Muslims Inadvertently Call for Ban on Islam

PJ Media, by Raymond Ibrahim, April 19, 2018:

The very same logic that Muslims cite in their ongoing efforts to criminalize anti-Islamic speech in Western nations would require the criminalization of Islam itself.

Secretary-General of the Muslim World League Mohammed al-Issa argues that “Europe must do more to … criminalize religious hate speech.” In an April 9 interview with Reuters, this prominent Saudi said: “We believe that European countries, where there is much debate now, and other countries around the world … need to … criminalize hatred and contempt for adherents of religions because this threatens the safety of the community.”

The “hatred and contempt for adherents of religions” that Muslims complain of is ecumenical code for “Islamophobia.” Thus, on April 5 Ömer Serdar, a senior official from Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, announced that he and a “group of Turkish lawmakers will travel to the heart of Europe,” where they will “investigate whether authorities take measures against the hostility of Islamophobic discrimination in Muslims’ daily lives.” Afterwards, “they will hold meetings with state authorities during their visits to Germany, France, and Belgium” and “discuss the issue of marginalization.”

All of this is in line with policies of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the “collective voice of the Muslim World” and second-largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations. For years — especially after a Muslim massacred a dozen people at France’s Charlie Hebdo offices for publishing satirical caricatures of Muhammad — the OIC has called on the United Nations to criminalize the “defamation of religions,” meaning criticism of Islam.

Everyone — especially Muslims — seems to miss the grand irony. If international laws would ban speech, cartoons, books, and films on the basis that they defame religions, those laws would ban the entire religion of Islam itself.

Islam is the only religion whose core texts actively, unequivocally defame other religions, including by name.

Consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation,” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” But in Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC and others cynically maintain that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam (even as Muslim governments ban churches, destroy crucifixes, and burn Bibles). Disingenuous or not, the OIC’s wording suggests that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts — beginning with the Koran itself?

The Koran repeatedly slanders, denigrates, and blackens the reputation of other specific religions. Consider these passages about Christianity:

— Koran 5:73: “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity.

— Koran 5:72: “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary.”

— Koran 9:30: “[T]he Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may God’s curse be upon them!”

The word “infidel” (kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms. What if a core Christian text — or even a Western cartoon — declared: “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God — may God’s curse be upon them”?

If Muslims consider that a great defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard, it must be admitted that the Koran defames Christians and Christianity.

Consider how the Christian Cross, venerated by billions, is defamed in Islam. According to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus (“Prophet Isa”) will destroy all crosses. Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, once ordered someone wearing a cross to “throw away this piece of idol from yourself.”

Unsurprisingly, the cross is banned and often destroyed whenever visible in many Muslim countries.

What if Christian books or Western movies specifically named the sacred symbols of Islam — perhaps the Black Stone in Mecca’s Ka’ba — as “idolatry” that Muhammad himself will return and destroy? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islamic teaching defames the Christian Cross.

Here is perhaps the most particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment: According to Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad will be married to and copulating with the Virgin Mary in paradise.

Imagine if anything — from a core Christian text to a cartoon — portrayed, say, Muhammad’s “favorite” wife Aisha, the “Mother of Believers,” as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven.

If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Such defamation of Christianity is hardly limited to Islam’s core scriptures. In fact, modern-day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree: it is permissible to defame and mock Christianity. “Islam Web,” which is owned by the government of Qatar, even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.

The grandest irony of all is that the “defamation” that Muslims complain about — and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world — revolves around things like cartoons and movies, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves. On the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns — in a word, “defames” — all other religions.

And we haven’t even mentioned the specific calls for violence against Christians, Jews, and adherents of all other religions (e.g., Koran 9:29).

It is this issue — Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy — that the international community should address.

And the right to freely discuss and criticize Islam’s penchant to defame and destroy is what the international community must protect.

Center for Security Policy Panel Discussion: “Free Speech Under Fire”

This is an excellent discussion on perhaps the most important issue of our time. As we witness Western Democracies creeping towards totalitarianism, it is imperative that we wake up to the steady erosion of our last line of defense – Freedom of Speech.

Center for Security Policy, Nov. 30, 2017:

Free speech in the West is under fire.

It seems that every day, from every direction, the enemies of freedom encroach more upon what our Founders rightly described as a God-given and inalienable right.

We see “snowflakes” on college campuses shouting down or even attacking speakers with whom they disagree.

We see the politically correct mainstream media exploding in outrage over every utterance of President Donald J. Trump that does not conform to their standards.

