How the West Is Committing Financial Suicide

Muslims_benefits-300x150By Y.K. Cherson:

“There are about 50 million Muslims in Europe, and 80% are beggars living on Western welfare.” The author of this stunning quote is not Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen; it is Swedish/Algerian journalist Yahya Abu Zakariya who revealed this fact during a talk show on Lebanon TV on October 12, 2012. And Zakariya can be called anything but pro-Western. He also stated in the broadcast, “Let’s bring down America, but first, let’s stop slaughtering one another, and then we can attack America.”

Some three years ago, ex-Great Britain recognized Islamic polygamous marriages; “Oh, how tolerant we in Great Britain are!” After having admired their own generosity, tolerance and devotion to democracy, the British started to calculate the costs. The results were disastrous: Muslim immigrants’ wish to enjoy a happy marital life with four wives cost British taxpayers £5 million every year. And that is not all; the figure was calculated on 2007 statistics; keeping in mind the dramatic increase of the number of Muslim immigrants to Great Britain in the last 6 years, when over 500,000 of only “legal” Muslim immigrants arrived to this unfortunate immigration- hit country every year, the costs now are much higher.

In general the top five immigrant groups ranked by benefits dependency in ex-Great Britain are Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Turks, Somalis and Persians: all Muslims. And of the total number of Muslim immigrants living in Britain, more than 50% are economically inactive. Recent 2012 reports claim this number to have escalated to almost 85%. In 2012 75% of all Muslim women and 50% of all Muslim men were unemployed. And that is not the entire picture.

Muslims claim disability more than any other group including British natives: 24% of female and 21% of male Muslim immigrants in Britain claim a disability. In monetary terms, it means that out of five million Muslims living in Britain (according to 2012 statistics), 4.25 million Muslims, or 85% are living off taxpayers.

A minimum benefit payment in Britain is £67 a week, which multiplied by 4.25 million will give us an astronomic figure of £284,750,000 per weekor £1.1 billion per month, which are paid from the pockets of British taxpayers who by the opinion of their government must feed, care, teach and kiss Muslims and their numerous children goodnight.

But even this is not the end of the story, because this exorbitant sum does not include housing benefits, medical care and other rights utilized by the population. If we include them, then with housing, child subsidies and healthcare, Muslims cost the British taxpayers at least £18 billion a year. Instead of informing the native Brits about how they must tighten their belts, all the British government has to do to lighten the burden on the public budget is to reduce the 85% inactive Muslim population.

Muslims constitute only five percent of the population in Denmark, but they consume 40% of the Danish welfare budget.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Danish Muslim Apostate Faces Hate Speech Charges

Yahya_HAssan_788776y-450x338Front Page, January 2, 2014, By Andrew Harrod:

“Muslims love to take advantage of” free speech, Danish-Palestinian poet Yahya Hassan says, “and as soon as there is someone else saying something critical against them, they want to restrict it.”  In an action previously indicated by this writer, Hassan is now personally facing this double standard in Danish “hate speech” charges for his anti-Islam comments.

Following Danish-Iranian artist Firoozeh Bazrafkan’s conviction under Danish Penal Code Section 266b (in Danish here) for condemning Islam as misogynist, a local Muslim Aarhus politician demanded a similar prosecution of Hassan.  His poetry “says that everybody in the ghettos like Vollsmose and Gellerup steal, don’t pay taxes and cheat themselves to pensions,” the Somali-Dane Mohamed Suleban stated after reporting Hassan to the police on November 27. “Those are highly generalizing statements and they offend me and many other people.”  Authorities are currently considering Section 266b charges for, according to one English translation, any public “communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation.”

The 18-year-old Hassan’s eponymous debut book contains about 150 poems, “many of which are severely critical of the religious environment he grew up in” according to Wall Street Journal reporters Clemens Bomsdorf and Ellen Emmerentze Jervell.  Written in all capital letters, Hassan’s poems treat “issues like the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, child abuse, and the interplay between violence and religion” with “[p]rofanity and vivid analogies.”  Yahya Hassan has sold 80,000 copies following an October 17 release in the comparatively small Danish market and is expected to exceed 100,000 copies by Christmas.  Hassan’s publisher Gyldendal reports that Danish poetry books are fortunate to sell 500 copies.  A recent book forum honored Hassan as the debut author of the year and an English translation of his poetry is underway.

Hassan first became prominent with an October 5 Danish newspaper interview entitled “I F**king Hate My Parents’ Generation.”  In it he blamed poor Muslim parenting for the juvenile delinquency and social maladjustment experienced by many Danish Muslim youth such as Hassan himself.  With more than 85,000 social media shares, the interview became the most shared Politiken article of the year.

Days thereafter Hassan recited from his “LANGDIGT” or “LONG POEM” before his book’s release on the Danish news program Deadline.  Extract:  “between the Friday prayers and the Ramadans/you want to carry a knife in your pocket/you want to go and ask people if they have a problem/although the only problem is you.”  Such verses brought Hassan more death threats than any other previous Deadline guest.  Hassan has subsequently reported 27 Facebook threats against him, of which the police investigated six as serious and pressed charges in one case of a 15-year old boy.  A subsequent assault against Hassan occurred on November 18 in Copenhagen Central Station by a 24-year old Palestinian-Danish Muslim who had previously received a seven-year terrorism sentence.

Hassan now wears a bulletproof vest and receives protection from Denmark’s domestic intelligence agency PET at speaking engagements.  A November 26 reading by Hassan from his book in a school in the Danish town of Odense, moreover, required an estimated one million kroner in security costs, more than the amount spent on a high-risk soccer game.  Several hundred policemen had observed the school for two days before the event occurred with road checkpoints, a bomb sweep, and a five kilometer no-fly zone around the school.

Police safety concerns had forced the cancellation of an earlier, sold-out reading at a public library in Odense’s troubled district of Vollsmose.  Along with Hassan, Culture Minister Marianne Jelved and several other Danish politicians criticized the Vollmose cancellation as “completely unacceptable.”  Jelved demanded that police in Vollmose “make the necessary precautions” in order “to hold on to what democracy is, or otherwise we reduce it day by day.”

Yet Suleban’s charges might succeed in silencing Hassan where violence has failed.  Jacob Mchangama, legal affairs director at Denmark’s liberal think-tank Cepos, sees a “strong case” against Hassan, particularly given a “range of similar preceding cases” like Bazrafkan’s.  Hassan’s media attention and public popularity, though, might make conviction difficult, as “his poems are important social commentary.”  Hassan’s acquittal “for making statements similar to what other people have been convicted for,” Mchangama nonetheless observed, “will expose a random legislation where no-one can be sure of what is legal to say.”

Calling for Section 266b’s abolition, Mchangama further questions the law’s “arbitrary limits.” What “is sufficiently degrading” and why should, for example, homosexuals receive protection, but not disabled people.  Mchangama also sees no “good science” correlating speech laws with “less hate crimes.”  Other commentators, moreover, have argued that speech trials simply bring more attention to the offending statements.

Hassan’s case presents speech codes functioning not just as a de facto blasphemy, but also as a de facto apostasy law protecting Islam.  How, after all, can an atheist like Hassan, who says that there is “something wrong with Islam,” decide upon his religious views without rigorous testing of all faiths?  For that matter, how could anyone answer Hassan’s call for a “reformation” in an Islam that “refuses to renew itself” without similar scrutiny?  Such questions aside, Hassan remains committed to his criticisms, stating that he does not “care about getting convicted of racism.” Muslims threatening violence can likewise “all come and get me if they want.  I don’t give a s**t about these morons.”  “I know these people,” Hassan adds, “They can’t handle criticism…they’re not interested in dialogue.”

This article was commissioned by The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum.

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. You may follow Harrod on twitter at @AEHarrod.

 

“Islamophobia Dictionaries,” New Mega-Mosques and Other Recent Events

by Soeren Kern:

In Denmark, construction crews raised the first-ever minaret on September 3 that will alter Copenhagen’s low-rise skyline in a colossal project to build the biggest mega-mosque in Scandinavia. The so-called Grand Mosque was made possible through a grant of 150 million kroner ($26 million) from Qatar. This gift has led critics voice concern that the mosque will become a mouthpiece for radical Islam in Denmark.

