Muslim Nations Defend Palestinian Terror During UN Terrorism Review After U.S. Citizen Murdered Near Hebron

OIC-at-UN.sized-770x415xbPJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, JULY 3, 2016:

Thirteen-year-old Hillel Ariel, a U.S. citizen, was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist last week while sleeping in her bed in her home near Hebron.

The day after her murder the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the group representing all 57 Muslim-majority nations, tried to insert justifications for Palestinian terror during a United Nations review of its counter-terrorism strategy.

Stephanie Granot of The Jewish Press reports:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), attempted to introduce language condoning terrorism under certain conditions into a draft of a UN Counter-Terrorism Resolution. The official document is expected to be finalized on Tuesday when the General Assembly concludes a bi-annual Review of its UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.The OIC, an organization of 57 member-states that considers itself “the collective voice of the Muslim world”, has Permanent Delegations to the United Nations as well as to the European Union. Several days prior to the start of the Review, OIC Representative Abdallah Y. Al-Mouallimi (Saudi Arabia) sought to insert the following clause to the draft of the resolution: “Terrorism in the name of self-determination and national liberation does not constitute terrorism.”

Shortly after Rep. Al-Mouallimi addressed the General Assembly, Israel’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador David Roet delivered an impassioned and powerful speech…

Subsequent to Ambassador Roet’s speech, some significant diplomatic maneuvering by the Israel’s Mission to the UN, and a steadfast refusal on Israel’s part to allow member-states to compromise draft language for the sake of a unanimous consensus, the clause was ultimately not included in the final draft of the review, entitled “The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review”.

As the article notes, the OIC, which is the second largest inter-governmental body in the world behind the United Nations, has a permanent delegation at the UN.

In May, just a month before the Orlando terror attack targeting a gay nightclub that killed 49, the OIC blocked LGBT groups from attending a UN conference on AIDS held days before the attack.

The defense of Palestinian terrorism is a recurring topic of the OIC.

In April 2002, in response to the 9/11 terror attacks, the OIC adopted a declaration on international terrorism. But during the debate the OIC could not agree on a definition of terrorism, but did reject “any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism.”

The OIC’s Islamic Fiqh Council published a January 2003 resolution explicitly endorsing Palestinian terror attacks, saying suicide attacks are a legitimate form of jihad:

3- The Islamic Fiqh Council asserts that jihad and martyr operations done to defend the Islamic creed, dignity, freedom and the sovereignty of states is not considered terrorism but a basic form of necessary defense for legitimate rights. Thus the oppressed peoples who are subjected to occupation have the right to seek their freedom via all means possible.4- The Islamic Fiqh Council stresses that martyr operations are a form of jihad, and carrying out those operations is a legitimate right that has nothing to do with terrorism or suicide. Those operations become obligatory when they become the only way to stop the aggression of the enemy, defeat it, and grievously damage its power.

5- It is not allowed to use terms such as “jihad”, “terrorism”, and “violence”, which have become frequently used by today’s mass media as scientific terms, to mean other connotations beyond their basic well known meanings.

In between its unashamed defense of terrorism, the OIC has taken up the cause of suppressing freedom of speech in the name of combating “Islamophobia.”

As I noted last year here at PJ Media, the OIC remarkably called for more free speech limits immediately following the terror attack on the Paris offices of French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo. After reporting that, the OIC’s representative to the UN, Ufuk Gokcen, blocked me on Twitter.

I also reported exclusively that the OIC had funneled $325,000 to Georgetown University through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) terror front group to push its “Islamophobia” agenda.

Through the OIC’s 2005 10-Year Plan of Action and supporting implementation plan, they stated their intent to push for the international criminalization of criticism of Islam.

Hillary Clinton enthusiastically backed the OIC’s push for criminalizing “Islamophobia,” with the U.S. co-sponsoring UNHRC Resolution 16/18 with Pakistan on behalf of the OIC which calls for free speech restrictions in the name of banning “defamation of religion.”

At a July 2011 meeting with the OIC in Istanbul, she reaffirmed her commitment to Resolution 16/18, vowingto use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

Clinton hosted the OIC in a three-day closed-door conference in Washington, D.C., in December 2011. The official OIC media center characterized the meetings with Clinton as an effort to enact its “defamation of religion” agenda spelled out in the OIC’s annual Islamophobia Observatory.

No word if now-Democratic Party presidential candidate Clinton endorses the attempts by the OIC to justify Palestinian terrorism.

The American Gulag

550px-censored_rubber_stampFront Page Magazine, by Phyllis Chesler, June 27, 2016:

For years, beginning in 2003, I have personally faced both censorship and demonization. When I began publishing pieces about anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and Islamic gender and religious apartheid at conservative sites, I was seen as having “gone over to the dark side,” as having joined the legion of enemies against all that was right and good.

My former easy and frequent access to left-liberal venues was over. I learned, early on, about the soft censorship of the Left, the American version of the Soviet Gulag. One could think, write, and even publish but it would be as if one had not spoken–although one would still be constantly attacked for where one published as much as for what one published.

Since then, Left censorship has only gotten worse. (There is also censorship on the Right–but not quite as much.)

A week ago, a colleague of mine was thrilled that a mainstream newspaper had reached out to him for a piece about the violent customs of many male Muslim immigrants to Europe. He discovered, to his shock, that his piece had been edited in a way that turned his argument upside down and ended up sounding like American Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s view, namely, that home-grown terrorists need “love and compassion,” not profiling or detention.

I told him: One more left-liberal newspaper has just bitten the Orwellian dust. He could expose this use of his reasoned view for propaganda purposes–or wear out his welcome at this distinguished venue.

“But,” I said, “on the other hand, what kind of welcome is it if they change your words and the main thrust of your argument?”

That same week, right after the Jihad massacre in Orlando, another colleague, long used to being published–and published frequently at gay websites–wrote about the male Muslim immigrant/refugee physical and sexual violence against girls and women (their own and infidel women); against homosexuals–and paradoxically, also against young boys. He counseled gays to understand that the issues of gun control and “hate,” while important, were also quite beside the point, that “homosexuality is a capital crime in Islam.”

His piece was rejected by every gay site he approached. One venue threatened him:  If he published his piece “anywhere,” that his work would no longer be welcome in their pages.

I welcomed him to the American Gulag.

He told me that he finally “had” to publish the piece at a conservative site.

Gently, I told him that what he wrote was the kind of piece that was long familiar only at conservative sites and that he should expect considerable flack for where he’s published as well as for what he’s published.

Another gay right activist told me that when he described Orlando as a Jihad attack, he was castigated as a “right-wing hater.” He, too, had to publish what he wanted to say at a conservative site.