We see politicians too mealy-mouthed to tell the truth – especially when it comes to the brutal, totalitarian Islamic ideology known as Sharia – lest they be subjected to charges of the wholly made up and phony syndrome dubbed “Islamophobia.”

We see social media giants stamping out the speech of those with whom they disagree, while they allow the speech of jihadis to flourish.

We see international organizations, from the United Nations to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to the little-known Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), each working in its own, insidious way to strangle expression.

And from all these quarters, we hear warnings about the ostensibly burgeoning danger of “hate speech.”

But what is hate speech, exactly?

More and more, it appears it is simply shorthand for depicting – and curbing – whatever expression the radical Left and Sharia-supremacists may find objectionable. Anything with which they disagree is dubbed “hate” and must be terminated.

In short, this “Red-Green Axis” – i.e., the collusion between neo-Marxist and Islamist forces against America and the West – works systematically to punish speech to which such partisans take offense, a category that seemingly expands with each passing day.

This Occasional Paper is the latest in a series of products addressing such subjects to be published by the Center for Security Policy Press, including:

  1. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech, which addressed the part the OIC in particular plays in the Red-Green Axis’ attempt to stifle the truth about Islam’s supremacist Sharia doctrine.[1]
  2. The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, which explored how the Left and its Islamist allies join force to maximize the influx of immigrants from Sharia-adherent countries who are, altogher too often inadequately vetted.[2]
  3. TEAM JIHAD: How Sharia-Supremacists Collaborate with Leftists to Destroy the United States, an analysis of the specific links between Leftist and Islamist organizations, including funding from one to the other to help both better defeat us.[3]

Free Speech Under Fire provides a further examination of the unrestricted warfare now being mounted in forums like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe that is inexorably garrotting free peoples’ ability to speak. It includes:

  • An essay by Austrian dissident Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, telling the story of how in 2011 the Austrian state convicted her of “denigration of religious beliefs” – without regard to whether those beliefs, notably regarding pedophilia, deserve to be criticized;
  • A piece on the OSCE’s missteps in its dealings with Jihad and Islamism by renowned expert on Islamic history and doctrine Robert Spencer, who recently recovered from being poisoned by a Leftist radical who disagreed with his extraordinarily well-researched;
  • An article by Deborah Weiss, Esq., a gifted attorney, 9/11 survivor and Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow, on how the OIC and other international organizations, as well as national and even local governments, are clamping down on free speech;
  • Two “interventions” made during plenary sessions of the OSCE’s fall 2017 meeting in Warsaw by Center for Security Policy Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez; and
  • An article by Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D., CSP’s Executive Vice President, who also attended the most recent OSCE meeting devoted to shutting down speech critical of Sharia supremacism, while catering to the speech of Islamists.

Taken together, these essays validate the proposition that the Red-Green Axis’ dark machinations amount to “unrestricted warfare” against free expression. That term was featured by two colonels in the People’s Liberation Army in their 1999 book, Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America. Translated from original PLA documents, this volume describes how “American military doctrine is typically led by technology; a new class of weapon or vehicle is developed, which allows or encourages an adjustment in strategy.”[4]

The authors, Chinese military strategists Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui “argue that this dynamic is a crucial weakness in the American military, and that this blind spot with regard to alternative forms of warfare could be effectively exploited by enemies” – a point not lost on the West’s alt-Left and its Islamic infiltrators as well.

Unrestricted Warfare teaches that the front lines can be almost anywhere.

It has become increasingly obvious that the front lines of the unrestricted war on free speech are on university campuses, where enemy-planted radical thought and rhetorical excess thrive.

The front lines are in newsrooms, long populated by not only totalitarians’ useful idiots, but active agents as well.

The front lines are on Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter as they crack down on conservative and counter-jihad speech, while allowing not only Russian influence operations, but jihadist propaganda and incitement, as well.

And the front lines are certainly at multilateral forums like the OSCE, where Sharia-supremacists work hand-in-hand with globalists to advance their common aim of centralizing and exercising control over both the means and the content of communications.

American policymakers and citizens alike must stand firm in the face of the relentless assault currently being mounted on the foundational freedom of speech that is described in the pages that follow.

It’s time to challenge the Left’s selective indignation about “hate speech” that gives a pass to Black Lives Matter, Antifa and many jihadists’ incitement of violence.

It’s time to take on the Sharia-supremacists who condemn as “Islamophobia” what, in reality, is simply truthful renderings of their anti-freedom political, military and legal system really means knowing too much about Sharia, and saying it aloud.

And it’s past time we reined in international organizations including by refusing to submit to their boa-like constriction of free speech.