From Britain to Greece, and Spain to Slovenia, Muslim immigration and the accompanying rise of Islam are transforming the European way of life in ways unimaginable only a few years ago. What follows is a brief survey of 20 noteworthy stories involving Islam in Europe during just the month of September 2013.

In Britain, the Department of Education revealed that is recruiting former agents of the British secret service, MI5, to investigate the alleged infiltration of British schools by Islamic extremists. The agents will form part of a new counter-extremism unit, established to investigate schools in which radical activity has been suspected. Speaking to the Sunday Times on September 29, Education Secretary Michael Gove said some schools are being “taken over” by Muslim hardliners in the hope of radicalizing pupils and staff. He also said he was determined to “weed out” schools whose practices do not conform to British values.

survey published by the BBC on September 25 revealed that more than a quarter of young British people distrust Muslims and feel Britain would be better off if there were fewer of them in the country. Of the 1,000 young people questioned in the survey conducted by ComRes, a leading market research agency, 27% of 18-to-24-year-olds said they did not trust Muslims, while 28% said Britain would be better off with fewer Muslims. It also emerged that 60% thought the British public had a negative image of Muslims, and 44% said Muslims do not have the same values as the rest of the population.

A separate survey published by Lord Ashcroft Polls on September 1, showed that six in ten Britons thought immigration had produced more disadvantages than advantages for their country; only 17% thought the pros outweighed the cons. The biggest concerns were about migrants claiming benefits or using public services without having contributed in return.

Elsewhere in Britain, a judge on September 16 ordered a Muslim defendant to take off her full-face veil to give evidence in court. But — in a case that made legal history — he said the woman could retain the veil for all other parts of her trial. Judge Peter Murphy said the court should recognize “freedom of religious expression,” but that allowing her to retain the niqab during her evidence, as she wanted, would “drive a coach and horses through justice administered in England and Wales for centuries.” Murphy said “the niqab has become the elephant in the courtroom” and there was widespread anxiety among judges over how to tackle the issue. He added that he hoped “Parliament or a higher court will provide a definite answer to the issue soon;” and that “If judges in different cases in different places took differing approaches [to the niqab] the result would be judicial anarchy.”

In other news, a total of 186 Muslim inmates at three different prisons are suing the British government, claiming their human rights were violated after tests confirmed that halal food being served to them contained pork meat. A total of 11,248 Muslim prisoners make up 13.1% of the jail population in Britain. The legal cases come amid fears of a growing “culture-of-being-compensated” among prisoners. More than £60 million ($97 million) was paid to criminals, prison staff and visitors to British jails over the past four years for prison-related incidents.

On September 12, the Birmingham Metropolitan College reversed a ban on Islamic veils after Muslim students complained of discrimination, and launched an online petition drive that gathered more than 8,000 signatures in just two days. The college backed away from its ban just hours before a mass demonstration by hundreds of Muslim students threatened to disrupt the normal functioning of the college.

In Denmark, construction crews in Copenhagen raised the country’s first-ever minaret on September 3. The 20-meter (65-foot) tower-like structure that will alter Copenhagen’s low-rise skyline is the finishing touch on a colossal project to build the biggest mega-mosque in Scandinavia. The so-called Grand Mosque, which will cater to Sunni Muslims, was made possible thanks to a 150 million kroner ($26 million) donation from the Persian Gulf Emirate of Qatar. This gift has led critics to voice concerns that the mosque will become a mouthpiece for radical Islam in Denmark.

 

An illustration of the Grand Mosque of Copenhagen.

In France, a new “Dictionary of Islamophobia” published on September 13 systematically takes the words and expressions spoken by politicians, journalists, intellectuals, artists and writers in France and claims to show how “Islamophobia is becoming commonplace today.” Each entry in the 366-page dictionary provides the context and an explanation of the offending words. The book calls for vigilance to advance the concept of “living together.”

In Germany, the state of Lower Saxony on September 30 signed a preliminary “state treaty” with local Muslim representatives to recognize Islam as an official religion. The document addresses 30 specific grievances presented by the Muslim community, which constitutes around 7% of the overall population of the state. According to the minister-president of Lower Saxony, Stephen Weil, “A mutual skepticism has occurred in the past and our government wishes to show its respect to the Muslims with this treaty.” Similar “treaties” have recently been signed in Bremen and Hamburg.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

A Muhammad Cartoon Rioter Repents

Ex-Danish Imam Ahmed Akkari at Danish Free Press Society Briefing

Ex-Danish Imam Ahmed Akkari at Danish Free Press Society Briefing

“there is not a single mosque or Muslim organization in Denmark that is not run by Islamists. As soon as you enter the house of the believers, you are met with Islamism whether you want it or not. As soon as you become a devoted Muslim, you are infected by extremism.”

By :

He was the main instigator of the wave of Danish Muslim mischief that arose in reaction to the 2005 Muhammad cartoons and that resulted in riots, embassy burnings, an international boycott of Danish products, and over a hundred deaths.

Now, he says, he’s changed his mind – not just about the Muhammad cartoons, but about Islam itself. And about Denmark, too, for which he now professes the deepest affection and gratitude. In an August 22 op-ed for the Danish newspaper Politiken, in a lecture given at the Free Press Society, and in dozens of TV, radio, and print interviews in recent days, Ahmed Akkari has described his ideological journey from passionate jihadist to lover of liberty.

Born in Lebanon in 1978, Akkari was taken by his parents at age six to Denmark, where they were given asylum. His parents picked Denmark, he says, precisely because few immigrants lived there at the time; they figured it was a  place where they could live a peaceful and assimilated life far from the turbulence of 1980s Lebanon.

Akkari attended regular Danish schools, where he learned about critical thinking, objective analysis, the scientific method. But then, at age sixteen, he started hanging around a local mosque and listening to “missionaries” who convinced him that they were “in possession of the truth and nothing but the truth.” Soon he was training to become an imam and learning to despise democracy and freedom of speech.

He found work as a teacher at a Muslim school. And then, in 2005 – the same year he was granted Danish citizenship – the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published the Muhammad cartoons. Akkari quickly became the public face and voice of the Muslim protests, stirring up rage among fellow believers not only in Denmark but around the world.

The cartoon riots peaked in 2006. After they died down, Akkari withdraw from public life for a while. He had time to think. And he began, he says, to see the importance of living in a society that makes room for “all lifestyles.”

Later that year, he settled temporarily in Lebanon. When Denmark evacuated Danish citizens from the country after a Hezbollah attack on Israel, Akkari was among them. “Despite the fact that I had done so much damage to Denmark, the country let me in again,” he recalls. “Nobody arrested me at the airport. I was not interrogated and nobody questioned my right to return.” (Mind-blowing, but that’s an article for another day.) This treatment, he says, made an impression on him, and helped lead him down the road to where he is today.

Then, in 2008, he took a teaching job in Greenland. “In the stillness of the polar nights,” writes Ingrid Carlqvist in Dispatch International, summarizing the story he told at the Free Press Society, “the thoughts came to Akkari. He started reading the world’s most important books.” He read world history and Enlightenment philosophers. “There was so much I didn’t know. I read about the freedom fighters who throughout history have tried to prevent religion from curtailing free thought and I realized that Denmark was in fact the oasis my parents had imagined.”

Indeed, Akkari claims that while in Greenland he “prayed to God never to send any Muslims” there because he “was so tired of corrupt imams spreading their totalitarian ideology that I was convinced they would not only melt the ice cap if they came there, but set it on fire.” Radio host Mads Holger and cultural critic Kasper Støvring, to whom Akkari recounted his Greenland sojourn on the air, describe his experience as “an existential crisis,” a “wandering in the desert,” a story “of almost biblical dimensions.”

Then, in 2011, during a visit to Lebanon, Akkari read a controversial book by one Hamid Nasr Abu Zeid that criticized Muslim “religious rhetoric.” Because of his book, Zeid had been declared an apostate and forced to divorce his wife. But Akkari liked what he read.