I published two pieces about Orlando. I said similar kinds of things and I privately emailed both articles to about 30 gay activists whom I know.

The silence thereafter was, as they say, deafening. I was not attacked but I was given the Silent Treatment.

For a moment, I felt like gay activist Larry Kramer might have felt when, in the 1980s, he tried to persuade gay men to stop going to the baths and engaging in promiscuous sex, that their lust was literally killing them. Kramer was attacked as a spoilsport and as the homophobic enemy of the gay lifestyle. Alas, Kramer had been right and many gay male lives were lost to AIDS.

Thus, gay activists see their collective interests as best served by marching, lock-step, with politically correct politicians who view “mental illness,” “gun control,” and “American right-wing hatred of gays”–not Jihad–as the major problems. Such gay activists also prefer “Palestine” to Israel. It makes absolutely no difference that Israel does not murder its homosexual citizens and that in fact, Israel grants asylum to Muslim Arab men in flight from being torture-murdered by other Muslim Arab men.

A number of European activists have recently visited me.  They described what has been happening to women who undertake the journey from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey;  along the way, the girls and women are continually groped and sexually assaulted, even penetrated in every possible orifice, by gangs of male Muslim immigrants. If they want to live, their husbands and fathers can do nothing.

So much for Muslim immigrant women on the move.

And now, European women are being told to “dye their hair black,” stay home “after 8pm,” “always have a male escort at night;” a group of German nudists, whose tradition goes back 100 years, have just been told to “cover up” because refugees are being moved into the rural lake community.

Where will this all end? In Europe becoming a Muslim Caliphate dominated by Sharia law and by all its myriad misogynist interpretations? In Muslim immigrants assimilating to Western ways? In Europeans voluntarily converting to Arab and Muslim ways? In non-violent but parallel Muslim lives?

Bravo to England which has just taken its first, high risk steps to control its borders and its immigrant population.

All Your Social Media Belong to the EU

wer

Facebook, Google and Twitter sign up for propaganda and censorship.

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 10, 2016:

For a decade, the top search result for “EU referendum” on Google was the political blog EU Referendum. Then it was abruptly displaced by solidly pro-EU media outlets. It appeared that someone at Google had decided that search traffic should be driven to pro-EU sites. Ingrid Carlqvist, a Swedish columnist who covers, among other things, migrant violence, at Gatestone, had her Facebook account deleted after posting a video detailing migrant rapes in Sweden.

These seemingly isolated incidents fit into a larger pattern as Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter helped create and signed a “code of conduct” banning hate speech. Facebook had already become notorious for its political agenda while Twitter had created a Trust and Safety Council filled with extremist left-wing groups like Feminist Frequency to censor the politically incorrect.

Google has historically been a pro-free speech outlier. Its politics have never been ambiguous, but it has eschewed the overt censorship of some of its new partners working to keep the EU free of political dissent. But the code of conduct goes well beyond censorship. The companies will be working to strengthen their “ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct”. That amounts to empowering left-wing advocacy groups to dictate content removal to major companies. It means that not only Twitter, but Facebook, Google and Microsoft will get their own Trust and Safety Council. It may be called something else. It may not even have a name. But it will have power. That’s what this really means.

And it’s only a starting point in a larger propaganda initiative.

“The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives,” the press release reads.

Even more than the censorship, the counter-narratives push represents a troubling development.

Left-wing groups won’t just be embedded as censors, but major tech firms will be expected to promote their agendas. And the biggest resource that companies with massive social media platforms have at their disposal isn’t mere money. It’s the ability to decide what is trending and what isn’t.

If a story about Islamic terrorism trends, will Facebook or Twitter be expected to promote a counter-narrative from an Islamic group? How exactly is this any different than traditional propaganda?

“The IT Companies to intensify their work with CSOs to deliver best practice training on countering hateful rhetoric and prejudice and increase the scale of their proactive outreach to CSOs to help them deliver effective counter speech campaigns. The European Commission, in cooperation with Member States, to contribute to this endeavour by taking steps to map CSOs’ specific needs and demands in this respect,” the release tells us.

CSO stands for Civil Society Organization. It’s used more often now that NGO carries with it an air of contempt. That last sentence informs us that the CSOs will have “demands.” The European Commission will help leverage and assemble these demands. Meanwhile major tech firms will be working to aid these CSOs in pushing their agenda.

What will this look like? We got a preview of it with Facebook’s “Initiative for Civil Courage Online”. Facebook had been facing pressure from Germany’s Merkel who was worried over public outrage at crimes committed by her Muslim migrant arrivals. Censorship was obviously the order of the day.

The Initiative promoted Klick It Out which, in properly Orwellian fashion, urged people to “See It. Report It.” The “It” being “Social Media Discrimination.” And then users were expected to “Klick It Out”. It was a failure. But Facebook and friends are doubling down.

Tech companies love the idea of creating “counter-narratives” because it’s cheaper to throw some money at an NGO or CSO, or to boost their profile, than to invest still more money in censorship. It’s not because they have a bias for free speech, but because active censorship, even when outsourced to poorer countries, which it often is, demands more resources. Pushing an agenda is cheap.

And the goal of companies like Facebook is to increase usage, rather than reduce it, which is why COO Sheryl Sandberg championed “like attacks” in which users flood the pages of bigots with their own speech. But the code of conduct is a thorough rejection of any of that self-interested libertarianism. Censorship is packaged together with agenda pushing. There might be like attacks, but what the EU really wanted was deletion and promotion for the groups that its leaders support. And they got it.

Some fraction of these efforts may be directed at ISIS supporters, but there is no particular reason to be optimistic about that. By putting CSOs first, the message is that this isn’t about counter-terrorism, but about promoting one set of political agendas at the expense of another. Much like Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council, this is about selecting who should speak and who should be silenced.

Programs like these operate under the umbrella of fighting extremism. And extremism, unlike blowing up buses or beheading hostages, is in the eye of the beholder. And the beholder is a tech company standing on the left while looking to the right. The obsession with radicalization treats lawful speech as the precursor to violence. It also assumes that Muslim terrorism emerges from a cycle of extremism between Muslims and critics of Islam. Silence the critics and you stop the terrorism.

European governments, like those of Angela Merkel, are far less worried about Salafists than they are about domestic political dissent. When Merkel berated Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over insufficient censorship, it wasn’t because she objected to the pipeline that feeds Muslims from Germany into ISIS. Muslim terrorism is inconvenient, but political dissent is politically explosive. Social media comprise an alternative organizing force that counters the dominance of media narratives. That makes it a threat.