We at the Center for Security Policy hope that you will stand with us – and stand up for free speech.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
President and CEO

 

[1] See Deborah Weiss, Esq., The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech (Washington, D.C.: Center for Security Policy), 2015, https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OIC_Free_Speech_Jihad.pdf accessed November 28, 2017.

[2] See James Simpson, The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America (Washington, D.C.: Center for Security Policy), 2015, https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Red-Green-Axis-10-05-15.pdf, accessed November 28, 2017.

[3] See Matthew Vadum, TEAM JIHAD: How Sharia-Supremacists Collaborate with Leftists to Destroy the United States (Washington, D.C.: Center for Security Policy), 2017, https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2017/06/26/book-launch-team-jihad-how-sharia-supremacists-collaborate-with-leftists-to-destroy-the-united-states/ accessed November 28, 2017.

[4] See Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America  (

Download the study here: Free Speech Under Fire: The Red-Green Axis’ Unrestricted Wafare in OSCE and Beyond

Watch the panel discussion:

***

These are clips from the above full panel:

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

***

Clare Lopez

***

Deborah Weiss

***

1st Amendment “not the right to NOT be offended”

***

Free speech is under attack across the Western world

***

Sharia: It can happen here

**

“Islamophobia” is “knowing the truth about Islam”

***

Freedom of speech is the battleground where all freedoms are won or lost

***

Why the OSCE is important to Americans

***

Hate Speech is Free Speech

***

OIC’s interpretation of speech is in line with Islamic blasphemy laws

Antifa, CAIR and the Southern Poverty Law Center work together to silence speech

Brannon Howse is the organizer of the events shutdown by anti-free speech domestic terrorists. http://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/marxist-islamists-groups-shut-down-worldview-weekend-events-how-we-are-losing-our-freedom

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran on April 13, 2018:

You haven’t seen it on cable news, or on the pages of the Washington Post or the New York Times, but last weekend brazen domestic terrorists working on behalf of Islamists shut down speaking events they disapproved of in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

This extremist tactic of intimidating speaking venues, such as hotels, isn’t new, but it is on the upswing in the age of Trump. And, I think that is because the Hard Left has really lost it, their frustration and anger at losing the White House must have pushed them psychologically over the edge. They are very dangerous people.

Our friend James Simpson has the full story here at The Daily Caller.

Here are a few snips:

Antifa groups used information from the Southern Poverty Law Center to successfully shut down four conferences on the threat of Islam scheduled in Wisconsin and Minnesota last weekend.

The hotels slated for the events were flooded with threatening calls, and the organizers voluntarily canceled one of the events following numerous warnings that it would not be safe. A fifth conference in Des Moines, Iowa carried on in defiance, despite leftists showing up to disrupt the proceedings.

The conferences were hosted by Worldview Weekend, a conservative Christian organization that produces radio and TV shows and sponsors events nationwide. The SPLC posted the locations for these venues, after which Antifa groups urged their members through social media to attend events and swamp the venues with threatening calls and messages.

[….]

The conferences sought to expose how leftists supported by George Soros, the John Templeton Foundation and other donors are intimidating America into silence by labeling anyone who exposes them as “racists,” “Islamophobes” and “white supremacists.” An event last fall featuring this author and DHS whistleblower Philip Haney was canceled by the venue following a similar campaign from Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) operatives.

On that last line, see my post Wednesday on the slick Taneeza Islam (former CAIR-MN civil rights activist) who practiced these same tactics in South Dakota.

Simpson explains what happened and then wraps with this:

Shahram Hadian, a former Muslim and now Christian apologist who heads the Truth In Love project, was slated to speak at a number of the canceled events. He reacted strongly in a video about the cancellations posted on Saturday:

“Who shut us down folks? The Islamo-Marxist-Fascist oppressors in this nation, the same groups that we’ve been traveling around this nation warning you about…. How did that happen? It started with CAIR… the front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. Then they’ve joined with the Southern Poverty Law Center… Then they got Antifa involved… and we know their M.O. – they’re domestic terrorists… If you think we are living in a free nation any more… that this is the land of the free and home of the brave, we better wake up soon. Religious liberty, the right of assembly, the right of our speech, is gone. This is the M.O. now. This is the tactic they are using to shut us down.”

Watch Pastor Shahram Hadian, here:

Simpson continues….

Howse broadcast an hour-long live special Sunday night to describe what happened and the issues that would have been covered in these events.

He said he is considering legal action, among other options, and that he will also be releasing a movie this fall recounting this weekend’s events and many others he has witnessed over the last 12 months.

“The things that are happening represent an existential threat to our rights as Americans and our very way of life,” he said.

Read all of it here.

The greatest threat!