Eventually, after years of ideological doubt during which, he says, he would take “a step forward and then a step back,” Akkari arrived at a decision: he had changed his mind about Islam. And in late July, a reporter for the Danish newspaper BT persuaded him to go public with it. Since doing so, Akkari has been saying and writing the kinds of things that critics of Islam have been saying and writing for years – and that left-wing, cultural-elite commentators in Denmark and everywhere else have been consistently savaging as lies, lies, lies.

What distinguishes Akkari from some of us, however, is that he embraces – indeed, seems to cling to, as if to a life raft – the distinction, which some of us (myself included) find spurious, between “Islam” and “Islamism.” Islamism, he says, “the Quran and Muhammad’s life as the foundation for rituals, rules, and outlooks.” Islamists “assume that every word in the Koran is the law, and that every source provided by Muhammad is the basis for a law.” Islamists insist, moreover, “that they are in possession of the truth and nothing but the truth.”

To me, this sounds like Islam, pure and simple. If it’s Islamism, then what, in Akkari’s view, is Islam? The answer’s not clear. He does acknowledge that the majority of Muslims are, by his definition, Islamists: Islamist thought, as he puts it, “has infected most ordinary Muslims, who…can not imagine reading texts in other ways without feeling that they’re offending against God.” Yet he is – or wants to be seen as – one of that tiny minority of Muslims who assert that their faith, although rooted in a manual of hate and in the life story of a tyrannical, murderous pedophile, can somehow be turned into something entirely different from what it’s been since its inception.

Differentiating Islam from Islamism is obviously of vital importance to Akkari. Although many Danes, he says, “have interpreted my struggle against Islamism as an attack on Islam,” he insists that they “couldn’t be farther from the truth.” He makes a point of rejecting well-known Islam critics, such as Pia Kjærsgaard, founder of the Danish People’s Party, on the grounds that “Islam is not the real problem, but Islamism is.” For while Islamism, he argues, believes in “established truths” and “demands…a monopoly on the truth,” Islam “can be interpreted in many ways and is therefore compatible with democracy.” Islam, he claims, needs to be “released from the Islamists’ power.” He even envisions an Islam that “accepts…gays and atheists.” Well, I don’t get it (if you free Islam from what he calls Islamism, what’s left?), and I’m not betting on it, but – assuming he means it – good luck to him.

Read more at Front Page

Related articles

Scandinavian Rape, Scandinavian Blinders

rpBy Bruce Bawer:

The Norwegian Royal Palace, located in the heart of Oslo, is surrounded by a pleasant little park called Slottsparken. It contains lawns, flower beds, and a rippling brook spanned by a footbridge. Behind the Palace is a small cabin where members of the palace guard spend their down time napping and watching TV.

A less charming feature of the park is that it’s also been the setting of several rapes – no fewer than five of them between June and October of 2011 alone. Things got so bad that the Radisson Hotel – which is just across the street from the park, a minute’s walk from the Palace – began to provide its guests with rape alarms to wear when going out for a stroll.

A newspaper profile of one of the 2011 Slottsparken rapists provides a pretty representative picture of the kind of individual who commits most of these crimes. The perpetrator was a young Iraqi man who came to Norway in 2003 as an asylum seeker. His asylum application was rejected, but – as is standard practice – he was allowed to stay anyway. Three years later, he brutally raped an 18-year-old girl outside Oslo’s City Hall and was sentenced to four years in prison. In 2009, after his release, a deportation order was issued; he challenged it in court; in 2010, he lost his case. Nonetheless, he was again allowed to stay. A year later, still in Oslo, he raped a woman outside the Royal Palace.

A Muslim asylum seeker; a rap sheet; a meaningless deportation order: in today’s Scandinavia, these are among the standard bullet points on many a rapist’s résumé.

Yes, as I’ve noted before, Scandinavian policing could be better. Much better. Especially in Oslo, where the force is woefully undermanned and underfunded. Seeing officers at work, you can get the impression they’re still being trained out of a manual from half a century ago, when Oslo was as sleepy, well-behaved, and foreigner-free as Andy Griffith’s Mayberry. Last September, an Oslo rape victim complained publicly that the cops had waited six months to take witness testimony from her thirteen-year-old son. Such stories are common. And not just in Oslo: this languorous approach to law enforcement is a familiar phenomenon throughout the Nordic countries, where the only real crime, it can sometimes seem, is to display a sense of urgency about anything.

But Scandinavia’s rising rape figures aren’t the fault of the police. As everyone without blinders on knows by now, this is a story about failed immigration policies and about Islam, which teaches contempt for infidels – especially unveiled women. As Scandinavia’s Muslim population has risen, so have the rape statistics.

When I wrote two years ago about the rape crisis in Oslo, its rape statistics had eclipsed those of Stockholm and Copenhagen, earning it the title of Scandinavia’s rape capital. Since then, however, the incidence of rape in Sweden has climbed precipitously. Daniel Greenfield reported in January that “Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.” (Another recent study also puts Sweden at #2, but has Lesotho in the #1 spot.)

Over the last seven years, the number of rapes in Sweden has nearly tripled. During the first seven months of this year, a thousand rapes were reported in Stockholm – a 16 percent jump from last year. In three hundred cases, the victims were girls under age 15. This month the Danish paper Den Korte Avis reported that rape is now at least five times more common in Sweden – where public discussion of immigration problems is essentially verboten – than in Denmark, where the subject has been openly debated for years (leading to mild reforms that have prompted bien pensant Swedes and Norwegians to slam Danes as racists).

There’s overwhelming anecdotal evidence that rapists in Sweden – like those in Denmark and Norway – are disproportionately Muslim. The Swedish government collects statistics on such matters, but won’t release them. If it’s taboo in Sweden to discuss the country’s rising Muslim population, Den Korte Avis observed, what’s even more taboo is linking it to the rising number of rapes. An independent study, however, concludes that 85 percent of rapists in Sweden are foreign-born – primarily from North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.

As Scandinavia’s rape crisis has intensified, new features have emerged. For one thing, it’s spread from the cities to the provinces. There’s been an uptick in kinds of rape – such as gang rape – that were hardly ever seen in Scandinavia before. Today’s rapes, moreover, tend to be more violent than yesterday’s.

Read more at Front Page

Denmark Bans Meatballs to Accommodate Muslims

FrikadellerOnPlateby Soeren Kern:

“The next thing could be that Danish nurses are forced to go under cover as Muslim women in order to please Muslim patients.” — Martin Henriksen, Spokesman, Danish People’s Party [DF]

One of the largest hospitals in Denmark has admitted to serving only halal beef — meat that is slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic guidelines — to all of its patients regardless of whether or not they are Muslim.

The revelation that Danes are being forced to eat Islamically slaughtered meat at public institutions has triggered a spirited nationwide debate about how far Denmark should go to accommodate the estimated 250,000 Muslim immigrants now living in the country.

The halal food row erupted in July when the Danish tabloid Ekstra Bladet reported that Hvidovre Hospital near Copenhagen has been secretly serving only halal-slaughtered meat for the sake of its Muslim patients, for the past ten years. The hospital serves more than 40,000 patients annually, many (if not most) of whom presumably are non-Muslim.

Halal — which in Arabic means lawful or legal — is a term designating any object or action that is permissible according to Islamic Sharia law. In the context of food, halal meat is derived from animals slaughtered by hand according to methods stipulated in Islamic religious texts.

One such halal method, called dhabihah, consists of making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck that cuts the jugular vein, leaving the animal to bleed to death. Much of the controversy involving halal stems from the fact that Sharia law bans the practice of stunning the animals before they are slaughtered. Pre-slaughter stunning renders the animals unconscious and is said to lessen their pain.

Amid a surge of public outrage over the decision to serve only halal beef, Hvidovre Hospital’s vice president, Torben Mogensen, has been unapologetic. “We have many patients from different ethnic backgrounds, which we must take into account, and it is impossible to have both the one and the other kind of beef,” he says.

“First,” Mogensen adds, “I do not think that a slaughter method as such has anything to do with faith. Second is, of course, that all chickens in Denmark are halal slaughtered, and it has to my knowledge not caused anyone to stop eating chicken.”

