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.

Science aims to destroy rational fear of Islamic invasion by drugging Europeans

Vlad Tepes Blog, by Eeyore, Sept. 17, 2017:

From the Daily Mail:

Giving people oxytocin alongside positive social pressure increases kindness toward refugees, even in those with a fear of foreigners, new research has found.

The hormone is released naturally by humans during social and sexual behaviour, and research has shown it breeds trust and generosity in others. 

Oxytocin, known as the love or ‘cuddle hormone’, together with being surrounded by charitable peers was found to boost people’s willingness to donate money to refugees in, even in those with a sceptical attitude toward migrants.

Yes, European authorities have combined George Orwell’s 1984 with Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange and are now working on drugging, not the dangerous thugs into becoming good citizens, but the good citizens into submitting to the dangerous thugs.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Calls Out the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Blasphemy Enforcement

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Aug. 24, 2017:

And that’s exactly what it is.

There’s been a consistent pattern of groups fighting “Islamophobia” including ex-Muslims and even Muslim liberals on their hit list. There’s a limited amount of fuss when it happens. And then it dies down again. But the real story is why it happens. It happens because the act of policing “Islamophobia” is really about enforcing Islamist agendas and their codes.

And like their ISIS cousins, the top priority of Islamists is purging Muslims for heresy and blasphemy. When the Southern Povert Law Center got into the Islamophobia business, it began enforcing blasphemy.

Now Ayaan Hirsi Ali challenges the corporations, like Apple, and George Clooney, for enforcing SPLC’s Islamophobia policing and the wilful blind eye that the group turns toward Islamism.

I am a black woman, a feminist and a former Muslim who has consistently opposed political violence. The price for expressing my beliefs has been high: I must travel with armed security at all times. ..

Yet the S.P.L.C. has the audacity to label me an “extremist,” including my name in a “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” that it published on its website last October.

In that guide, the S.P.L.C. claims that I am a “propagandist far outside the political mainstream” and warns journalists to avoid my “damaging misinformation.” These groundless smears are deeply offensive, as I have dedicated much of my adult life to calling out the true extremists: organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. Yet you will look in vain for the S.P.L.C.’s “Field Guide to Muslim Extremists.” No such list exists…

Like neo-Nazis, Islamic extremists despise liberalism. They deny the equality of the sexes, justify wife-beating and, in some cases, even the enslavement of female unbelievers. The Islamic State and groups like it regularly murder gay people in the most heinous ways. Islamic extremists are also virulently anti-Semitic, like the Nazis before them. And like today’s American Nazis, they brandish swastikas, chant slurs and peddle conspiracy theories.

The terrible consequences of Islamic extremism are on display on a weekly basis around the world. In the days after Charlottesville, five men in Barcelona used a van and knives to kill 14 and injure scores of innocent people. Another Islamic extremist went on a stabbing rampage in Finland. In wealthy societies like the United States, most plots to kill in the name of Islamist supremacy are foiled. But poorer societies in the developing world lack the means to do that, which is why the majority of victims of the extremists are in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria….

It is not surprising that, when I point out such facts, I am viciously attacked and threatened by those who are dedicated to Islamic extremism. But it has always struck me as odd that so many supposed liberals in the West take their side rather than mine, as happened three years ago, when Brandeis University rescinded their offer to me of an honorary degree. I would have expected a civil-rights organization supposedly committed to justice to speak out against those who would oppress women, gays and people of other faiths. But the S.P.L.C. has nothing to say about Islamic extremists; only about their opponents.

They are only “supposed liberals”. Actual liberals don’t support

1. Beating people they disagree with

2. Domestic coups

3. Islamic theocracy

Leftists these days do. The left has made its dirty deal with Islamists. And is incapable of intelligently defending it. And the SPLC, which is absurdly sloppy, is even less capable of doing so. It’s simply going to double down on the “protecting Muslims” meme. In this case, that means protecting them from an ex-Muslim black woman. And shouting that they oppose hate.