Everyone must make sure to spread this news far and wide through whatever means are available to you because the mainstream media won’t do it!  The threat is real and it is the biggest threat facing America today—the silencing of our voices.

And, I’m going to nag all of you to find avenues of speech for yourselves!

Write blogs, facebook pages, open twitter and gab accounts, create e-mail lists to friends and family, write letters to editors, and if necessary speak in your churches and other civic groups because the more of you willing to speak, the harder it will be for them to silence us all.

 

We’re Not the Thought Police

That being said, what are you thinking?

Front Page Magazine, by Bruce Bawer, April 9, 2018:

To read Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch website regularly is to get an unsettling daily dose of real-life Islam-related horrors. But on April 4, Robert posted a half-hour audio that was even more disturbing than the bulk of his usual offerings. The audio records the visit by a couple of British police officers to the home of a British subject who had apparently been reported to the authorities for posting anti-Islam comments on social media. The householder in question greeted the cops with surprising – perhaps nervous? – cheeriness, and for a half hour he earnestly, willingly, and good-humoredly answered their indefensibly intrusive and insulting questions about his opinions. Among them: What were his political beliefs? What did he think of Islam? Did he hate Muslims? Was he a racist? Was he a Nazi?

It quickly became clear that this man – whose name we never learn, unless I missed something – is anything but a racist or Nazi or hater of any kind. On the contrary, he is a thoughtful citizen who, after considerable study, has come to some sensible conclusions about Islam. He made it clear that, unlike his visitors, he had read the Koran, had acquainted himself with the major specifics of the life of Muhammed, and knew the basics of Islamic theology. He was, it emerged, a strong opponent of Islam for precisely the right reasons, including (as he mentioned) the fact that it commands believers to do harm to infidels, Jews, and gays.

Yet even as he spelled out these indisputable truths about Islam, the police officers responded as if he was imagining it all. They suggested that he might want to sit down for a conversation with an Islamic scholar, who could clear up what they seemed determined to view as his misunderstandings. They insisted, moreover, that they were not the Thought Police – even though there is no other word for police officers who show up at the home of an innocent citizen to interrogate him about his personal opinions.

A couple of reader comments on the Jihad Watch audio suggested it was fake, on the grounds that police officers in a free country would surely never do such a thing. Wrong. For me, the audio brought back vivid memories – for I’ve had my own very similar encounter with European policemen. My experience was slightly different in that instead of being visited at home, I was summoned to a local police station in Norway, where I live. But the encounter itself, which took place in January 2014, was strikingly similar to the one recorded on the Jihad Watch audio. My interrogators even assured me, as their British colleagues assured the fellow in the audio, that they were not the Thought Police. When I heard that statement on the audio, I couldn’t help wondering: are cops around Europe, even in different countries, working off of the same script?

Immediately after returning home from my visit to the police station back in January 2014, I sat down and typed up everything I could remember about the exchange I’d had with my new uniformed friends. The conversation had been in Norwegian, and I wrote it out in Norwegian. I sent copies to a few friends of mine, including Hans Rustad, editor of the vitally important Norwegian website document.no, who, in response, told me that he had heard similar, and equally disturbing, accounts from other people living in Norway. He actually took a copy of my testimony with him to a meeting at the Norwegian Ministry of Justice, where he confronted officials with this example of thoroughly inappropriate police conduct.

My Norwegian-language account of my exchange with the police officers later appeared in print (but not online) in a document.no publication, but has never appeared in English. After hearing the audio at Jihad Watch, however, I decided that it might be worthwhile to translate my account into English so that any doubters might understand that, yes indeed, this how at least some police officers in Europe conduct themselves in this era of Islamization.

So here it is, without further ado, but with newly added comments and explanatory information in brackets:

On January 9, I received a phone call from a policeman in Skien [the county seat of Telemark, where I live]. He said he wanted to meet me because he thought my knowledge of Islam could help the police in the fight against Islamic terrorism. He explained that someone at PST [the Norwegian Police Security Service, Norway’s equivalent of the NSA or MI5] had recommended that he speak with me. I said I would be glad to be of help. We agreed to speak again a few days later to agree on a time and place.

During the days that followed I spent a good deal of time preparing for what I imagined would be a crash course in Islam. When we spoke by telephone for the second time, I thought I detected a subtle change in his tone and immediately suspected that his objective was, in fact, not to draw on my expertise but to interrogate me. This suspicion was reinforced when he said, at the end of the conversation, that he himself was a PST officer.

This was precisely the same thing that had happened to me during the [mass murderer Anders Behring] Breivik trial [in 2012], when Geir Lippestad [Breivik’s lawyer] summoned me as an “expert witness.” His real intention at that time was not to make use of my “expertise” but rather to expose me to scorn and derision as one of several writers who had supposedly “influenced” the killer and who thus shared in the blame for his crimes.