Attempts to silence more prominent voices like Richard North and Ingrid Carlqvist have run into a backlash, but it’s impossible to rally in support of each ordinary person who has their account shut down or their blog pushed down in the rankings for having politically incorrect views. Social media at their best bring people together. This initiative is about disrupting social organizations that are disapproved of.

It is about preserving the dominance of a government-media narrative while promoting astroturf organizations that try to appear independent, but really echo that very same narrative.

Private companies have the right to determine what content appears on their platforms. But Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter have become part of an alliance with governments and advocacy groups to maintain a particular narrative. They will not simply be removing hateful content. Instead they have undertaken to play a role in putting forward a particular set of ideas by particular governments.

That’s propaganda and it is the opposite of how the internet was meant to be used.

The deal puts a series of private organizations, backed by EU government power, in charge of determining the content of social media, both positive and negative. Social media were meant to be centered around the user. Instead this deal displaces the user and replaces him or her with the EU.

***

Also see:

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a "code of conduct" to combat the spread of "illegal hate speech" online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone's Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called "Sweden's Migrant Rape Epidemic."

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.”

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, June 3, 2016:

  • Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the European Union’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.
  • Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours — as “Orwellian.”
  • “By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people… into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.'” — Douglas Murray.
  • In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation.

The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe.

Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on “hate speech” is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with “counter-narratives” — as “Orwellian.”

Read more

Bigot, Racist, Hater, Islamophobe

oic-erasing-freedom-of-speech-edited-1

Political Islam, by Bill Warner, May 25, 2016:

When my talk was announced recently, the “virtuous” progressives call a critic a bigot. They did not produce a single fact, but said that a leftist group claimed that I was one of the chief Muslim bashers. Which is very odd since I don’t talk about Muslims, just Mohammed and Allah. I am an opponent of political Islam, not Muslims.

They charge me with presenting a “slanted” view of Islam, which is true. Three different views of Islam are demonstrated by the reaction to the day that Mohammed beheaded 800 Jews. Muslims see it as a day of victory; apologists see it as just another historic event. My view is that of a Kafir – beheading the Jews because they said that Mohammed was not a prophet – was an evil act. If you speak about Islamic political doctrine the apologists say you are a bigot.

A clergyman weighed in to say that I do not appreciate the vibrancy of Muslim culture. He is right. I only care about political Islam. I would hope that he would care about the brutality of Islam about Christians in Africa and the Middle East, but he is silent about that evil.

A community college president said that I should be forbidden to speak. This is symptomatic about schools becoming centers of ideology, not fact-based reasoning.

Why all of the insults? It is the only weapon of the ignorant.

University Spikes Lecture Due to ‘Hateful’ Chalk Messages Criticizing Terrorists

Nonie-Darwish-facebook-photo-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 21, 2016:

It’s yet another story of politically-correct lunacy involving a university losing its collective cookies over chalk writings, but this time the “hateful” speech isn’t Donald Trump’s name.

It’s the question: “Why do terrorists hate America?”

That message, repeated in chalk advertisements and flyers, is the reason Wingate University in North Carolina cited when revoking the funding for a lecture by Nonie Darwish, a former Muslim of Egyptian descent. She is the author of several books, including Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad For America, Israel, and the War on Terror, and most recently The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East.

An administrator for Wingate University emailed Young Americans for Freedom, organizers of the event, to say that chalk advertisements for the lecture were of “extreme concern.”

“Concerns have also come to my attention regarding ‘flyers’ that have been posted around campus and although I have not seen them personally, this in conjunction with the concern of a number of individuals that have reached out to me is yet again concerning,” the administrator added.

Evidently not a matter of concern was the administrator’s admission that she hadn’t even seen the concerning messages that made her concerned enough to pull the plug on the concerning lecture this uncertain number of unnamed individuals expressed their concerns about.

The flyers and chalk drawings in question included the title of Darwish’s lecture: “Why Terrorists Hate America and the West.”

“We do not promote and/or associate hate with a Faith Lyceum event,” the administrator declared — an interesting standard, given that the Lyceum program compares itself to Aristotle’s lectures, boasts of airing “big ideas,” and claims to be a program “designed to expose students to ideas and opportunities they don’t have in the classroom.”

“I am requesting that you immediately remove all flyers that promote this event as a Lyceum and would ask that you remove all chalk advertisements as well,” the administrator told the YAF. “With this no longer being a Lyceum, I also am no longer able to fund this event and ask that you please plan accordingly.”

The Wingate YAF denounced the administrator’s decision as “cowardly” and “stepped in to pay the additional cost in order to ensure that students at Wingate University will have the opportunity to hear Nonie Darwish speak.”

“There are constant attempts to silence us by many Islamic organizations. We are the No. 1 target of jihadists and ISIS sympathizers who are now in all fifty states,” Darwish told Fox News just a few weeks ago, when discussing the fatwa (Islamic religious edict) that has been issued for her death.

She said “we” because the Fox report discussed five other women sentenced to death by Islamist edicts. One of them, cartoonist Molly Norris, was literally erased from society by a tidal wave of death threats, and a fatwa from Al-Qaeda guru Anwar al-Awlaki, because she drew unpublished images of Mohammed that were leaked onto the Internet. “There is no more Molly,” her erstwhile publisher Seattle Weekly wrote, by way of bidding her farewell when she went into hiding.

Apparently the jihad sympathizers Darwish spoke of are active at Wingate University, and their “concerns” are taken very seriously by the administration.

Turkey: Erdogan’s Thin-Skinned Government

Gatestone Institute, by Robbie Travers, April 20, 2016:

  • Is there any other person you trust to decide which ideas and speech you are entitled to hear — or which are too dangerous for you to hear?
  • The thin-skinned government of Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has in the past two years opened at least 1,845 cases over insults to the president.
  • Turkey’s World Press Freedom Index ranking has plummeted to 149 out of 180, below Zimbabwe (131) and Burundi (145).
  • Despite the ruling of Turkey’s judicial system that Erdogan could not eliminate access to Twitter, he nevertheless continues to advance his agenda of censorship. He pledges to “eradicate Twitter” which, according to him, encourages “blasphemy and criticism of the Turkish government.”

Is there any other person you trust to decide which ideas and speech you are entitled to hear — or which are too dangerous for you to hear?

Is there any other person you think should have the ability to decide what criticism of the Government is respectful enough?

Would you cede your autonomy to decide what you to hear to a Government? Probably not.

The Turkish government does not agree. Evidently Turkey’s AKP Government in Ankara believes it is fit to be this authority, and not just domestically. Its urge to censor negative press seems to be going global.