Mogensen also says the hospital is not trying to “push the Islamic faith down the throats of non-Muslim patients”

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

In a separate but related story, Ekstra Bladet reported that at least 30 nurseries, preschools and daycare centers in Denmark have banned the Danish national dish — pan-fried meatballs known as frikadeller — because they include pork and are offensive to Muslim children.

Ishøj Municipality — a town on the island of Zealand in eastern Denmark where most of the population is of African, Arab, Pakistani or Turkish origin — has introduced, to accommodate Muslim children, a blanket policy of not serving pork, including frikadeller, sausages or liver pâté, at any of its daycares or nurseries.

The newspaper also reports that in parts of Copenhagen, the dietary ban has gone beyond pork and some schools are now serving only halal meat because the schools’ leadership say they do not want to offend Muslims.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

“Frikadeller” –  Yum!

 

‘A Stew of Anti-Muslim Bile and Conspiracy-Laden Forecasts’

Picture-10-450x295 (1)By :

At 11:20 a.m. on Feb. 5, Lars Hedegaard answered his door bell to an apparent mailman. Instead of receiving a package, however, the 70-year-old Danish historian and journalist found himself face to face with a would-be assassin about one third his age. The assailant shot him once, narrowly missing his head. The gun locked, Hedegaard wrestled with him, and the young man fled.

Given Hedegaard’s criticism of Islam and his even being taken to court on criminal charges of “hate speech,” the attack reverberated in Denmark and beyond. The Associated Pressreported this incident, which was featured prominently in the British press, including the Guardian, the Daily Mail, and the Spectator, as well as in Canada’s National Post. The Wall Street Journal published an article by him about his experience.

When the New York Times belatedly bestirred itself on Feb. 28 to inform its readership about the assassination attempt, it did not so much report the event itself but an alleged Muslim support for Hedegaard to express himself. As implied by the title of Andrew Higgins’ article, “Danish Opponent of Islam Is Attacked, and Muslims Defend His Right to Speak,” he mainly celebrates Danish Islam: “Muslim groups in the country, which were often criticized during the cartoon furor for not speaking out against violence and even deliberately fanning the flames, raised their voices to condemn the attack on Mr. Hedegaard and support his right to express his views, no matter how odious [emphasis added].” This theme pervades the piece; for example, Karen Haekkerup, the minister of social affairs and integration, is quoted pleased that “the Muslim community is now active in the debate.”

(For a close dissection of this agitprop, see Diana West’s evisceration; and see Andrew Bostom’s analysis for a comparison of Higgins to Walter Duranty, the NYT reporter who whitewashed Stalin’s crimes.)

Secondarily Higgins delegitimizes Hedegaard, my topic here. In addition to the snarky “no matter how odious” reference, Higgins dismisses Hedegaard’s “opinions” as “a stew of anti-Muslim bile and conspiracy-laden forecasts of a coming civil war” and claims the Dane has “fanned wild conspiracy theories and sometimes veered into calumny.”

These characterizations of Hedegaard’s work are a vicious travesty. A few specifics:

1. What Higgins airily dismisses as Hedegaard’s “opinions” is in fact a substantial oeuvre in several academic books and articles laden with facts and references dealing with Islamic ideology, Muslim history, and Muslim immigration to Denmark. Those books include:

I krigens hus: Islams kolonisering af Vesten [In the House of War: Islam’s colonization of the West] (with Helle Merete Brix and Torben Hansen). Aarhus, Hovedland, 2003

1400 års krigen: Islams strategi, EU og frihedens endeligt [The 1400 Year War: Islam’s strategy, the EU and the demise of freedom] (with Mogens Camre). Odense, Trykkefrihedsselskabets Bibliotek, 2009

Muhammeds piger: Vold, mord og voldtægter i Islams Hus. [Muhammad’s girls: Violence, murder and rape in the House of Islam] Odense, Trykkefrihedsselskabets Bibliotek, 2011

Hedegaard’s major articles include:

“Den 11. september som historie” [September 11 as history] in Helle Merete Brix and Torben Hansen (eds.), Islam i Vesten: På Koranens vej? Copenhagen, Tiderne Skifter, 2002.

“The Growth of Islam in Denmark and the Future of Secularism” in Kurt Almqvist (ed.), The Secular State and Islam in Europe. Stockholm, Axel and Margaret Ax:son Johnson Foundation, 2007

“Free Speech: Its Benefits and Limitations” in Süheyla Kirca and LuEtt Hanson (eds.), Freedom and Prejudice: Approaches to Media and Culture. Istanbul, Bahcesehir University Press, 2008

“De cartoon-jihad en de opkomst van parallelle samenlevingen” [The cartoon jihad and the emergence of parallel societies] in Hans Jansen and Bert Snel (eds.), Eindstrijd: De finale clash tussen het liberale Westen en een traditionele islam. Amsterdam, Uitgiverij Van Praag, 2009

To the best of my knowledge, no one has claimed these writings contain sloppy scholarship or wrong references. As Hedegaard puts it, “I am a university-trained historian and take my craft seriously.” The real criticism of Hedegaard is not about his scholarship – but that he raises difficult and even unpleasant questions.

Read more at Front Page

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Spot the ‘Xenophobic Butcher’

Andrew Higgins

Andrew Higgins

By Andrew G. Bostom:

In my earlier blog about NY Times agitprop journalist Andrew Higgins, who calumniated a real journalist and historian, Lars Hedegaard, I mentioned Higgins’ warped hagiography of The Danish Muslim Society, and its two recent leaders, whose role in fomenting the cartoon riot carnage — 200 dead and over 800 wounded — Higgins failed to discuss.

Higgins also singled out for praise Minhaj ul Quran International, which he characterized as “the Danish offshoot of a controversial group in Pakistan that has taken a hard line at home against blasphemy.” Diana West, citing a 2006 article “Free Speech in Denmark“,  which was co-authored by Lars Hedegaard, notes that Minhaj ul Quran’s leader, Tahir ul-Qadri wrote these words, consistent with the Sharia, on the universal application of Islamic “blasphemy” law:

The act of contempt of the finality of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is a crime which can not be tolerated whether its commission is direct or indirect, intentional or un-intentional. The crime is so sanguine that even his repentance can not exempt him from the penalty of death.

Although ul-Qadri, of Pakistani descent, tried to deny his own words, in a failed effort at sacralized Islamic dissimulation, or “taqiyya,” watch the video, below, which captures his proud championing of Pakistan’s blasphemy law and its lethal consequences for non-Muslims, in particular.

 

These liberty-crushing, murder-inciting remarks of ul-Qadri were apparently of no concern to Mr. Higgins. But Higgins did find time to label Anders Gravers (using, perhaps, a deliberately vicious pun on his trade), “a xenophobic butcher from the north,” because Gravers opposes the aggressive efforts of Denmark’s Muslims to Islamize Danish society.  Compare Gravers’ peaceful exercise of free speech,  voicing his strong opposition to Sharia encroachment in his native Denmark, to ul-Qadri’s unabashed call for the murder of non-Muslim “blasphemers”-and then lying about that heinous record of support for the application of Islamic blasphemy law.

Who is the “xenophobic butcher” again, Mr. Higgins?

Another Attempt to Murder Free Speech in Denmark

larsalainby Soeren Kern:

“I live in a government safe house. I wear a bulletproof jacket. I have not walked the streets … in more than seven years. [I am] imprisoned in my own country for the mere fact that I have spoken out against the enemies of the West.” — Geert Wilders, MP, Netherlands

Lars Hedegaard, a well-known seventy-year-old free speech activist and critic of Islam, narrowly escaped a murder attempt on February 5 outside his home in Copenhagen, Denmark.

An unidentified assailant wielding a handgun fired a shot at Hedegaard, but fled on foot after the bullet missed its intended victim and the gun subsequently jammed.

According to Danish media, the gunman, in a postal service uniform, rang the doorbell of Hedegaard’s apartment building on the pretext of delivering a package. When Hedegaard opened the front door, the man pulled out a gun and fired a shot, narrowly missing Hedegaard’s head.

Danish police say they are searching for the suspect, whom they describe as “a man of a different ethnic background than Danish.” He is believed to be in his 20s and has a “Middle Eastern appearance.” Speculation is that the assailant is a Muslim because of critical statements that Hedegaard has made regarding Islam.