On January 15, I met the PST officer and a colleague of his, also from PST, at a police station near my home. Indeed, it turned out that they had no interest in learning anything about Islam from me. They wanted to know about other things. How, for example, had I come to be so critical of Islam? Which other members of the anti-Islam community was I acquainted with? Which far-right websites was I in the habit of reading? Had I experienced discomfort in encounters with Muslims? Did I know Hans Rustad, editor of document.no, which publishes critical aticles about Islam and European immigration policy? Had I ever posted comments on his website?

At first I played along – too much. I told them about the time my partner had been assaulted by a Muslim with a knife at a bus stop at St. Hanshaugen in Oslo, and about the time a Muslim yelled “faggot” at him and kicked him on the tram. I mentioned the doctor I knew who had been killed at his office by a Muslim asylum seeker. As for Hans Rustad, I said, “Yes, I know him. He’s a terrific guy and he has a terrific website. But no, I’ve never commented on articles there.”

They asked about Fjordman [counterjihadist writer Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen]. Had I ever met him? Yes, we had gotten together for beers 3-4 times in Oslo several years ago. We had also both attended a conference in The Hague sometime around 2006. Oh yes? Which conference? The Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference. Who arranged that? I don’t know. Who else took part? Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, several others. They seemed to be interested in these details. They asked me what I thought about Fjordman. I answered the question rather exhaustively.

Then they came to Breivik. How had I felt when I learned that Breivik had read some of my books and articles? They emphasized that they were fully aware of the dangers of Islamic terrorism, but they were also worried that a writer like me could help “create a new Breivik” or several of them. It was at about this point that I began to fire back a bit. I said that Breivik was a maniac, and that if he hadn’t happened to get hooked on Islam as an object of hate, he would have gotten hooked on something else to hate. They didn’t seem to be willing to accept the possibility that Breivik was just a crazy man, an isolated case. I got the impression that they were working from the premise that Breivik was a cold-blooded counterjihadist who had been created by other counterjihadists.

In a slightly irritated tone, one of the two men reminded me that during the first hours after the government buildings in Oslo were bombed, that is before Breivik was identified and before his motives were known, many people in Oslo had assumed that the city was under attack by Muslim terrorists, and that this had resulted in people assaulting Muslims in the streets. [Note: I have never seen any documentation of this claim.] One of PST’s concerns, he said, was that if a Norwegian Muslim committed a murder like the horrible killing of Lee Rigby in London, there would be a violent anti-Muslim reaction. [They always worry more about the anti-Muslim “backlash” that virtually never happens than about the actual Islam-motivated atrocity.]

My interlocutors had read Breivik’s “manifesto.” They talked about his patchwork of plagiarized historical essays and information about weapons in a way that suggested that, in their eyes, it was a key document for the understanding of the counterjihad movement.

“Have you read the Koran?” I asked.

“No,” both of them said. They were not at all embarrassed about it.

“Well, you should,” I said. “If you want to understand the mentality that underlies Islamic terrorism, you’ll find its origin there.”

One of them answered quickly. “We know that radical Muslims have misinterpreted the Koran.”

“It’s not a question of interpretation,” I replied. “The passages in question are very clear.” I emphasized that while none of the writers they were trying to link to Breivik had called for killing, the Koran calls for killing infidels again and again.

They paid no heed to this. In fact they seemed to find it distasteful to talk about the Koran in this way.

They wanted to know what I thought about the “Eurabia conspiracy theory.”

“What do you mean by that term?” I asked.

“Haven’t you heard it before?”

“Of course, but I hope you understand that this is an expression one almost never hears outside of Norway. It’s a concept that has been invented by the Norwegian left. What does it mean to you?”

“It’s about Muslims wanting to take over Europe.”

“That’s not a conspiracy theory. Jihad is a reality, it’s a core Islamic idea. Do you know how Islam divides the world?”

They shook their heads.

“The world consists of the House of Islam, where Islamic law prevails, and the House of War, which is the part of the world where Islamic law does not yet prevail. According to the Koran, there will not be peace in the world until the House of War is totally conquered by Islam.”

They weren’t interested in hearing about this, either. One of them explained what they meant by the “Eurabia conspiracy theory”: “What we’re referring to is the idea that, for example, Stoltenberg [Jens Stoltenberg, Labor Party politician and Prime Minister from 2000-1 and 2005-13] is secretly conspiring with Muslims with the goal of transforming Norway into an Islamic state.”