The Government of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara recently summoned the German ambassador to demand the deletion of a satirical music video which highlighted his government’s aggression against the Kurdish people, his brutal repression of protestors, and his weak position on equal rights for women. Turkey also insisted that a German comedian be prosecuted under an obscure German law for insulting the leader of a foreign country.

Turkey seems to be spending more time policing the image of Erdogan abroad than the serious security situation it is facing.

Turkey’s latest authoritarian crackdown on the rights of its citizens to freedom of expression should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the country’s path towards an increasingly Islamist, authoritarian government.

Erdogan’s renowned thin-skinned government has, in the past two years, opened at least 1,845 cases over insults to the president, such as, for instance, comparing the president to Gollum fromLord of the Rings.

Last year, Dr. Bilgin Ciftci of Turkey posted photos on Twitter juxtaposing President Erdogan with the fictional character Gollum. Ciftci was immediately fired from the hospital where he worked. Then he was brought to court for insulting Erdogan, an offense punishable by up to four years in prison.

In March, a court placed the newspaper Zaman in the control of state administrators, with no clear reason given, arguably breaching Article Three of the European Convention of Human Rights:

“2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

“(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;”

Zaman has apparently never received information of the charges against it, or the reason for the court order placing its activities and infrastructure under state control — moves breaching further sections of Article 3, which specify the right to be able to “construct a defence”. Without knowing what charges it faces, Zaman is unable to do that.

In addition, Turkey’s World Press Freedom Index ranking has plummeted to 149 out of 180: below Zimbabwe (131) and Burundi (145).

Turkey also continues to imprison possibly the highest number of journalists of any nation — according the Committee to Protect Journalists, the assessed number is 14 out of 199, worldwide. Other sources claim the number is closer to 30, and still others suggest that Turkey has had the greatest number of incarcerated journalists globally.

Whatever the true number, it is shameful that a NATO member, pledged to uphold the values of democracy as a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), ranks among some of the worst abusers of press freedom, including Iran, China and Saudi Arabia.

The Turkish government led by Erdogan seems to be undergoing a public transformation into an increasingly totalitarian state. Turkey has been abandoning the pro-Western principles of Kemalism and pivoting, with a more oppressive and expansionist outlook, toward Ottoman Islam.

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was willing and overtly “proud’ to show solidarity with the massacred Charlie Hebdo satirists in Paris by joining the Marche Republicaine against those who would attack freedom of speech. At home, however, Davutoglu pursues a domestic agenda that not only infringes upon media freedom, but also on the freedoms of individual citizens in fundamental breaches of ECHR legislation. Davutoglu, for example, has suggested women being equal to men causes suicides.

Turkey has also attempted, during Erdogan’s period of governance, to ban both Twitter — for “incit[ing] political dissent” — and YouTube — for “promot[ing] the act of religious defamation (article 216).” Erdogan blocked Twitter during responses to terror attacks and public protests, and attempted to quell any protest against his government.

Under the pretense of “counter terrorism,” Erdogan has repeatedly been attempting to strangle the channels of discussion and the organizing of protests.

In any state claiming that protests are linked to terrorism and blasphemy is unjustifiable. These are classic intimidatory tactics. They illustrate why the West must begin to criticize Erdogan’s regime to a greater extent on its infringement on freedom of speech, rather than to make deals with it.

Had Charlie Hebdo been a Turkish publication, its material would most likely have been branded illegal or brought under state control: it would likely no longer exist.

Despite the ruling by Turkey’s judiciary that Erdogan could not eliminate access to Twitter, he nevertheless continues to advance his agenda of censorship.

This position Erdogan holds, of branding opposition to his regime as blasphemy, creates a religious divide between those who are “pure” and those who are “dangerous.” Further, as mentioned, the notion that an idea is too politically toxic to be discussed contravenes the principles of free speech and freedom of expression that Turkey pledged as a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights.

Turkey’s lurch to establish its government as some form of unassailable authority beyond questioning again breaches the ECHR, this time Article 9:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. “

Turkey is also likely to fall afoul of Article 10 of the ECHR:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Turkey’s blocking of social media, which targets communication with the outside world, also clearly infringes on the “regardless of frontiers” stipulation.

And finally, Turkey’s actions are also clearly in breach of Article 11

“Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”

The European Union and the liberal democracies have remained silent on Turkey’s aggressive campaign against civil liberties. But it is time to stop betraying Turkish liberals, democrats and Kurdish people facing persecution for their views — before it comes “soon to a theater near you.”

Countries in the West sometimes seem to fantasize that Turkey, with half of Istanbul in Europe, can therefore can modernized, be become progressive and work with the West.

They distance themselves and turn a blind eye to the Turkish government’s assaults on human rights. Before Turkey is capitulated to even further, or again considered for membership in the European Union, shining a serious light on the country seems long overdue.

Robbie Travers, a political commentator and consultant, is Executive Director of Agora, former media manager at the Human Security Centre, and a law student at the University of Edinburgh.

***

John Oliver – Insulting Erdogan

Also see:

Video: Robert Spencer on how Islam killed free speech in 30 years

Published on Apr 18, 2016 by Vlad Tepes

This is a presentation by Robert Spencer given to an invite-only group in Montreal on April 14 2016. He spoke mainly on how Islam and Islamic organizations plan to, and systematically do attack, freedom of speech world wide.

Video: Robert Spencer explains the “Islamophobia” scam

olJihad  Watch, by Robert Spencer, April 11, 2016:

Here is the first part of my new video series, The Basics of Islam, an introduction to many of the most important aspects of the struggle against the global jihad. This one is about “Islamophobia” and the Islamic jihad against the freedom of speech.

Germany Raids Homes of Immigration Critics

Getty

Getty

Police admit that there was no evidence of any crime beyond expressing outlawed opinions.

By Counter Jihad, April 11, 2016:

German police ransacked the homes of ten people in Berlin’s suburbs last week.  Families in Spandau, Tempelhof, Marzahn, Hellersdorf ,and Pankow were raided by police units because someone living in those homes had expressed outlawed opinions on the internet.  Specifically, the ten were united by having been outspoken critics of Germany’s policy of accepting mass migration from the Islamic world.

The raids should be no surprise given that the Germans looked to a former Stasi official as who leads an anti-Nazi NGO as a partner for the official internet censorship unit.  Police spokesman Stefan Redlich admitted that while many of the men had anti-migrant opinions, “the men do not know each other according to previous findings,” and police had no evidence of any conspiracy to commit crimes.  The sole offense, for which nine were arrested and booked, was expressing officially-disapproved views towards Muslims.