And the corporations will go on virtue signaling because until they get a different signal from the left, donating to the SPLC is the “right thing” to do. And no amount of facts or argument will change their mind.

But it’s all a reminder that the Southern Poverty Law Center is in bed with Islamists. It’s allied with Islamic Supremacists and their hatred for women, gays and all non-Muslims. And when corporations fund the SPLC, they’re funding the suppression of Muslim and ex-Muslim critics of Islamism.

Also see:

Did Facebook Just Agree to Enforce Blasphemy Laws?

(Photo; Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Clarion Project, by Meira Svirsky, July 13, 2017

Doublespeak is language that deliberately distorts or even reverses the meaning of words. For example, when critics of radical Islam expose this extremism for what is it, Islamists and their “progressive” enablers call them “Islamophobes;” when those who call themselves “social justice warriors” campaigning for tolerance exhibit just the opposite (i.e., intolerance) by shutting down any conversation with which they don’t agree; when others force their religious beliefs (i.e., blasphemy laws) upon others in the name of freedom of religion (as in Canada’s new motion against criticism of Islam); or when perpetrators of crimes frame themselves as victims.

Doublespeak often leads to doublethink, as George Orwell writes in his seminal novel Nineteen Eight-Four: “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient.” In the novel, people explicitly learn doublethink due to peer pressure and a desire to fit in or gain status with in the “Party.”

With these definitions in mind, Clarion Project launches a week-long expose of some of the worst offenders:

A high-level Facebook executive met with the interior minister in Pakistan last week to discuss Pakistan’s demand that the social media platform remove what the Islamist country deems “blasphemous content.”

The fact the meeting took place at all speaks volumes about Facebook’s intent.

First, the tete-a-tete, the first-ever discussion on the issue between a senior Facebook exec and the Pakistani government, comes on the heels of the decision by a Pakistani “counter-terrorism” court to sentence a 30-year-old man to death for making “blasphemous” comments on Facebook.

Such an outrageous verdict should have caused any company serious about human rights to refuse to engage with such a regime. Even the fact that there exists such a law such a law that violates the basic — and what should be universal — right to freedom of speech should be reason to protest.

Yet apparently, business is business for Facebook.

Facebook has 33-million users in Pakistan. So not only did Facebook engage with the Pakistani government, they made assurances to the sharia-compliant country that they were committed to keeping their platform “safe” by “promoting values” that are in congruence with their “community standards.”

Facebook also committed to removing explicit, hateful and provocative posts that incite violence and terrorism.

In Pakistan, that means blasphemous content (as per Pakistan’s definition of blasphemy). Because in Pakistan, just the mere mention of blasphemy can incite mob violence and extra-judicial lynchings.

Pakistan is active in pursing internet service providers to convince them to make any criticism of Islam forbidden. In March, it convened a meeting of Muslim countries to discuss how they can shut down freedom of expression on social media with regards to blasphemous (read: anti-Islam) content.

As to how the meeting went with Facebook, Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said, “We appreciate the understanding shown by the Facebook administration and the cooperation being extended to us on these issues.”

So, when Facebook – which has a history of taking down material critical of Islamists — says to Pakistan it will remove “hateful and provocative” material, it is most likely doublespeak for “We will comply with Islam’s blasphemy laws.”

Unfortunately, compliance with – and even enforcement of—Islamist blasphemy laws has become an all-too-common fixture in the West.

In some cases, the West has simply bowed to Islamists under the threat of violence. After the Danish cartoon riots which spread across the globe and the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Western publications have demurred from publishing most any material deemed offensive to Islam.

Yet other examples are more insidious. Canada just passed a motion “condemning all forms of Islamophobia.” The motion, hailed as a “first-step” by its supporters, is dangerously close to and may even make illegal any criticism of Islam.

Europe, which has no bill of rights guaranteeing the freedoms enshrined in America’s constitution, has traditionally balanced freedom of expression with social concerns. In recent years, that balance has become defined through the relativistic morality of each country’s political climate, with freedom of speech in a serious decline due to pressure from Islamists and their “progressive” supporters.