What struck me about this was that they talked about Stoltenberg as if he were still Prime Minister. [Just as America’s Deep State is Democratic, Norway’s is Labor.]

At one point, they asked a question that led me to say something very critical about the attempt, after July 22 [the date, in 2011, of Breivik’s atrocities], to limit freedom of expression in Norway. One of them asked me, do you think that there is greater freedom of expression in the U.S. than in Norway? I replied that there’s much more freedom of expression in the U.S. than in all of Western Europe. I mentioned Lars Hedegaard, Geert Wilders, and others who had been put on trial in various Western European countries because of things they had said or written about Islam.

“Where is the limit, then?” asked one of the PST guys, his tone rather sharp.

“There shouldn’t be any limit, unless you call for violence,” I said. They seemed to react to this. I had the impression that they felt I had crossed a line.

During the conversation they reassured me at least three times that this was not an interrogation – but that’s exactly what it was. A couple of times they said that they had no plans to arrest me – which, of course, served as a reminder that they had the power to do so. They also insisted a couple of times that they were not “Thought Police” [tankepoliti]. At one point, one of them mentioned that they can’t do everything the NSA can do, because the law doesn’t allow it, but that they do absolutely everything they can within the framework of Norwegian law.

The entire conversation lasted about an hour and a half. It was intense. They fired questions at me almost without a break. Several times they returned to questions I had already answered. When the whole thing was over, they informed me that they might be contacting me again.

Afterwards, I regretted that I hadn’t just stood up and walked out when I realized that I had been summoned there under false premises. In these times, when certain critical voices and opinions are considered illegal, I would never knowingly have put myself in such a situation with the police. But this was a trap, and they were clearly betting that I would stay there and answer their questions because it would have seemed both uncomfortable and rude to do anything else.

They were right: I stayed there because I didn’t want to make a scene. But while I’m sorry I answered some of their questions so dutifully, I’m glad I took advantage of the opportunity to put up at least something of a challenge. In any event, what emerges from the audio at Jihad Watch is that those bobbies in Britain (apparently Lancashire), like my PST buddies in Norway, have been trained to view Islam as essentially benign and criticism of Islam as a danger. Both sets of cops manifestly consider it part of their job to hunt down critics of Islam and try to intimidate them into silence. And none of them have the slightest regard whatsoever for freedom of speech. They don’t even seem to grasp the concept.

They’ve also apparently been taught – and this is the creepiest part – to emphasize that they’re not Thought Police. This is obviously a result of training, because it would never occur independently to such people – who have plainly never read a word of Orwell – to make such a declaration in the first place. This, then, is what we are up against in today’s western Europe: police departments that are producing Thought Police – and, as part of that production process, are instructing them to reassure the proles that, no, of course they’re not Thought Police.

Sure. And war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

Bruce Bawer is the author of “While Europe Slept,” “Surrender,” and “The Victims’ Revolution.” His novel “The Alhambra” has just been published.

CJR: And if you think it isn’t happening in the US, read this:

What is the OSCE?

CJR: Even as the OSCE proceedings were going on, Donald Trump was coerced into signing an anti-hate Resolution aimed at right wing groups and not left wing such as Antifa. And now there is a report that Hillary Clinton funded Antifa!

Gates of Vienna, Sept. 17, 2017:

In the interventions by Bashy Quraishy and Henrik Clausen, you’ve just seen the Yin and Yang of the OSCE Human Dimension conference in Warsaw. Yet interventions like Mr. Clausen’s consistently earned the rebuke of the moderators, while those like Mr. Quraishy’s did not.

What’s going on? What has happened to the OSCE?

In the video below, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Clare Lopez explain the way in which the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has been subverted by the Red-Green Alliance and turned into an Inquisitor designed to hunt down and stamp out “hate speech” wherever it may be found.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing and uploading this video:

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

***

Clare Lopez on Civil Liberties and Natural Rights

The following video shows the intervention read by Clare Lopez, representing the Center for Security Policy, at OSCE Warsaw today, September 14, 2017, during Session 6, “Fundamental Freedoms, Including Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion, or Belief”.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Below is the prepared text for Ms. Lopez’ intervention:

America’s Founding Fathers understood that tyranny takes hold when men allow governments or religious systems to usurp the rights of the individual unto themselves

For this reason, they enshrined freedoms of belief, conscience & speech in 1st Amendment of our Constitution

These principles & these freedoms are Judeo-Christian-based, first articulated among the brilliant thinkers of the Enlightenment in Europe — although their roots trace back to Athens, Rome & Jerusalem

They derive from the revolutionary idea that the individual is the key pillar of society — not the clan, or tribe, or a religious belief system

