conform to the European Convention one, or at least not conflict with it. But, how does one categorize “horn honking” as unprotected speech? Does it encourage “disorder or crime”? Does it violate “the rights of others”? Is it a dereliction of one’s alleged “duty and responsibility”? How does one reconcile the “right” not to hear a honking horn and the “right,” if you are not a Muslim, not to hear some talentless muezzin screeching and wailing for between three to five minutes every Friday afternoon?

Well, you don’t reconcile them, because these are not “rights.” On the one hand, the government frowns on literal horn honking if it bothers Muslims. On the other, it protects the equivalent of malicious horn honking, that is, the loud call to prayers. The call to prayers is “spiritual”; horn honking is not. So says fiat, non-objective jurisprudence.

While the Swedish man denies he deliberately honked his horn to disturb the congregated Muslims – we cannot know the contents of his mind, that is, what he intended - it would not have mattered had he confessed that this was his intention. He is still liable under the city’s municipal code. He disturbed the “peace” of the faithful. Period.

Read more: Family Security Matters