Hedegaard is the president of the Danish Free Press Society, a watchdog group that often warns that free speech is under threat from radical Islam. Hedegaard also co-edits a weekly online newspaper called Dispatch International, which covers stories in Danish, English and Swedish about a variety of topics, including content that is critical of radical Islam.

Hedegaard’s partner, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist, says the attack was a brazen attempt to silence a courageous free-speech warrior, one who has not been afraid to challenge official myths about the impact of multiculturalism and Muslim mass immigration on European society.

As if to prove Carlqvist’s point, Danish officialdom has uniformly linked the attack on Hedegaard with the exercise of free speech in the country.

Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a Social Democrat, said: “An attack on Lars Hedegaard is a heinous act which I condemn in the strongest terms. It is even worse if the attack is rooted in an attempt to prevent Lars Hedegaard to use his freedom of expression.”

Former Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who leads the center-right Liberal Party, said the attack was a “cowardly and cruel act.” He added: “If this action is rooted in preventing Lars Hedegaard from using his freedom of speech, we are witnessing an attack on all Danes.”

The former leader of the conservative Danish People’s Party, Pia Kjærsgaard, who has long warned about the negative effects of multiculturalism and runaway immigration, said it is “un-Danish” if people cannot give their opinions without risking their lives. She added: “It is incomprehensible and shocking if the motive is political. If this is the case, it shows that it is dangerous to make use of our constitutional freedom of expression.

The leader of the left wing Socialist People’s Party, Annette Vilhelmsen, called the incident “totally unacceptable.” She said: “I probably do not agree with Lars Hedegaard on very much. But in Denmark we have freedom of speech. Political assassinations affect not just real people, they hit our democracy and our freedom of thinking.”

Hedegaard has been at the vanguard of a decade-long effort to fight back against restrictions to free speech in Europe, especially speech that is critical of Islam.

In April 2012, Hedegaard was acquitted by the Danish Supreme Court on charges of “hate speech” for comments he made about Islam.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

For complete coverage of the attempted assassination of Lars Hedegaard go to Gates of Vienna and International Civil Liberties Alliance

The Islamization of Copenhagen

Bit by bit, it’s getting worse.

 

By Bruce Bawer

Bit by bit, it’s getting worse.

In recent years, life in the city of Copenhagen has hardly been free of, shall we say, problems related to Islam. But for the most part, the worst of it has been confined to Muslim neighborhoods such as Nørrebro. And residents of Copenhagen have at least been able to console themselves that conditions in their city were nowhere near as bad as those right across the Øresund Bridge in the now notorious Swedish burg of Malmö.

Well, as an editorial in Jyllands-Posten acknowledged last week, “conditions such as those in Malmö…are beginning to appear in Copenhagen.”

In a news story that appeared on the same day as the editorial, Jyllands-Posten reported the latest example of these “conditions”: both the Israeli ambassador to Denmark, Arthur Avnon, and the head of Copenhagen’s Jewish community are now advising Jews in that city to stop wearing yarmulkes and Stars of David and speaking Hebrew loudly in public – even in neighborhoods that they think of as “safe.” Asked about this advice, Police Commissioner Lars-Christian Borg told Jyllands-Posten that Jews – and gays, too – should stay away from parts of the city where there is a recognized “risk of clashes and harassment.” (Nice euphemism for “Muslim neighborhoods,” that.)

The Jyllands-Posten editorial bleakly toted up other examples of what they described as the city’s increasing readiness to adapt to the ever-worsening situation in the Danish capital: Copenhagen’s Jewish school “looks like a small fortress,” supplied with an elaborate security system and police protection, a constant reminder to the children that there are people who wish to do them harm; the head of the Danish-Palestinian Friendship Society, who is also a leading figure in Denmark’s ruling Socialist People’s Party, recently opined that Hitler should have killed even more Jews than he did, and went unpunished and all but entirely uncriticized for it; Copenhagen’s mayor called on Jews not to display too many Israeli flags at a recent multicultural festival, an admonition that was generally regarded as sensible: “why pick unnecessary fights?” Why “provoke”? Once again proving itself to be morally head and shoulders above virtually every other major newspaper in Europe, Jyllands-Posten called on Danes to recognize just how dangerous it is to respond in a passive and accommodating way to Muslim hatred, and urged them to  stand up to it before it’s too late.

Read more at Front Page

Shocking Report: Muslims Raised to be Insecure and Intolerant

by LESLIE SACKS

The research and writings of Nicolai Sennels may have crucial – albeit exceptionally controversial and politically incorrect – implications for understanding both the likely similarities as well as possible crucial differences between many Muslims and Westerners as far as politics, economics and religion are concerned. It is also important to include these postulations (even if clearly only imperfect generalizations) in any discussion as to how these cultural implications, where relevant, would affect the chances for a Muslim Reformation and the evolution of Islamic moderation.

Nicolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who developed an unorthodox therapy at Sønderbro, the Danish youth prison. He taught the young prisoners about mindfulness meditation and developed a special program on anger management, focusing on teaching criminals with a low understanding of emotions and empathy, how to take responsibility for their own behavior. In 2008, the prisoners of Sønderbro voted the facility as the best prison in Denmark.

Seven out of ten inmates in the Danish youth prisons have immigrant backgrounds, and almost all of them are Muslims. Sennels was threatened by his superiors that if he were to discuss his experiences, he would risk losing his job.

Sennels decided in spite of the evident risks, to publish a book on his experiences, Among Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist’s Experiences from the Copenhagen Municipality. Hereafter are selections from his interviews, which may be one-sided, may be hard-hitting, yet do open the door somewhat to issues often ignored:

Sennels: There are many differences between people brought up as Muslims and those who are brought up as Westerners. I identified four main differences that are important in order to understand the behavior of Muslims. They concern anger, self-confidence, the so-called “locus of control” and identity.

Westerners are brought up to think of anger as a sign of weakness, powerlessness and lack of self-control. “Big dogs don’t have to bark,” as we say in Denmark. In Muslim culture, anger is seen as a sign of strength. To Muslims, being aggressive is a way of gaining respect. When we see pictures of bearded men hopping up and down and shooting in the air, we should take it for what it is: the local madhouse passing by.

In Western culture, self-confidence is connected with the ability to meet criticism calmly and to respond rationally. We are raised to see people who easily get angry when criticized, as insecure and immature.

In Muslim culture it is the opposite; it is honorable to respond aggressively and to engage in a physical fight in order to scare or force critics to withdraw, even if this results in a prison sentence or even death. They see non-aggressive responses to such threats and violence as a sign of a vulnerability that is to be exploited. They do not interpret a peaceful response as an invitation to enter into a dialogue, diplomacy, intellectual debate, compromise or peaceful coexistence.

“Locus of control” is a term used in psychology, and relates to the way in which people feel that their lives are controlled. In Western culture, we are brought up to have an “inner locus of control,” meaning that we see our own inner emotions, reactions, decisions and views as the main deciding factor in our lives. There may be outer circumstances that influence our situation, but in the end, it is our own perception of a situation and the way we handle it that decides our future and our state of mind.

The “inner locus of control” leads to increased self-responsibility and motivates people to become able to solve their own problems. Muslims are brought up to have an “outer locus of control.” Their constant use of the term inshallah (“Allah willing”) when talking about the future, as well as the fact that most aspects of their lives are decided by outer traditions and authorities, leaves very little space for individual freedom.

Independent initiatives are often severely punished. This shapes their way of thinking, and means that when things go wrong, it is always the fault of others or the situation. Unfortunately, many Westerners go overboard with their self-responsibility and start to take responsibility for others’ behavior as well. The mix of many Westerners being overly forgiving, their flexible attitude, and Muslim self-pity and blame is the psychological crowbar that has opened the West to Islamization (and consequent sympathy towards Shariah Law and Madrassas). Our overly protective welfare system shields immigrants from noticing the consequences of their own behavior and thereby learning from their mistakes and motivating them to improve.

Finally, identity plays a big role when it comes to psychological differences between Muslims and Westerners. Westerners are taught to be open and tolerant toward other cultures, races, religions, etc.