The individual human being is entitled to these rights & freedoms because the laws of nature — which are knowable thru human reason — endow each & every person – men women equally — w/human dignity & the right to live free

Freedom of speech is among the most essential of our human liberties & one that gives voice & meaning to all the others – especially freedom of conscience & belief

Islam doesn’t have such beliefs or freedoms — there’s no such thing as ‘freedom of speech’ or belief articulated in Islamic Law (shariah)

Instead there is the “Law of Slander” — which defines ‘slander’ as anything that a Muslim would dislike — including the truth

Slander under shariah can carry the death penalty – indeed the Sira & hadiths tell us that some of the first assassinations ordered by Muhammad were precisely against poets for writing verses that he found insulting – apostasy from Islam likewise is a capital crime

I refer to the Council of Europe report from October 2016 on the ‘Compatibility of Sharia law with the European Convention on Human Rights: can States Parties to the Convention be signatories of the ‘Cairo Declaration’?

And I suggest the answer is ‘No.’ A government or system that defines itself as liberal, Western & democratic does not impose restrictions on free speech to shield itself from criticism – much less impose a death penalty for belief or lack of belief

We of Western Civilization dignify the individual by permitting all speech, no matter how we dislike it, if it is not explicitly inciting to immediate violence – and all beliefs or lack of belief

And so I recommend for the ODIHR 2017: Let us leave here today, renewed & inspired to reject liberty-crushing concepts like ‘hate speech’ & death penalties for religious beliefs or rejection of belief & instead committed to defend freedoms of belief, conscience & speech & all the principles of liberty we hold so dear.

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) 2017

Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, Sept. 12, 2017:

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization. Its mandate includes issues such as arms control, promotion of human rights, freedom of the press, and fair elections.

The OSCE is concerned with early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management, and post-conflict rehabilitation. Created during the Cold War era as an East–West forum, Its 57 participating states are located in Europe, northern and central Asia, and North America.

Over the past decade, the OSCE has become an important battlespace in the war of ideas regarding freedom of speech, civilization jihad and the spread of sharia law into large swaths of Europe. Governmental and nongovernmental bodies from member nations may send representatives to take part in working sessions and side events where matters of international security are discussed.

This year, Executive Vice President Christopher Hull and Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez will represent the Center for Security Policy at the 2017 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw, Poland.

Canada: Antifa threatens to “smash” conference opposing “anti-Islamophobia” motion

Jihad Watch, by Christine Douglass-Williams, Sept 7, 2017:

A conference entitled “M-103: Islamophobia Cure or Shariah Trap?” will take place in Toronto this Sunday. The event is organized by a group called Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms (C3RF). Speakers include Dr. Bill Warner, Leo Adler, Deborah Weiss, Anthony Furey, Raheel Raza, Yusif Celik, Anni Cyrus and others. But “organizers are not publicly revealing its location. Anti-fascist activists, known as Antifa, have already threatened to disrupt the event and intimidate participants.”

Canada is in a crisis over “anti-Islamophobia” motion M-103. Last March, Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s “anti-Islamophobia” motion M-103 passed the House of Commons, even though a poll indicatedthat this was not what most Canadians wanted. Canadians were duped by this motion, which had questionable origins, intimating an agenda which has no place in a democracy. The majority vote for the motion was along party lines, with only two Conservative MPs voting for it: Bruce Stanton and Michael Chong.

Although M-103 is not binding legislation, it was followed up with a Heritage Committee study “to look at the issue and then report back with a recommendations that could be used to create legislation within 240 days…The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is made up of 10 people, six of whom are Liberals. There is a Liberal chair, Hedy Fry, and then there is one Conservative and one NDP deputy chair.” Public hearings were part of this study.

One of the groups that applied to be included in that hearing was Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights & Freedoms (C3RF), a non-partisan group formed by a sizeable number of concerned citizens following the passage of M-103. C3RF’s request to serve as a witness and share its views in the hearings was rejected. Now, this C3RF conference is intended to raise awareness and educate people about the implications of M-103, and “prepare the groundwork for a political push against what they believe is legislation that will at some point restrict Canadians’ freedoms and perhaps lay the groundwork for the introduction of Islamic Shariah law in Canada.” But event organizers are reporting threats of violence, a further indication of how divisive Motion M-103 is in Canada. According to David Nitkin, a spokesman for and cosponsor of the conference:

Antifa has used voice mail messages and emails to threaten to go to locations where the conference is being held and “smash” the venues, in order to prevent the conference from proceeding.