According to Breitbart news:

In some of the homes searched police were forced to admit they hadn’t found anything at all, but Redlich justified the raids saying they were maybe, “people who just once expressed their hate-opinion.”  One of the raids in particular was prompted by a Facebook comment…

Police announced that the raids show Germans that they are not as safe online as they might think.

A useful lesson, no doubt, although ideally the dangers are not supposed to be from the police.  This is what you can expect when the police are trained by organizations founded by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Germany has a long history of being less friendly to free speech than many places in the West.  However, in the wake of the Cologne attacks the German authorities have seemed far more inclined to crack down on criticism of government policy than on migrants who engage in rape.  The German government’s Interior Ministry reached down to local police to make them strike the use of the word “rape” from their police reports, and has arrested only thirty people in connection with more than a thousand rapes and sexual assaults on that occasion alone.

Meanwhile, the mass immigration has increased crime at a rate far beyond what the German police can handle.  The sexual assaults, which Germany has proven totally incapable of either controlling or prosecuting, represent less than one percent of the increase in crime in just one year.

The censorship threats are not limited to Germany, either.  Scottish police posted a warning aimed at internet users, suggesting that they use the internet “safely” or else they “might receive a visit from us.”  The British police’s submission to Muslim Brotherhood doctrine was enforced by Prime Minister Tony Blair as part of his attempt to curry favor with the Muslim community.  It impeded the investigation of a child-rape ring in Rotherham, England.  It appears that the lesson has not been learned by police even yet.

America Now Has an Official Language: Newspeak

hj

Frontpage, Michael Cutler, April 5, 2016:

George Orwell’s political novel “1984” painted a disturbing but all too prophetic image of how a totalitarian government would come to rule its citizens with an iron fist.  Language — that is to say, the deceptive use of language — was a critical element of the government and the dystopia it created that Orwell described.

In Orwell’s thriller, electronic surveillance conducted by the omnipresent “Big Brother” was a major factor, as was the development and implementation of a language, Newspeak, that was devised to control thought over time by eliminating words from the vernacular.  When words were eliminated, thoughts and concepts those words represented would be eliminated.

Furthermore, terms to describe government agencies were often the opposite of what their respective missions were. The editing process of published material, especially by rewriting history books and employing propaganda, was the domain of the Ministry of Truth. The omnipresent Party understood that “who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

The contradictorily named, “Ministry of Love” tortured citizens to coerce their unflagging and uncompromising compliance with the dictates of the government.

The world in which the residents of 1984 resided was a world of deception and lies where “up” was “down” and “right” was “wrong.”  In the words of the official slogan of the Ministry of Truth:

“War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”

In 1984 the use of conflicting terms were designed to be disorienting and intimidating to better gain total control over the masses.

Let’s contrast the machinations of the government in 1984 with the precepts of the Founding Fathers of our nation.

The Founding Fathers understood that democracy could only exist when citizens were granted a series of freedoms — including the freedom to express their thoughts and concerns with virtual impunity and to meet with others to hold discussions about grievances about their government.  Journalists and their mission to report on the facts was sacrosanct to the Founding Fathers.  As evidenced by the fact that journalists are members of the only profession that is specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers understood that the citizens of this nation must have unfettered access to the truth.

Consider the First Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now let’s consider how far we have fallen in just a few short years.

The term “Alien” has been all but expunged from any discussions about immigration.  This lunacy began under the administration of Jimmy Carter who mandated that INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) employees stop using the term alien to describe illegal aliens.  The term alien is hardly a pejorative.  The term “alien” is a legal term that is defined in our immigration laws under Title 8 U.S. Code § 1101 – Definitions.  Under section (a)(3):

The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

There is absolutely no insult in that term.  The reason that there has been a concerted effort to expunge the word alien from the vernacular is to obfuscate the clarity that the term brings to the debate about immigration.  This is not about being “politically correct,” but about employing the Newspeak tactic of confounding understanding and making honest discussions impossible.

Let me provide a bit of clarity: the difference between and an “immigrant” and an “illegal alien” is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

It has taken decades, but alarmingly, the march towards the implementation of Newspeak continues with increasing velocity.  On March 29, 2016 Fox News Latino reported, “Student petition at Dartmouth sparks Library of Congress to drop term ‘illegal alien.’

Here is how this troubling report begins:

When a student-led organization at Dartmouth College petitioned the Library of Congress in 2014 to drop the term “illegal aliens” and instead use “undocumented,” the response was no.

The reasoning, members of the group recall, was that “illegal alien” is an official U.S. government term for people who are in the country without proper documents.

But the Dartmouth Coalition for Immigration Reform, Equality and DREAMers, or CoFIRED, motivated others – including librarian associations – across the nation to press the Library of Congress to stop using the term, which they argued dehumanizes undocumented immigrants.

The Library of Congress listened, and has decided to no longer use the heading “illegal aliens” in bibliographic records.

The report went on to note that California’s Governor Jerry Brown removed the term from the state’s labor code and that Representative Joaquin Castro introduced legislation to expunge that term from documents, laws and U.S. regulations.  His legislation, known as the CHANGE Act, would replace the term alien with “foreign national,” striking “illegal alien” from federal law and replacing it with the inaccurate and deceptive term, “undocumented foreign national.”

The article noted that the term alien has been used in U.S. documents since the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Let us also consider another term that is nothing short of Orwellian: “sanctuary city.”

Cities that refuse to comply with federal immigration laws are given the innocuous sounding title “sanctuary city.”  The term “sanctuary” implies a place of safety and security.  Yet the underlying purpose for our immigration laws is to prevent aliens from entering the United States if they pose a threat to the safety and well being of America and Americans.

This includes criminals, terrorists and those who are severely mentally ill and prone to violence.  How safe are those who reside in cities that encourage aliens who are criminals, fugitives and terrorists to move in and set up shop?

This was the self-evident point to be found in the title of my recent FrontPage Magazine article, “Immigration Law Enforcement Is Not About Xenophobia But Commonsense.”  A city or state that shields illegal aliens from detection by the federal government is operating in clear violation of federal law.  Yet this practice of shielding and harboring illegal aliens from the federal government has gone unnoticed and unpunished by the federal government for decades — at least since the 1980s.

I focused on the nexus between these sanctuary cities and the threats posed by terrorists embedding themselves in towns and cities across the United States in my March 31, 2016 article for FrontPage Magazine, “Terrorism, Enclaves and Sanctuary Cities: How sanctuary cities facilitate the growth of terror enclaves in America.

Even as we have witnessed deadly terror attacks in the United States, in Europe and elsewhere, the commonsense and reasonable measures to enforce our immigration laws to protect innocent lives and the security of our nation are castigated by politicians from both sides of the political aisle in the United States, who insist that we be “compassionate.”