This makes us less critical, impairs our ability to discriminate, and makes our societies open to the influence of other cultural trends and values that may not always be constructive. Muslims, on the other hand, are taught again and again that they are superior, and that all others are so bad that Allah will throw them in hell when they die.

While many Westerners find national and cultural pride embarrassing, Muslim culture’s self-glorification achieves the opposite with their culture and identity.

In general, Westerners are taught to be kind, self-assured, self-responsible and tolerant, while Muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure and intolerant.

Integration in the West is dependent on motivation and freedom. Immigrants have to want to integrate, be allowed to by their family and friends.

People coming from cultures that are aimed mainly at physical survival, and in which religious  practice and adherence to cultural traditions give more social status than having a good education and being self-supporting, usually are not very productive if they can live on the state. If on top of that, they can live in closed communities among others with the same culture and language, there is very little reason for them to get involved in our society. The only solution is to make the lack of integration so impractical and economically non-beneficial that the only attractive choice is to integrate or receive our offer of state-sponsored repatriation.

Through communal fear and coercion, the majority “voluntarily” prefer Sharia to integration.
Read more: Family Security Matters

Report from the therapy room: Why are Muslims more violent and criminal?

Jihad Watch:

This essay was originally published in 2011 in Dutch in the book De Islam – kritische essays over een politieke religie (Islam: Critical Essays about a Political Religion) by Wim and Sam van Rooy. Raymond Ibrahim, Hans Jansen, Michael Mannheimer, Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye’or and others also contributed to the book.

It summarizes the main conclusions in my book Blandt kriminelle muslimer. En psykologs erfaringer fra Københavns Kommune (Among Criminal Muslims. A Psychologist’s Experiences from Copenhagen Municipality), and adds a few political arguments at the end. Publishers interested in publishing my Danish book in English or other languages are welcome to contact me at nicolaisennels@gmail.com.

Nicolai Sennels: Report from the therapy room: Why are Muslims more violent and criminal?

Nicolai Sennels (born 1976) is psychologist, a popular lecturer about Muslim integration and gangs, and author of “Among Criminal Muslims. A Psychologist’s Experiences from Copenhagen Municipality” (Free Press Society, 2009). This article summarizes his experiences and conclusions as a professional psychologist in the Copenhagen youth prison Sønderbro.

This article is an invitation to come behind the normally hermetically closed doors of the therapy room and get insights into the often just as closed Muslim culture and communities. As a psychologist in Copenhagen’s youth prison I had a unique chance to get insights into the culture and religion of Muslims and the causes for the violent behaviour and high crime rates among Muslim immigrants. My Muslim clients told me their stories from their families and communities, about life in their home countries, about their experiences with and views on non-Muslims and the Danish society. I had around 150 Muslim and 100 Danish clients on my couch. They all came from the same age group (12-17 years) and the two groups had on average the same social and economic background. Most of them were found guilty, but a large part also proved to be innocent. I thus had a very good opportunity to compare Muslims and non-Muslims psychologically.

The conclusion is that there are strong psychological differences between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is also clear that Muslim culture influences Muslims in a way that makes them more likely to become criminal and display anti-social behaviour – especially towards non-Muslims and non-Islamic authorities.

The crime rate among Muslims in the West is catastrophically high. Seven out of 10 inmates in Danish youth prisons have immigrant backgrounds, and almost all of them are raised in Muslim families. The first seven or eight places on the top-10 list of criminals’ nationality are occupied by immigrants from Muslim countries (Danes come in as number nine, followed by a long list of purely non-Muslim immigrants). This list is published by the Danish state’s Bureau of Statistics, and is corrected according to the criminals’ economic and educational status. The crime statistics also show that crime rates among immigrants get worse, not better, in subsequent generations. Time does not heal the problems, on the contrary. Second generation immigrants (born and raised in Denmark) in the age group 20-29 years are thus 76 percent more criminal than first generation immigrants (born outside Denmark) in the same age group. Second generation non-Western immigrants are five times more violent than Danes. 22 percent of the second generation immigrants between 20-29 years received one or more sentences in 2005 (http://avisen.dk/unge-efterkommere-er-de-mest-kriminelle_6193.aspx). In 2006 the number had risen to 23 percent (http://jp.dk/indland/krimi/article1371018.ece). The share of immigrants among youth criminals in Copenhagen rose from 56 percent in 2007 to 67 percent in 2008 – that is an increase of 20 percent in just one year (http://politiken.dk/indland/article560520.ece).

The question is of course: Why are Muslims so much more criminal, violent and seemingly non-empathetic than non-Muslims?

I conducted therapy with the Muslim and Danish inmates in both groups and individually: Individual therapy, Anger Management groups and Mindfulness training. During the hundreds of hours with both Danish (and a very small percentage of non-Muslim immigrants) and Muslim clients, a psychological profile of the Muslim culture became evident. We have to acknowledge the psychological differences between Muslims and Westerners if we want to understand the unsuccessful integration of Muslims in the West and its increasingly problematic consequences.

Anger vs. weakness

One very big difference between Muslims and Westerners concerns their views of anger. In our Western culture, anger is generally seen as a sign of weakness and lack of control and good style. Whoever experienced the embarrassment of expressing strong anger during, for example, family dinners or at work knows that it often takes time and a conscious effort to regain one’s lost respect. We in general see it as childish and immature if people use threats and aggressive behaviour to mark their dislikes and have things their way. Instead, we see peoples’ ability to use logical arguments, to compromise, to see the situation from our opponent’s side and their knowledge of the facts, and to remain calm when challenged as clear signs of strength and authenticity.

My Muslim clients saw these normal Western social tools for negotiation during social conflicts as signs of weakness. They saw the lack of readiness to use threats and engage in a physical fight as a sign of fear. I spent countless hours working with the inmates’ problematic relationship to violence. Most of the Danish clients knew that anger is a “bad feeling” and that in the end there is no excuse for using threats and violence when frustrated. This view was simply part of what they were raised to think by their parents and friends and the culture they were brought up in (though they did not always manage to follow that rule in their daily life).

Practising Anger Management therapy with Muslim clients does not just involve reminding them of good style and the benefits of handling conflicts and frustrations peacefully: The term “cultural conversion” would be the best expression. It turned out that my Muslim clients saw the use of aggression as an accepted and even often expected behaviour in conflicts. If a person does not become aggressive when criticised or insecure, it is seen as a sign of weakness and lack of ability to defend oneself and one’s honour. In Muslim culture it is expected that one is willing to sacrifice one’s personal safety to protect one’s group or whatever one represents. If a member of the group is not able to do so, there will immediately be sown doubts as to whether that member can be trusted as a useful defender of the family, ethnic group, religion, territory, etc.

The aggressiveness among Muslim men does not only show itself in the therapy room and crime statistics when comparing Muslim and non-Muslim offenders. In a recent study conducted by the Criminal Research Institute of Lower Saxony in Germany, scientists interviewed 45,000 teenagers of both Muslim and non-Muslim origin, and their conclusion was clear: “Boys growing up in religious Muslim families are more likely to be violent“.

These psychological insights should be used on a wider scale. One important example is that Western diplomacy and foreign policy must take such cultural differences into account. There is no doubt that when we meet extreme Islamic governments and organizations with suggestions of compromise and dialogue, the average Muslim voter on their streets expect their Islamic leaders to exploit such Western weaknesses to the maximum. We Westerners see aggressiveness in people and regimes as a sign of insecurity, and therefore meet such situations with soft compassion and respect. Such measures often work within our own cultural circles, but can have harmful long-term effects on our efforts to produce respect and maybe even a necessary amount of fear among hostile Muslim societies and organisations. This strategic psychological reminder concerns both big politics and when dealing with anti-social individuals raised in a Muslim setting.

Read more at Jihad Watch

Also see: Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences (New English Review)

Free Speech Found Guilty by Europe

By Soeren Kern:

The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties. The Supreme Court stressed that the substance of the charges — public criticism of Islam – is still a crime punishable by imprisonment. Under Danish law, it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended.

Lars Hedegaard, the president of the Danish Free Press Society, has been acquitted by the Danish Supreme Court on charges of “hate speech” for critical comments he made about Islam.