Valerie Price, Director of ACT! for Canada, is also a cosponsor of the event. When I asked her if she would consider either cancelling or postponing the event  because of threats from Antifa, she replied:

No way is this going to happen if I have anything to say about it. What are we supposed to do – lie down and roll over and surrender every  time we are threatened by Antifa? This conference is about free speech and freedom of association. How is this hateful? What is truly hateful is their threatening behaviour and what they should understand is that we don’t preach hate – we expose it. Maybe that’s what they don’t like. This event WILL go on.

Price continued:

When the Heritage Committee refuses to allow C3RF to make a presentation before them, we will still be there. When they try to impose restrictions on free speech with their blasphemy laws, we will be there. We are not going anywhere. We will become their conscience. We must defeat Motion M- 103.

Canada also has anti-Islamophobia Charters in six Canadian cities, which the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the former CAIR-CAN, worked for. “Islamophobia” is an Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) term used to describe anti-Muslim bigotry, which should be countered, but also criticism of Islam that is deemed offensive to Muslims, whether or not it is true or accurate. The OIC seeks to play “an active role in presenting a bright and positive image of Islam and member countries of the organization, while realizing the goals of Islamic unity.” This endeavor to present a positive image of Islam involves shutting down anything remotely critical of human rights abuses resulting from Sharia norms.

Turkish despot Recep Tayyip Erdogan has declared that “Islamophobia” is the same as anti-Semitism, and so in his view, Islamophobia should be declared a crime against humanity. Anti-Semitism is based on pure hatred of the Jewish people simply because they are Jewish; the Holocaust was an attempt to “exorcise the Jewish spirit from the world,” according to Professor Dan Michman of the International Institute for Holocaust Research. By contrast, “Islamophobia” is a trumped-up word with no clear definition. A former Imam and member of the International institute for Islamic Thought, Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, referenced the Islamophobia “canard” as a “loathsome term” which is “nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics,” and that is precisely what is happening already in Canada:

  • A peaceful free-speech rally against M-103 was shut down in Grand Prairie and deemed a hate rally.
  • A gay Iranian Muslim was banned from entering his anti-Sharia float in the Vancouver Pride Parade.
  • My federal appointment with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) is under scrutiny by the Heritage Department because I write for Jihad Watch and report on Islamic supremacist and jihad activity. Spokesperson Amira Elghawaby of the NCCM calls Jihad Watch a “hateful website.” The CRRF is in the Department of Heritage — the same Department that Motion M103 emerges from.

As Robert Spencer noted about the shutting down of the event in Grand Prairie: “Violent Leftists have been brutalizing people who stand for the freedom of speech, and they have friends in the highest places, and so your free speech rally is forbidden.”

True words indeed. Fortunately, there are Canadians who value freedom and so do not believe that the divisive “anti-Islamophobia” motion M-103 has any place in Canada. The same publication—The Canadian Jewish News — that discusses the backlash against the C3RF conference also features a debate about Motion M-103 entitled Should Jews Support M-103. In it, the former CEO of Canadian Jewish Congress, Benjamin Shinewald, unfortunately expresses his support for M-103. Shinewald thinks that the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) — Canada’s largest Jewish advocacy group — is “twisting itself into a pretzel to oppose this motion.’”

Another former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Bernie Farber, is on the NCCM website promoting its “Charter for Inclusive Communities,” which includes its aggressive “anti-Islamophobia” drives because of what it claims is an “epidemic of Islamophobia” across the country.  Shinewald and Farber would do well to read OIC documents that define clearly what “Islamophobia” is about.

Shinewald also stated:

Canadian Jews should support M-103, plain and simple. And there is one more thing we should do. We should all chill out. After all, nothing of any consequence hangs on this non-binding private member’s motion – that is, with the exception of our collective dignity.

The OIC and Muslim Brotherhood-connected groups and individuals have been energetically pushing “anti-Islamophobia” drives in Canada and globally, but Shinewald thinks we should “chill out.” In the Canadian Jewish News debate, the prominent Canadian businessman, investor and philanthropist Michael Diamond noted rightly of M-103:

If parliament wishes to study the application of our existing hate laws…it should do that. but we should not elevate one group above all others….this effort to cater to Muslims alone has already had a negative and polarizing effect. It will be critical that Canadians focus carefully on what transpires next. A motion is not law, but it begins an important process. And what comes of that process could weaken the fabric of our society and divide us, instead of pulling us together.

Canada is doomed to a future of strife because of Islamic supremacist forces and Antifa if these anti-democratic forces are not opposed now. Unfortunately, the current Canadian government is enabling such divisions. We hope the C3RF’s freedom conference will be a great success, and will attract more attendees in the midst of the hatred and intimidation that are being directed against it. Police and security personnel will be present. More information here.

Read more