Simply stated, suicide is not an act of compassion.

A series of truly worrisome reports note how, across the United States, college campuses have stifled dissent.  Education is supposed to encourage independent and, indeed, critical thinking.  Debate and discourse should not be seen as a threat but as a celebration of the First Amendment.

Tactics to intimidate and castigate students who refuse to parrot the opinions of the faculty must be rejected and opposed.

On January 5, 1967 Ronald Reagan delivered his inaugural address which began with the following statement that is well worth remembering:

To a number of us, this is a first and hence a solemn and momentous occasion, and yet, on the broad page of state and national history, what is taking place here is almost commonplace routine.  We are participating in the orderly transfer of administrative authority by the direction of the people.  And this is the simple magic which makes a commonplace routine a near miracle to many of the world’s inhabitants: the continuing fact that the people, by democratic process, can delegate this power, yet retain custody of it.

Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative.  Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.  It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.

All great achievements begin with thoughts and dreams.  Those who would control our thoughts and destroy our dreams would destroy our future and the future of our children and their children.

My dad sagely told me that I would determine how people I encountered would treat me by making clear what I would be willing to tolerate.  We must never tolerate the intolerable.

If ever there was a time when Americans need to stand together and resist the tyranny of those who would dismantle our freedoms, this is the time.

CSP EXCLUSIVE: The Red-Green Axis Takes Aim at Free Speech

2427427003“In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech” – Benjamin Franklin

 

Center for Security Policy, March 15, 2916:

As presidential candidate Donald Trump headed to Chicago for a campaign rally on 11 March 2016, violent protesters took to social media and then to the streets to shut him down in President Obama’s hometown. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, MoveOn.org, and Bernie Sanders supporters joined in solidarity with Muslim Brotherhood loyalists and other jihadis, Marxists, leftists, progressives, and even the convicted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, a former leader of the Weather Underground. They assembled to protest Trump’s rally at the Pavilion on the premises of the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC), a campus stronghold for Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and regular staging area for leftists and antisemitic demonstrations. The chain of events that led to that assault on Americans’ First Amendment free speech rights began long before that fateful date, however, among a motley assembly of forces that coalesced that night and with intent to expand and replicate elsewhere along the campaign trail. This was truly a ‘Red-Green Axis’ of groups that include the Muslim Brotherhood in America, the Black Lives Matter movement, and a collection of communists, leftists, progressives and socialists whose sole unifying objective is to bring down the U.S. government. Those who fund them include many of the top U.S. and international liberal foundations, as detailed in a superb January 2016 article by Jim Simpson, “Black Lives Matter: The Roots of Black Lives Matter.”

When George Zimmerman was acquitted in the Trayvon Martin killing in July 2013, the BLM launched its Twitter hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter. As explained by Jim Simpson, “Exploiting blacks to promote Marxist revolution is an old tactic. The late Larry Grathwohl, former FBI informant in the Weather Underground, understood from personal experience how white communists exploited blacks and other minority groups.” Since its inception, the BLM movement has become synonymous with support for radical leftist causes as well as blatant promotion of vicious racism. As Simpson explains, “…while justifying violence to achieve ‘social justice,’ the movement’s goal is to overthrow our society to replace it with a Marxist one.” Now, with an eye on the 2016 election cycle, the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), an umbrella organization constituting the first U.S. Muslim Brotherhood political party, and indeed the first religious identity political party in the history of this country, openly is allying itself with far-left anti-American, racist, revolutionary movements like Black Lives Matter.

Prior to the creation of the USCMO in March 2014, the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC) whose own leadership historically has been directly connected to the Muslim Brotherhood also understood the importance of these strategic relationships with leftist causes and organizations. On its website at the “Who We Are” section, the CIOGC states: “The Council not only builds and nurtures unity within the Muslim American community, but it also leverages the strength that comes with unity to work in coalitions and partnerships on shared issues and on common concerns with community-based and interfaith groups as well. This further empowers the Muslim American voice while lending its strength to the broader communities in which we live.” This includes a CIOGC partnership with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR). In the beginning of 2012, the CIOGC shared information about programs offered by ICIRR with assistance from the far left Wellstone Action, a national leader in electoral organizing and training.

On 4 March 2016, Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, past chairman of the CIOGC (2005-2008) issued a post on his Facebook page about the protest against the Republican Party presidential frontrunner Donald J. Trump’s rally at the Pavilion on the University of Illinois Chicago campus. He also confirmed in the statement his planned presence at this protest. Mujahid, founder of the Chicago-based Sound Vision, has troubling ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Chicago1

Chicago2

Mujahid is the past president of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) which was founded on the principles of and widely considered a front group for Jama’at al-Islami (JI) in the United States. According to Holy Land Foundation trial documents, ICNA formally joined with the Muslim Brotherhood to present a united front in the 1990s.

ICNA is also a founding member of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), which operationalizes the Brotherhood’s responsibility to purse Civilization Jihad in the U.S. in a specifically political way. In the course of national conventions by front organizations representing the Brotherhood in the United States, these entities were closely studying the BLM movement. Additionally, they sought ways to utilize alienated, angry minority populations to further the aims of the Brotherhood’s Muslim community.

It is significant to note that ICIRR played a role in the protests on the 11th of March 2016. ICIRR partners also happen to include the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), CIOGC, and the Mosque Foundation. ICIRR is an array of organizations that promote hardcore leftist causes. ICIRR’s board includes two leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood leadership: Zaher Sahloul and Ahmed Rehab (Executive Director for CAIR Chicago). Sahloul is a member of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC) and past president of the Mosque Foundation. Both CAIR and The Mosque Foundation are USCMO members.

Chicago3

Chicago4

CAIR and ICNA previously were identified as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood during the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial which concluded in 2008. Sheikh Kifah Mustapha, who has worked with Ousama Jammal (Secretary General of the USCMO and current Mosque Foundation board member) at The Mosque Foundation, was listed by name as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee. According to documents entered into evidence at the HLF trial, he was a “registered agent for HLF in Illinois” who acknowledged fundraising for the HLF from the mid-1990s until 2001. Mustapha has also raised money for MAS and ICNA initiatives during their annual conferences in Chicago.

That the Muslim Brotherhood has a leadership role within ICIRR is not coincidental, as USCMO members have routinely manipulated the civil rights narrative of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and social justice themes to establish their credibility among radical leftist organizations in the U.S. The Muslim Brotherhood’s ground game in these areas has been the focus of its leadership, which is evidenced in programs held during yearly MAS-ICNA, ICNA-MAS, and Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) national conventions. The planning process for the Brotherhood’s involvement in this arena has benefited from the expertise of a well-experienced international Brotherhood leader who served as a conduit among USCMO members in 2014 and 2015.