If we intend to hold on to the freedoms we now take for granted in the U.S., pressure should be put on Facebook as well as any other company which exhibits compliance with sharia blasphemy laws. Otherwise, we will sadly see our rights slipping away as is the situation in Europe today.

Why Did Marco Rubio Submit an Islamist MPAC Resolution Against Islamophobia?

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 20, 2017:

The Senate can’t seem to repeal ObamaCare. Or get much of anything done. But it found time for important matters like this… as Judith Bergman at Gatestone reveals.

On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States”. The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The resolution includes the claim that…

Whereas, in 2015, hate crimes targeting Muslims in the United States increased by 67 percent, reaching a level of violence targeting Muslim Americans that the United States had not experienced since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

There’s also boilerplate language about anti-Semitism and hate crimes in general.

Kamala Harris, Feinstein, Susan Collins and Rubio introduced it. And the Islamists credited them.

“Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA.”

Emerge USA is exactly what you would expect from Islamists.

Over the years, EMERGE has held a number of events at terror-linked mosques, like: (a) Masjid Al-Qassam (a.k.a. Islamic Community of Tampa), which was founded by Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian, and (b) Masjid Darul Uloom (based in Pembroke Pines, Florida), where “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student and the late al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief Adnan el-Shukrijumah was a prayer leader. EMERGE has also sponsored speeches made by various Muslim extremists, such as Sayed Ammar Nakshawani, who has called for the destruction of Israel.

EMERGE’s executive director, Nauman Sabit Abbasi, is the president of public relations for the Islamic Foundation of South Florida (IFSF), a radical mosque that seeks to “establish a powerful base for the growth of Islam in North America,” and whose youth leader once wrote on the Internet: “[Y]es, Allah … has Decreed that we will over-take the World in numbers…” Abbasi’s Facebook page urged to people to “support the true leadership of the world who are at war with Zoinists.”

So why introduce the resolution and what is the agenda? Judith Bergman asks.

 Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime? Perhaps by including “hate speech”?

And she notes that…

On May 6, EmgageUSA published the following on its Facebook page: “Representative Barbara Comstock, second term Republican from Virginia’s 10thDistrict is teaming up with EmergeUSA and MPAC to successfully pass a House Resolution which condemns ethnic, religious and racial hate crimes.”

The Senate unanimously passed its version. And this shows once again that Islamist groups are still managing to get their claws into Republicans.

Meanwhile an MPAC piece credits ADL involvement. And that would figure.

The Term “Islamophobia” is Enemy Propaganda

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton, June 7, 2017:

The global Jihadist movement relies heavily on information operations to advance their cause–to establish rule under sharia worldwide.

They have become very adept at conducting information operations, to the point that some experts have determined that they have information dominance over the West, and America’s bureaucratized countertterror apparatus in particular.

One of their key weapons in the information battle space is a term that has gained currency with the Left and the media in the West: Islamophobia.

Before we begin our commentary on the subject of Islamophobia, we must draw your attention to an excellent video on the subject just posted by the indispensable Robert Spencer of http://www.jihadwatch.com:

Spencer covers the history and use of the term Islamophobia with brevity and authority.

We’d like to focus a little more on the organization that hatched this misleading and outright damaging term.

Islamophobia was coined by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a northern Virginia-based Muslim Brotherhood think tank with a history of ties to terrorism. Here some facts about IIIT:

• IIIT was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization in the largest terrorism financing prosecution in US history, the US v the Holy Land Foundation.

• IIIT was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a prosecution in which all defendants were convicted on all counts for providing material support to Jihadist terrorists. It was the intention of the Dallas US attorney’s office to prosecute the unindicted co-conspirators in that trial, but the then-new attorney general, Eric Holder shut it down.

• IIIT was a major financial supporter–the largest donor in fact–of the Islamic Committee for Palestine, a front group for the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Islamic Committee for Palestine was founded by Sami al-Arian, who was convicted on terrorism charges and deported. The organization itself was shut down by the US government.

