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.

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

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.”

Britain: Islamists Create Climate of Fear to Curb Free Speech

by Soeren Kern:

“My intention was to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge, on pain of death.” — Maajid Nawaz, Liberal Democratic Party candidate for Britain’s Parliament.

“The media’s vaunted concern for minority welfare is at direct odds with its indifference to the minority within Islam that is trying to reform its orthodoxy’s disgraceful attitude to blasphemy—a minority that is gravely endangered and in need of friends.” — Abhishek Phadnis, free speech activist, London School of Economics.

Muslim fundamentalists in London have threatened to behead a fellow British Muslim after he posted an innocuous image of Mohammed and Jesus on his Twitter account.

The death threats against Maajid Nawaz, a Liberal Democrat Party candidate for British Parliament, add to a growing number of cases in which Islamists are using intimidation tactics to restrict the free speech rights of fellow Muslims in Europe. (Efforts to silence non-Muslims are well documented.)

Nawaz—a former member of the Islamist revolutionary group Hizb ut-Tahrir and co-founder of the Quilliam Foundation, a London-based counter-extremism think-tank—on January 12 posted on Twitter a cartoon of Mohammed and Jesus greeting one another (“Hey” and “How ya doin’?”) with the caption: “This Jesus & Mo @JandMo cartoon is not offensive&I’m sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it الله أكبر منه”.

Nawaz’s tweet followed a BBC Big Questions program in which the “Jesus and Mo” cartoons, which have been around since 2005, were discussed and Nawaz was included as a studio guest.

Nawaz, who is also author of the book “Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism,” said he posted the image to trigger a debate among Muslims about what should and should not be acceptable within Islam.

Not in the mood for debate, furious Muslims responded by bullying and issuing threats of violence—including beheading—and also launched a petition (it quickly garnered more than 20,000 signatures) to have Nawaz deselected as a candidate for parliament.

Labour Party Councilor Yaqub Hanif of Luton, a town situated 50 km (30 miles) north of London and known as the Islamic extremist capital of Britain, said the depictions of Mohammed were “totally unacceptable” to Muslims and called on Nawaz to step down.

“It’s appalling that this guy is a parliamentary candidate because this behavior is not conducive to being an MP,” Hanif said in an interview with the International Business Times. “If you want to be an MP then you must respect all faiths. He’s not doing that.”

counter-petition has now been set up (it has only 8,000 signatures) calling on the Liberal Democrats to give Nawaz their full support. The petition states:

“Islamists and political opponents have mounted a campaign against Maajid Nawaz, resulting in numerous threats to his life. We note that this campaign, rather than being based on legitimate concerns of Muslims, is a political campaign which is being spear-headed by a group of Muslim reactionaries with a track record of promoting extremism. They are seeking to use Muslim communities in order to whip up hatred against a liberal and secular Muslims. We are concerned that this campaign will also be used by anti-Muslim extremists as evidence of Muslim intolerance and incompatibility with liberal values which could, in turn, fuel anti-Muslim bigotry.”

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, has expressed his support for Nawaz. “We simply cannot tolerate anyone in a free country—where we have to protect free speech, even if that free speech might cause offense to others—being subject to death threats and them and their family being put under extraordinary pressure to recant what they said,” Clegg said.

Muslims eventually retaliated by rescinding the Quilliam Foundation’s nomination for the annual British Muslim Awards, held in Manchester on January 30. Quilliam had been listed in the “Spirit of Britain” award category, but a statement on the awards’ Facebook page reads: “In light of recent activity, the British Muslim Awards, after careful consideration, have come to the decision that it can no longer promote the Quilliam Foundation as a finalist, and thus its nomination has been removed with immediate effect.”

More worrisome for the principle of free speech is that British mainstream media have censored reporting of the Jesus & Mo cartoon controversy.

For example, Channel 4 News blacked out a cartoon image of the Prophet Mohammed during a news broadcast on January 28 in order not to cause offense to Muslim viewers. In an open letter to the editor of Channel 4, the National Secular Society wrote that by “making this decision you have effectively taken a side in a debate where a Muslim man has suffered violent death threats after he explicitly said he did not find the cartoons offensive. You have taken the side of the reactionaries—the side of people who bully and violently threaten Muslims, such as Mr. Nawaz, online.”