In August 2014, a Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood leader named Sabri Samirah (banned from the U.S. from 2004-2014 as a national security risk) revealed plans at The Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview Illinois, which are instrumental in the promotion of the ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’. Samirah’s research to determine Muslim population centers in jurisdictions where they could affect key election outcomes was indicative of his underlying strategy for the Muslim Brotherhood to establish a unified voting bloc. The launch then of an ambitious voter mobilization program aligned with key issues inevitably set the stage for the upcoming 2016 presidential election cycle.

But most importantly, the strategy emerged clearly when Samirah and fellow operatives discussed co-opting non-Muslim African American and Latino communities with which Muslims proposed to join in solidarity through exploiting such themes as civil rights issues, in return for these communities backing issues of prime importance to the Muslim community. By the end of 2015, USCMO members, including CAIR (its key leadership group), had a very clear direction for commandeering the Black Lives Matter movement.

During the 14th Annual Muslim American Society-Islamic Circle of North America (MAS-ICNA) Convention held in December 2015 at the McCormick Place in Chicago, Brotherhood leadership discussed their role within the BLM movement and how they could impart lessons to African Americans by holding up the Brotherhood as the community that staged revolutions across the world. The Center’s video, “Star Spangled Shariah or Muslim Brotherhood Revolution?”, from that convention highlights the radical statements of three of its top jihadi leadership figures that should be chilling to all Americans who cherish the Constitution and oppose the expansion of shariah.

Dr. Hatem Bazian, Chairman of American Muslims for Palestine (another USCMO founding member), issued a statement via Twitter on 12 March 2016 about the previous night’s protests in Chicago. Crucial to note, Bazian was elected as a chairman of the National People of Color Student Coalition and an executive board member of the United States Student Association in the late 1980s. Not only was he an outspoken advocate for affirmative action as a student then, but he also supported the Central American Solidarity Movement, which advanced communism.

In July 2014, Bazian condemned the U.S. for its deportation of illegal aliens and suggested that more than two million African Americans were incarcerated because of their skin color. As shown in his tweets, Bazian echoes points of strategy delineated by Brotherhood leader Sabri Samirah and urges the funding of progressive efforts.

Chicago5-1024x559

Chicago6

On 13 March 2016, as Chicagoans continued to absorb the impact of previous days’ violent events before the start of the weekend that began the annual St. Patrick’s Day celebrations, a convicted jihadist was represented at the afternoon community gathering “Political Repression, the National Security State & Collective Legal Resistance” hosted by the National Lawyers Guild Chicago chapter.

The event was described on a Facebook page as the following: “Over the past fifteen years, people in the United States–and dissidents in particular–have witnessed a steady escalation of the National Security State, including invasive surveillance and infiltration, indiscriminate police violence, and unlawful arrests. These concerted efforts to criminalize dissidents and undermine meaningful social change are made more repressive by the coordination of numerous local, state, and federal agencies often operating at the behest of private corporations.”

Chicago7

A representative from the national Free Rasmea Odeh campaign was invited to speak alongside other presenters, as individuals gathered to discuss their grievances about the arrests of protesters made by the Chicago Police Department the previous Friday evening.

Rasmea Odeh had been convicted in federal court in Detroit in November 2014 on charges that she lied on her immigration and naturalization forms. She was found guilty of falsification of information by her denial that she’d ever been arrested, convicted or imprisoned, stemming from her role as a convicted bomber of the SuperSol supermarket in “West” Jerusalem in 1969, which resulted in two fatalities.

Evidently, these facts of the Odeh case did not matter to the National Lawyers Guild, Chicago organizers whose focus was legal support for the lawbreakers promoting progressive social movements.

In response to the subversive elements that gathered in Chicago to suppress protected First Amendment free speech, Abdul Malik Mujahid smugly issued the following statement in praise of their actions on his Facebook page on 12 March 2016.

Chicago8

As the country heads into the next months of supercharged presidential electioneering, it is important to identify those taking to the streets in protest and violence for what they represent: an in-your-face challenge to our Constitutional rights, law and order, and the very foundational principles of the Republic itself. As Jim Simpson so presciently noted in his Jan 2016 article, “Islamist organizations have also jumped on the BLM bandwagon, reminding us of the unholy alliance that exists between them and the radical Left. In September 2015, the Muslim Brotherhood front-group Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) joined BLM activists in storming California Governor Jerry Brown’s office. CAIR also participated in the Ferguson protests. Meanwhile ISIS is recruiting American blacks for its cause.”

Make no mistake: in true Alinsky form, the aim of the Red-Green Axis is anarchy. Divisiveness, racism and violence are their means—but shutting down the free speech of those who call them out for what they are (street thugs) is top of their To Do list. Our best defense remains a vigorous exercise of the right of free speech that is enshrined in the First Amendment.

To conclude as we began this essay, with Ben Franklin: “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved,” wrote Founding Father Benjamin Franklin in The Pennsylvania Gazette.”

Also see:

DOJ to ‘Promote Religious Freedom’ in Schools by Assailing Islamophobia

r1065289_12520708

Truth Revolt, by Tiffany Gabbay, March, 2016:

Under the guise of ensuring that civil rights and religious freedom are upheld across the nation’s schools, the U.S. Justice Department has revealed a plan to clamp down on religious  discrimination, namely so-called Islamophobia. CNS News reports:

The new enforcement effort announced on Tuesday will “expand” DOJ’s ability to investigate and prosecute complaints; lead community outreach; and develop guidance for federal prosecutors.

Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said one goal of the new initiative is to promote religious pluralism and create safe, supportive and inclusive schools for all children.

Following acts of terrorism, including 9-11 and San Bernardino, “too many Muslim Americans and those perceived as Muslim suffer a backlash of violence and discrimination,” Gupta said. “We see criminal threats against mosques; harassment in schools; and even reports of violence targeting Muslim Americans, people of Arab or South Asian descent, and people perceived to be members of these groups.”

Gupta said the new initiative, dubbed “Combating Religious Discrimination,” will help DOJ fight the backlash against Muslim students and students perceived as Muslim. The initiative also will “benefit children of every background and every religion,” she added.

“Our schools must remain the places where our children feel safe and supported. The places where they confront differences by building bridges of understanding. And the places where they learn that America guarantees freedom, justice and opportunity for all people — regardless of what you look like, where you come from or which religion you observe.”