• According to terrorism financing expert Matthew Levitt, “Tarik Hamdi, an IIIT employee, personally provided bin Laden with the battery for the satellite phone prosecutors at the New York trial of the East Africa Embassy bombers described at the time as the phone bin Laden and others will use to carry out their war against the United States.”

• IIIT employed Bashir Musa Nafi, one of the original founders of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Nafi was deported in 1996.

What all of this adds up to is that the term Islamophobia was invented as a weapon of Jihadist propaganda.

So, when you see a journalist, blogger, television network or politician in the West start accusing people of Islamophobia, they are in fact parroting enemy propaganda, helping the terrorists with their overall war effort.

‘Islamophobia’ as Murder Weapon

PJ MEDIA, BY ROGER L SIMON, JUNE 5, 2017:

If you’re looking for what’s behind the killing and wounding of all those people in London last Saturday night, why it was able to happen in one of the most modern and powerful cities in the West, the cradle of many of the founding principles of the free world, I can tell you the depressing answer — Islamophobia.

Or, to be more precise, Islamophobiaphobia — fear of being called an Islamophobe.

As has occurred so many times before, so often that it has become, as Patrick Poole has shown us, all too predictable,  some of the culprits were “known wolves.” Friends and neighbors knew they had radical thoughts or worse.  In this instance they had known it for some time.  They even told the police about it, who had evidence, but nothing happened.  And not just because, as is well known, the UK is close to overwhelmed with such people. Difficult as that is, that is no excuse and no doubt could have been dealt with except…

There was a more powerful motivation to stop, to do nothing — Islamophobia.  No one wants to be accused of being a racist, after all. Oh, no. That’s humanity’s biggest faux pas — worse than pederasty. I mean these were nice people who played ping-pong with kids, right?  Well, maybe, but they were also religiously motivated and homicidal maniacs.  And worrying about being called an Islamophobe ended with people getting their throats cut.

So Islamophobia was effectively a murder weapon just as it was in San Bernardino, where people didn’t want to report the bomb-makers next door lest they offend someone (or get their own throats cut in the process). They saw something, but fear of being called an Islamophobe prevented them from saying something.

We think of  Islamophobia as something invented by CAIR or some similar Hamas-tainted organization, but, ironically, in reality it has its provenance in the UK. To quote someone… well… me, from page 74 of my most recent book:

Roughly at the same time (1997), the term Islamophobia was coined.  Commonplace as this neologism is today, it came through the back door via an obscure report by the Runnymede Trust, a left-wing British think tank.  Six years before 9/11 someone in that group thought to apply the phobia (irrational fear) suffix to Islam.  Whoever did it was something of an evil genius, equating criticism of Islam to a clinical neurosis.

So Islamophobia was a construct of the left.  That shouldn’t be a surprise. The alliance of the left with extreme Islamic causes is an old story.

Are we at a point when this could possibly break apart?  That Qatar — the great supporter of Hamas — is under fire from other Sunni powers because of its alliance with Iran is promising. We are at a moment when forces are beginning to spin in different directions for the first time in decades.  This is a propitious moment to discard Islamophobia once and for all.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt, at least at the leadership levels, probably have no use for it.  Islamophobia is being kept alive largely by an unlikely alliance of the liberal/left media in the U.S. and Europe coupled with the political parties they represent and the more reactionary forces of the Islamic world (Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies).  Strange alliance indeed, but that is what has happened.  What next?  An alliance of the “American street” with the “Arab street”?  Saudi Arabia and Israel together against Iran?  That already seems to be happening.  Pretty soon the only people who will be promoting the nonsense of Islamophobia will be CNN and the mayor of London. Well, we can hope anyway.

Roger L. Simon is an award-winning novelist, Academy Award-nominated screenwriter and co-founder of PJ Media.  His latest book is I Know Best:  How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If  It Hasn’t Already.

***

***