“By redacting the picture of ‘Mo,’ you have contributed to a climate of censorship brought on by the unreasonable and reactionary views of some religious extremists. Rather than defending free expression, one of the most precious pillars of our liberal democratic society, you have chosen instead to listen to extremists and patronize British Muslims by assuming they will take offense at an irreverent and satirical cartoon. By taking the decision you did, not only did you betray the fundamental journalistic principle of free speech, but you have become complicit in a trend that seeks to insidiously stereotype all Muslim people as reacting in one uniform way (generally presented as overly sensitive and potentially violent).”

 

 

Channel 4 News blacked out a cartoon image of the Prophet Mohammed during a news broadcast on January 28.

In an article entitled, “Why I’m speaking up for Islam against the loudmouths who have hijacked it” (published by The Guardian newspaper on January 28), Nawaz defended his decision to tweet the image of Jesus and Mo.

“My intention was to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge, on pain of death,” Nawaz wrote. “Modern Islamist attempts to impose theocratic orthodoxy on us will be resisted.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

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

 

Erdogan Takes Revenge

130606_FOR_Erdogan.jpg.CROP_.original-original-450x307 (1)By :

Now that most protests have come to an end and the rest of the world is focusing on Egypt rather than Turkey, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has decided that the time is ripe for some good, old-fashioned revenge. Turkish style.

As I reported earlier for FrontPage Magazine, it started early in July, when a few journalists were publicly harrangued for their coverage of the protests in Gezi Park. One of them was even publicly called a “traitor“ by the mayor of Ankara, a member of the prime minister’s party, the AK Parti (Justice and Development Party).

In the following weeks, as many as 22 journalists and columnists have been fired since the start of the famous protests in Istanbul and other major Turkish cities. Thirty-seven others had to accept a “forced leave of absence,” meaning that they had to pretend to enjoy some precious off-time, while they, in fact, were desperate to get back to work.

One of the fired columnists is Yavuz Baydar from the daily Sabah. His first mistake was, as Sabah’s ombudsman, publishing letters from readers that criticized the government’s stance on the protests. After that he went even further by writing a column related to the protests and media-government relations. The editorial board refused to publish his piece, however.

At that moment, Baydar decided to take a leave of absence. Instead of keeping silent about the stranglehold in which the government holds the media, he decided to speak out. In a column for the New York Times, he explained that media moguls are undermining the “basic principles of democracy” in Turkey.  He added that media “bosses fear losing lucrative business deals with the government.”

After having written the opinion piece for the New York Times, Baydar once again tried to get a similar critical column published in Sabah. Instead, he was fired.

Many other journalists have have gone through the same ordeal in the last few weeks. And they are the lucky ones. According to Reporters Without Borders’ (RWB) World Press Freedom Index, the situation has gotten so out of hand that Turkey is now “the world’s biggest prison for journalists.” Yes, the country beats Afghanistan, North Korea, China, Iraq and Iran in that regard. Of course more journalists may be killed in some of those countries, but with regards to locking them up, Turkey leads them all.

Apparently, Erdogan is quite happy with that remarkable record. Instead of backing down, his government is arresting even more people. Not only journalists, but whomever has the audacity to criticize the AKP. For instance, nine more Twitter- users and protesters, living in five different cities, were recently detained.

Read more at Front Page

 

None Dare Call It Islamism

islamist-450x252By Daniel Greenfield:

The Associated Press, after putting up a brief defense of the English language, ceded the term “gay marriage,” then “illegal immigrant” and finally “Islamist.” The left has a long history with political language and the media, so these latest triumphs were only a matter of time.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” Obama once said, while insisting that they meant the opposite of what we thought they meant. The left believes that words matter because they allow people to communicate the wrong sort of ideas. Change the words and you change the ideas.

Islamism is one of those ideas. The idea is that people ought to live under Islam. This was thought to be a bad idea, back in those dark days before we learned that Islamism is as American as Mom, Other Mom and Apple Pie.

Now we know that Islamism is actually the best defense against Islamism so long as it’s the good kind of Islamism that involves terrorist groups winning elections and shooting their people in the streets instead of the bad kind of Islamism which involves terrorist groups shooting people in the streets without first running for office.

The Muslim Brotherhood used to be the bad kind of Islamists that set off bombs and shot people in the streets, but then they disavowed violence, ran for office, shredded what was left of the law and began torturing and killing their opponents who protested the shredding.

Opponents of Islamism, the word not the idea, warn that if we associate Islamism with Islamist terrorist groups, then Muslims will get the idea that Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are the same thing. The only argument that they present in favor of them not being the same thing is that the media always calls the Muslim Brotherhood a moderate group. And if they’re a moderate group, they clearly can’t be torturing and killing their opponents, even if the same news stories that call them moderate also report that they are torturing and killing their opponents.