The verdict, however represents only a partial victory for free speech in a Europe that is being stifled by politically correct restrictions on free speech, particularly on issues related to Islam.

Although Hedegaard was acquitted, it was on a legal technicality; in its ruling, the Supreme Court stressed that the substance of the charges against Hedegaard — public criticism of Islam, — is still a crime punishable by imprisonment.

Hedegaard’s legal problems began in December 2009, when he said in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture. Although Hedegaard insisted that he did not intend to accuse all Muslims or even the majority of Muslims of such crimes, Denmark’s thought police were incensed at such effrontery:

the Danish public prosecutor’s office declared that Hedegaard was guilty of violating Article 266b of the Danish penal code, a catch-all provision that Danish elites use to enforce politically correct speech codes.

The infamous Article 266b states: “Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.”

In January 2011, a Danish lower court acquitted Hedegaard of any wrongdoing. But public prosecutors appealed that verdict and in May 2011, a Danish superior court found Hedegaard guilty of hate speech in accordance with Article 266b because he “ought to have known” that his statements regarding family rape in Muslim families were intended for public dissemination.

On April 20, 2012, the Danish Supreme Court decided that the prosecution had failed to prove that Hedegaard was aware that his statements would be published. Although Hedegaard was thus acquitted, the court also made a special point of ruling that the substance of his statements, namely the public criticism of Islam, is a violation of Article 266b.

As a result, although Hedegaard has been cleared of wrongdoing, the Supreme Court has affirmed the legal restrictions on free speech in Denmark.

Hedegaard’s case is similar to recent or current ones in Austria, Finland, France, Italy and the Netherlands and exemplifies the growing use of lawfare: the malicious use of European courts to silence public discussion about the growing problem of Muslim immigration.

Read the rest at Gatestone Institute

Muslim Gangs Terrorize Denmark

by Soeren Kern at Stonegate Institute:

“With Islam comes fear, and with fear comes power.”

More than 140 Muslim gang members were arrested in Denmark after they tried to raid a courthouse where two fellow Muslims are being tried for attempted murder.

The Muslims — all members of criminal street gangs that have taken over large parts of Danish towns and cities — were wearing masks and bullet-proof vests and throwing rocks and bottles as they tried to force their way into the district courthouse in Glostrup, a heavily Islamized suburb of Copenhagen, on March 6.

Police used batons and pepper spray to fend off the gang members, who were armed with an arsenal of 20 different types of weapons, including crowbars, darts, hammers, knives, screwdrivers and wooden clubs.

The trial in Glostrup involves two Pakistani immigrants accused of shooting and attempting to murder two fellow Muslims who belong to a rival gang. Police say the accused used a nine millimeter handgun to carry out the crime in Ballerup, a Muslim suburb northwest of Copenhagen. The trial began on February 28 and is scheduled to run through March 28.

The shooting was related to an escalating turf war between rival Muslim gangs from the Værebroparken housing estate in Bagsværd, a suburb of Copenhagen, and Nivå and Kokkedal in northern Zealand. Immigrant gangs are believed to be responsible for at least 50 shootings in and around Copenhagen during the past several months.

The recent violence is reminiscent of an earlier conflict between immigrant gangs and Danish gangs like the Hells Angels or the AK81 that left many people dead or wounded in Copenhagen and other Danish cities.

The immigrant gangs are involved in countless criminal activities, including drug trafficking, illegal weapons smuggling, extortion, human trafficking, robbery, prostitution, automobile theft, racketeering and murder.

Many of the gang members are ethnic Arabs, Bosnians, Turks and Somalians. They also include Iraqis, Moroccans, Palestinians and Pakistanis.

Over the past several years, the immigrant gangs have proliferated geographically across all of Denmark. The gangs have spread south from Copenhagen to the rest of Zealand, from inner Nørrebro, to the suburbs Ishøj, Greve, Greve, and on to Køge. The gangs are also active in Albertslund, Herlev, Hillerød, Høje Gladsaxe, Hundige, Roskilde and Skovlunde, among many Danish localities.

One of the largest criminal gangs in Denmark is a Muslim gang called Black Cobra. The organization was founded by Palestinian immigrants in Roskilde near Copenhagen in 2000 and now operates in all Danish cities.

Black Cobra has also established itself in Sweden, where it operates with impunity in the Islamized Tensta and Rinkeby suburbs of Stockholm and in the Muslim ghetto of Rosengård in Malmö.

The Black Cobra gang — whose members wear black and white shirts with an emblem of a cobra in attack position — also controls a youth gang called the Black Scorpions.

Danish authorities estimate that each year more than 700 immigrants between the ages of 18 and 25 are choosing crime as a permanent career by joining gangs such as Black Cobra, the Black Scorpions, the Bandidos, the Bloodz, the International Club, or any other of the more than 100 gangs that are now operating in Denmark.

On February 28, the Danish national police (Rigspolitiet) together with the Justice Ministry presented parliament with a plan to push back against the gangs. Police say they hope they can arrest 300 high-ranking gang members — 200 from Zealand and 100 from Jutland — by the end of 2012. The government has also committed 50 million Danish kroner ($9 million) in 2012 to a special project aimed at intercepting and preventing gang recruitment in marginalized areas.

But analysts are skeptical the Danish government can do very much to crack down on the gangs. Although Danish police say they arrested more than 350 gang members in 2011, many of those detentions involved lower-ranking “errand boys” who were released after being questioned.

Some critics say a big problem is a lack of will and that Danish efforts to crack down on the immigrant gangs have been half-hearted at best. In Denmark — as in other European countries where the state-enforced dogma of multiculturalism trumps traditional notions of equal justice for all — immigrants involved in crime are portrayed as victims of circumstance and relatively few are ever sent to prison.

In those cases where immigrants are detained, many are released after just a few hours. Critics say this encourages them to avenge their arrests. A case in point: Of the more than 140 Muslims who were arrested for trying to storm the courthouse in Glostrup on March 6, all but five were immediately released. That same night many of those who were released went on a rampage in Værebroparken, setting fire to trash bins and launching missiles at hapless police.

But a larger part of the problem involves fear.

Immigrant gangs often operate or seek refuge in so-called no-go zones that are effectively off limits to Danish authorities. These “no-go zones” involve suburbs of Copenhagen and other Danish cities that function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Muslim immigrants, areas where Danish police fear to tread.

Muslim gangs in Denmark have been highly adept at leveraging the fear that Danish authorities have of Islam and of Muslim immigrants. They replicated the model that Muslim gangs in Britain have successfully used to wrest control over the criminal underworld in that country.

In an interview with a British newspaper, an Asian Muslim gang member named Amir put it this way: “The reality is that Asian gangs don’t give much of toss about religion, but with Islam comes fear, and with fear comes power. Religion is important to us only as a way of defining who we can trust and who we can work with. Young Muslim gangs aren’t worried about what Allah makes of their criminal ways — they don’t believe in it to that extent.”

Amir added: “Through religion we speak the same language, live in the same areas, go to the same schools and can even use mosques as a safe place away from the police or other gangs. If you f*** with a Muslim gang you’d better be able to run fast or hide well, because they will come back at you in numbers.”

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

The Road to Skandanistan

Edward Cline at FSM:

One shouldn’t wonder much about why Norway, Sweden, and Demark are willing to submit, like “Britainistan,” without so much as an audible whimper, to their steady Islamization, to their becoming de facto departments of a growing international caliphate. All three countries are welfare states that welcomed Muslim immigrants by the planeload over the decades to perform the work which entitlement-obsessed and welfare benefits-seduced Scandinavians no longer wished to perform. “Islamophobes” they were not. And still aren’t, even though their skyrocketing crime rates are directly attributable to immigrant and second-generation Muslims.

All three countries are governed by leftist elites, by political parties that redistribute other people’s money and spread the wealth around a lot. The Left has made an alliance with Islam, which wants to spread its creed around across the board and impose its ideology on non-Muslims by guile or force. There are, however, two camps of the Left. There is the Left that hates the West as much as do the Muslims, and will do anything to destroy it, even if it means its own dhimmitude and demise under Sharia law and submission. One could not imagine another group in that part of the globe more dedicated to the destruction of their own country. “We will be multicultural and non-judgmental, even if it means our own deaths. It is the right thing to do. We will be virtuous, even if it means accepting penance for our culture being superior to Islamic culture.”