Gupta stated that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has already has sued schools for engaging in alleged religious discrimination:

In part because of our efforts, today, Christian students in Bakersfield City, California, can observe Ash Wednesday without fearing an unexcused absence. Muslim students in Lewisville, Texas, can pray together during lunch. Jewish students in Pine Bush, New York, can walk the halls, ride the bus and sit in class without enduring anti-Semitic bullying and intimidation. Arabic-speaking EL students in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, can learn from qualified teachers. And Sikh students in DeKalb County, Georgia, can wear a turban to school without facing harassment.

Gupta said that roundtables are to be held at various locations across the nation to focus on “religion-based hate crimes.”

***

U.S Dept.Of Justice Interfering In Public Schools by Cathy Hinners:

Criminalizing free speech is about to happen. Well, only if it is construed as anti-Muslim, or anti-Islam. The Department of  Justice is moving swiftly by implementing a new enforcement effort that will follow up any investigations with possible prosecutions for what they say has been backlash to Muslims since 9/11, particularly Muslim Students in public schools.

vanita-guptayDepartment of Justice Civil Rights division head Vanita Gupta states the new crackdown  “Combating Religious Discrimination,” will focus on fighting the harassment and acts of violence towards Muslim children, or children “perceived” to be Muslim while attending school.

Gupta further states “Our schools must remain the places where our children feel safe and supported. The places where they confront differences by building bridges of understanding. And the places where they learn that America guarantees freedom, justice and opportunity for all people — regardless of what you look like, where you come from or which religion you observe.”   Read entire speech here 😦 https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/head-civil-rights-division-vanita-gupta-delivers-remarks-interagency-roundtable-religious

No, school is where children learn, not “build bridges”, unless you are a Muslim whose religious duty is to perform dawa. (Proselytizing Islam) This “effort” isn’t about protecting children of all faiths, this is about forcing Islam to be taught in schools, which has suffered set backs due to parents across the country demanding Islam be taught the same way other religions, specifically Christianity are taught.

Not only is Islam disproportionately represented in textbooks, it is inappropriately instructed, including children repeating the Islamic profession of faith, the Shahada. There is no historical value of children narrating the prayer that is recited when one converts to Islam. Most parents have stated they do not reject students from learning about Islam, but it must be historically accurate, which it is not.

The Department of Justice is way over the line. If Muslims want their children to be immersed in their religion and culture, send them to an Islamic school. But that isn’t the issue at all. The truth is, Islamists want to end free speech. It is Sharia law in action.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton along with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) drafted what they called a “Defamation of Religion Law”, (Un resolution 16/18)  known in countries such as Pakistan as a blasphemy law. Committing blasphemy is punishable by death.

While it may not be as drastic in the West, the mere thought the United States Department of Justice is enacting measures that will lead to possible prosecution for “Islamophobia” is perilous. Enjoy your freedoms, they are coming to an end quickly.

Also see:

WATCH: Geert Wilders speaks in Brussels: Threats to his life, resisting Islam and the establishment

Geert_Wilders_image

The Rebel, by Victor Laszlow, March 06, 2016:

On Friday March 4, 2016 Geert Wilders spoke at an event in Brussels at the invitation of Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest, i.e. the Flemish separatist party)

Geert Wilders is one of the few politicians brave enough to speak clear and obvious truths about what is happening to Europe and lead a fight-back against it. This is one of the best speeches he has given to date in which he discusses the current round of criminal prosecutions against him, and compare the charges against him to what other politicians say about him, for which they never seem to be arrested, despite the implicit death threats they sometimes contain.

Turkish Police Takeover Largest Opposition Newspaper

Turkish police break down the entrance to the largest Turkish opposition newspaper Zaman. Inset: A photographer inside is ousted by special forces. (Photos: Video screenshots)

Turkish police break down the entrance to the largest Turkish opposition newspaper Zaman. Inset: A photographer inside is ousted by special forces. (Photos: Video screenshots)

Clarion Project,  March 6, 2016

Turkish special forces stormed the largest opposition newspaper in Turkey Friday night, forcibly taking over the paper. Outside, riot police fired rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons into the crowds of thousands protesting the takeover (see video below).

The front page of the Zaman’s last edition, printed entirely in black and published before the takeover, read “Shameful day for free press in Turkey.”

Abdulhamit Bilici, the paper’s editor-in-chief, who was fired and dragged out of the building, said, “It is a dark day for Turkish democracy and a flagrant violation of the constitution.”

Earlier, commenting on the fact that under President (and former prime minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey has been labeled the biggest jail for journalists in Europe, Bilici said, “It has been a habit for the last three, four years, that anyone who is speaking against government policies is facing either court cases or prison, or such control by the government.”

Bilici said the Turkish media, for the most part, had avoided covering the details of the takeover out of fear that they might be targeted next.

According to Erkan Ipekci, award-winning Turkish journalist and president of the Turkish Journalists Union, 183 journalists have been imprisoned since 2009 with 63 still remaining in jail. Journalists who have been critical of Erdogan and his Islamist government have had their phones tapped and been arrested on charges of “terrorism.”

Erdogan has linked the paper, as well as its English-language edition Today’s Zaman and its news agency Cihan, to his nemesis Fethullah Gulen, a U.S.-based Turkish preacher with enormous wealth and support. Erdogan accuses Gulen, who fled to the U.S. in 1999, of conspiring to overthrow the government by building a network of supporters in the judiciary, police and media.

In a statement, Reporters Without Borders Secretary-General Christophe Deloire said the operation was “ideological and unlawful.”

“Erdoğan is now moving from authoritarianism to all-out despotism,” Deloire said. “Not content with throwing journalists in prison for ‘supporting terrorism’ or having them sentenced to pay heavy fines for ‘insulting the ‘head of state,’ he is now going further by taking control ofTurkey’s biggest opposition newspaper.”

Three trustees supportive of Erdogan were appointed to manage the paper. When reporters returned to work the next day, they found that their Internet connection had been cut, they were not able to access their email accounts and that attempts were being made to wipe out the paper’s entire online achive.

In the last number of years and particularly since the popular uprising at Gezi Park, Erdogan has been cracking down on press freedom and directed his majority parliament to pass laws limiting that freedom.

At the beginning of 2014, a new bill was approved to allow any Internet site to be blocked by the telecommunications authority without approval by a court. In addition, the law mandated that Internet providers must keep records of each subscriber’s online activity which must be made  available to authorities upon request.

In December of 2014, Today’s Zaman Editor-in-Chief Ekrem Dumanlı was arrested on charges of forming and leading a terrorist organization. He was subsequently released.

Also see:

***