Read more at Front Page

CAIR tells School: Don’t Criticize Hamas and the Taliban

Islamist Watch,  Mar 18, 2013 

by Marc J. Fink:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has called for called for a Justice Department civil rights investigation against a small-town Washington teacher for “racism.” Her offense? According to Brigitte Gabriel of ACT! For America, “during a class on bullying, she referred to Hamas and the Taliban as examples of organizations that use violence to bully people.”

In a statement, the teacher said:

I explained to [the students] that I was not talking about Muslims and Arabs in general, but groups that chose to impose their will by training people to intimidate and kill other people. … It is related to a state mandate that public schools teach students about bullying and not allow it.

CAIR’s attack against the teacher is specifically aimed at the education system, threatening to constrict the capacity of our youth to comprehend the world. The implications of an education system dominated by the Islamist group are dire and in direct conflict with the American way of life.

Hamas Deliberately Targets Children. In 2011, the terror group launched an anti-tank missile directly at a yellow school bus. A 16-year-old boy, the only passenger on the bus, was critically wounded. The driver had just dropped off 30 other students. The New York Daily News called the attack “subhuman.”

86

The Taliban Regularly Stone Women to Death. In 2010, ABC News reported on a video showing a woman stoned to death by the Taliban. Below is an unedited, graphic video of the horrific crime.

 

The Islamist Group CAIR Has Penetrated Deep Into America.

CAIR has penetrated areas far from traditional Muslim population centers such as Dearborn, MI and Northern New Jersey. CAIR's latest assault is against a teacher in Concrete, WA (A pin), an isolated town 100 miles from Seattle.

CAIR has penetrated areas far from traditional Muslim population centers such as Dearborn, MI and Northern New Jersey. CAIR’s latest assault is against a teacher in Concrete, WA (A pin), an isolated town 100 miles from Seattle.

A rally in support of the teacher will take place Tuesday, March 19 at 7:30 p.m. at the Concrete Assembly of God, Concrete, WA.

 

Facebook’s “Accidental Mistake” and Free Speech in the Arab World

FB censoringby Khaled Abu Toameh

Many Palestinian journalists, and those in the Middle East, are forced to use Facebook to publish what their own media will not accept. But the problem becomes worse when Facebook itself starts removing material that bothers dictatorships and tyrants. One can only hope that the same Facebook employee who “accidentally” removed the article will make the same mistake and and close down the accounts belonging to terrorist organizations and their leaders. It is the duty of Facebook and Western societies to side with those seeking freedom, and not to be complicit in suppressing there voices.

“All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.” — George Bernard Shaw

Earlier this week, Facebook closed down this writer’s account for “security reasons,” arguing that he had posted an item that violates its terms of use.

Twenty-four hours later, Facebook issued a “sincere apology” and said that a member of its team had “accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook. This was a mistake.”

Although Facebook did not say which “problematic” item had prompted it to take such a drastic measure, apparently it was referring to an article that had been published by Gatestone Institute: The Palestinian Authority’s Inconvenient Truths.

Facebook’s move came at a time when Arab dictatorships in general, and the Palestinian Authority in particular, have been cracking down on Facebook users.

During the past year alone, a number of Palestinian journalists and bloggers were arrested by Western-funded Palestinian Authority security services in the West Bank for criticizing the PA leadership on their Facebook pages.

Among those detained was Esmat Abdel Khaleq, a university lecturer in journalism. She was held in detention for two weeks for posting comments on her Facebook page that allegedly insult Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Many Palestinian journalists, and those in the Middle East, are forced to use Facebook to publish what their own media will not accept. The media in the West Bank is mostly controlled by the Palestinian Authority, which has repeatedly demonstrated a large degree of intolerance toward any form of criticism. The same applies, of course, to most Arab dictatorships.

Arab governments have obviously become wary of the use their critics are making of Facebook to air their grievances and opinions. In some countries, including the Palestinian Authority, intelligence services have set up special teams to monitor Facebook and other social media networks in search of critics and “dissidents.”

But the problem becomes worse when Facebook itself starts removing material that bothers dictatorships and tyrants.

One can only hope that the same Facebook employee who “accidentally” removed the article will make the same mistake and close down accounts belonging to terrorist organizations and their leaders.

Take for example, the account of senior Hamas official Izzat al Risheq, or the numerous accounts that promote hatred and violence and are openly affiliated with terrorist and jihadi groups.

All one has to do is log in to these accounts, especially the ones in Arabic, to see how most of them are engaged in all forms of incitement.

Read more at Gatestone Institute