It is an instance of passive nihilism in the guise of the high moral ground. The only catch is that, ultimately, this high ground must lead to Norwegians having to walk in the gutter in deference to Muslims on the sidewalk.

And there is the Left that is afflicted with the intellectual cerebral palsy of egalitarianism, moral relativism, and multiculturalism. Its members cannot and will not oppose the invasion of their own countries by Islamic hordes. Members of this group are the three countries’ intellectual elites, which, as such, advise and inform the political Left. Together with the political elite, this group holds Islam and Muslims as sacrosanct and untouchable by the least criticism, serious or satirical.

Muslims, however, do not reciprocate when it comes to Norwegian or Swedish or Danish cultural values, or women, or property or freedom of speech. They are protected by actual or de facto censorship and political correctness. For all their relativist language, it is almost as though these intellectuals have conceded the assertion by Islamic intellectuals that Muslims are in every way superior to non-Muslims. It is useless to point this out to these “thinkers,” because they will only flip the coin and reply, “Heads, we’re at fault. We shouldn’t be so culturally imperialistic in our own country.”

Bruce Bawer, in a Wall Street Journal article on February 7, “After the Oslo Massacre, an Assault on Free Speech” (the full article was reprinted in Canada’s National Post) recounted the July 22, 2011 bombing and massacre committed by Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian who opposed the government’s immigration and multiculturalist policies, and his own prediction last year that a backlash would be mounted, not against raping, looting, and anti-Semitic Muslims, but against Norwegians who spoke out or wrote about the irreconcilability between Western values and Islam.

“In Norway,” I wrote in these pages on July 25, “to speak negatively about any aspect of the Muslim faith has always been a touchy matter . . . . It will, I fear, be a great deal more difficult to broach these issues now that this murderous madman has become the poster boy for the criticism of Islam.”

This statement was harshly criticized by Norway’s multicultural left. How dare anyone speak of such issues at a time like this! […]

On the contrary, Islam’s rise in the West is a subject that needs to be discussed frankly, without euphemism or disinformation. The survival of secular democracy, individual liberty and women’s rights depends upon it.

Sadly, my prediction turned out to be far more prescient than I could have imagined. In the weeks and months following Breivik’s rampage, dozens of high-profile Norwegian leftists stepped forward to claim that critics of Islam shared responsibility for his crimes—and to call, darkly if vaguely, for action.

Imagine if Colonel Travis had drawn a line in the sand at the Alamo, and asked any of its defenders who would not only surrender the Alamo, but help the invading Mexicans overcome the fort, to step forward over the line. One supposes that is the new Norwegian notion of courage.

Bawer writes:

Consider this: Criticizing Islam is now a punishable offense in several European countries. In the past few months alone, a Danish court fined writer Lars Hedegaard for talking about Islam’s treatment of women in his own home, and activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf was found guilty of lecturing about Muhummad’s marital history in what an Austrian court considered an inappropriate tone.
And, in Austria, a man was fined for allegedly “mocking” a nearby mosque’s muezzin by yodeling, and a retired French actress was hauled into court for placing an ad in the paper that warned potential Muslim job applicants that she had a dog. Another man spoke ill in his own home of the Muslim treatment of Muslim women, and was taken to court.

Norwegian intellectuals claim that because Breivik was “inspired” by what he read in various anti-jihadist bogs that criticized Islam, they all contributed to Breivik’s criminal state of mind and so therefore their authors are just as culpable. This position underscores the notion that men’s minds are merely passive receptors of ideas that cause men to act, that ideas themselves are intrinsically potent, like sugar or cholesterol, and should be regulated to prevent events such as the Oslo bombing and massacre.

This notion also applies to Muslims, as well. If Muslims weren’t offended or insulted or made the special attention of critics and authorities as likely terrorists (a.k.a., “discrimination,” “racism,” “bigotry”), there would be a halt to bombings and rapes and murders committed by Muslims, and we would all be living in a multiculturally copasetic world. Muslims, Lutherans, Catholics, and Jews would all be holding hands and dancing around a Maypole.

But it is the Muslims who benefit from such rationalizations, not their victims or their critics. Muslims are implicitly granted the privilege of saying whatever they please without risk of reprisal or censure, because they are a protected group posing as “victims.” And there is no evidence that gagging their critics leads to a cessation of Muslim crime. In fact, state or politically-correct self-censorship causes a rise in such crimes, because there is no attendant risk in committing them. Their imams or mullahs will come to their defense, as well as the infidel egg-heads and “journalists” who report the news with socks in their mouths.

Bawer offers evidence of the campaign against critics of Islam in Norway and beyond. It is an episodic sequel to Julien Benda’s The Treason of the Clerks. Benda noted that French intellectuals,

… whose function is to uphold eternal and disinterested values, such as justice and reason, whom I call the intellectuals, have abdicated their role for the sake of practical interests.
Those “practical interests,” as far as Norwegian intellectuals are concerned, being to assault freedom of speech and to call for the demonization of its advocates and practitioners. Standing up for freedom of speech is simply not “practical.” As for the “disinterested” values of justice and reason, these IQ-challenged cultural and political Quislings are clearly not interested in them. Bawer presents some of the disgraceful capitulations by Norwegian “clerks.”
On July 28, for instance, novelist Jostein Gaarder, author of “Sophie’s World,” and social anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen, writing in the New York Times, linked Breivik to “right-wing” Islam critics, including me. “Mr. Breivik,” they wrote, “has now shown that those who claim to protect the next generation of Norwegians against Islamist extremism are, in fact, the greater menace.”
Cartoonists, Austrian yodelers, and retired French actresses are a greater menace than roving gangs of Muslim youth? Bruce Bawer is a graver threat than a suicide bomber? Just how many women have they raped, disfigured, or beaten to a pulp? How many have they killed on Spanish trains, or London subways, or in skyscrapers, or in Bali nightclubs? One must really question, not only the condition of a poisonous stasis of Muslim minds, but the mental health of intellectuals who defend Muslim crimes out of a perverted sense of justice.
Lars Gule, former head of the Norwegian Humanist Association, agreed. “It is obvious,” wrote Mr. Gule in VG, Norway’s largest daily, on Aug. 1, “that certain groups, persons, and communities have contributed to Breivik’s warped view of reality, and these people need to take a good look at themselves. If not, others must help them.”
On the contrary, it is intellectuals like Lars Gule who must take a good look at themselves, and ask themselves whether or not they are still human. They must ask themselves: If Anders Breivik’s mind was so influenced by the statements of people like Robert Spencer and Steve Emerson, not to mention by Hitler and other tyrants, why have I not turned into a homicidal maniac? I have read the same things, too, yet here I am, without the least impulse to plant bombs or shoot those whose words I hate. But that kind of realization would be repressed, for Gule sounds like a wannabe reeducation camp warden who would like to “help” them get their minds and words sanitized.
On Aug. 22, Norway’s newspaper of record, Aftenposten, ran an op-ed coauthored by Mr. Eriksen and three others—social anthropologist Sindre Bangstad, philosopher Arne Johan Vetlesen and Bushra Ishaq of Norway’s Anti-Racist Center. Titled “Hateful Utterances,” it called for tighter limits on free speech in the wake of July 22.

“Certain hateful utterances,” the authors insisted, “are legally and morally unacceptable.” Rejecting “free speech absolutism,” and criticizing the United States for “go[ing] the furthest in protecting the right to expression—including hateful expression,” they argued that “Norwegian editors as well as politicians” needed to make it clear that “it is not a human right to express oneself in public; and that certain hateful utterances . . . are not acceptable.”

Bawer does not note it, but it apparently took Messrs Eriksen, Bangstad and Ishaq a whole month – between the massacres of July 22 to August 22 – to gather enough collective chutzpah to openly call for censorship and the suppression of all speech not approved by the government (or by Muslims).
Read the rest… 

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Edward Cline is the author of a number of novels, and his essays, books reviews, and other nonfiction have appeared in a number of high-profile periodicals. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.