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.

Can’t we talk? No, we can’t

Bomb Throwers, by James Simpson, Sept. 9, 2017:

There is a new film out by Pamela Geller, Can’t We Talk About This? Those were the last words spoken by Theo Van Gogh as he was being murdered at 9 in the morning on a main thoroughfare in Amsterdam. I urge you to watch and support this film.

Van Gogh was a good friend of Pam’s. He had just completed a short film with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, titled Submission. It describes the treatment of women under Islam. Mohammed Bouyeri, a  Moroccan-Dutch Muslim, took offense at the film and shot Van Gogh as he was riding to work on his bike. Bouyeri then stabbed Van Gogh, cutting his neck in an attempt to behead him. He used a second knife to pin a note on Van Gogh’s body.

The note was addressed to Ali and others, including Jews, Netherlands politicians, and a long list of the usual suspects. Fraught with misspellings, the five-page letter started:

Dear miss Hirshi Ali,

Since your appearence in the political arena of the Netherlands you are constantly engaging in terrorizing Muslims and Islam with your remarks. You are not the first at this and will also not be the last who has joined the crusade against Islam.

With your defection you have not only turned your back on the Truth, but you also march along the ranks of the soldiers of evil. You mince no words about your hostility against Islam, and for this your masters have rewarded you with a seat in parliament.

They have found in you a companion in their crusade against Islam and Muslims.

A companion who gives them the “gunpowder” so they don’t have to do the dirty work…

Did you catch that? Hirsi Ali is terrorizing Muslims by talking about her treatment at their hands.

Right.

I would like to believe Mr. Bouyeri is just a maladjusted lunatic, but unfortunately he represents a familiar mindset and temperament among Muslims. A September 7th Time magazine interview quotes Yahya Cholil Staquf, one of Indonesia’s most influential Islamic leaders. What he says is so important I have reproduced a few of the Q & As here. It is especially important given Time magazine’s reach and its liberal readership:

Q:  Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?

A:  Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Q:  What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic?

A:  The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, the relationship of Muslims with the state, and Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they live … Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.

Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today’s world such a doctrine is unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century. (Emphasis added)

I put that last sentence in italics because in my Red-Green Axis presentations, I stress the inability of many Muslim refugees to assimilate. In fact, their goal is not assimilation but conquest. The interview continues:

Q:  A Western politician would likely be accused of racism for saying what you just said.

A:  I’m not saying that Islam is the only factor causing Muslim minorities in the West to lead a segregated existence, often isolated from society as a whole. There may be other factors on the part of the host nations, such as racism, which exists everywhere in the world. But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor. (Emphasis added)

Here again, Staquf reinforces my assertion that Muslims do not want to assimilate.

Leftists and establishment Republicans (but I repeat myself) claim that terrorist groups like ISIS are un-Islamic – that they have somehow “hijacked” an otherwise peaceful religion. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster asserts this in his defense of Islam. (Note: my exposé of McMaster reveals much more about this horribly unacceptable Trump advisor). Staquf has a blunt answer to this belief (italicized portions are my emphases):

Q:  So the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?

A:  No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.

Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.

I cannot reproduce more of this interview here. Suffice it to say there are many more gems and I urge you to read the whole thing. I can only imagine the Time reporter’s pique at these repeated assaults on his idiotic, politically correct, left-wing presumptions. So as you might imagine, he had to get at least one swipe in against conservatives. He did so with his last question. But he got bitch-slapped on that one too: 

Q:  I would guess that you and I agree that there is a far right wing in Western societies that would reject even a moderate, contextualized Islam.

A:  And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de facto proof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.

“This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.” So here we have a very influential Muslim confirming everything we “Islamophobes” say about CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the whole Red-Green Axis infrastructure. Amen brother! We are sick of being called Islamophobes for telling the truth by spineless cowards afraid of their own shadows.

In her documentary, Can’t We Talk About This? Pam Geller communicates this message in her inimitably convincing manner. This is a must-see film, available for viewing on Vimeo now.

This message needs to get out.

Editor’s note: The idea that Islam can be viewed through the political lens of left versus right is a highly dubious proposition. See this article I wrote in 2013. -MV

James Simpson is an investigative journalist, businessman and author. His latest book is The Red Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Price continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shinewald also stated:

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

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

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

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

Read more

First Look: Pamela Geller Bus Ads for ‘Can’t We Talk About This? The Islamic Jihad Against Free Speech’ (Exclusive)

Pamela Geller/AFDI

Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Sept. 5, 2017:

Thanks to a Muslim hate group, my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), can run our pro-freedom ads again in New York City.

AFDI has tangled with New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority on more than one occasion. They refused to run our ads, we sued multiple times, and we won multiple times. So for the first time in NYC transit history, the MTA banned political and issue related ads: the Geller ban.

But then a Muslim hate group wanted to run ads for their political film despite the ban, so they, too, sued the city, claiming that their political movie, The Muslims Are Coming, was not a political or issue related ad. They sued and they won, and all I can say is thank you.

Because of this Muslim lawsuit, we can run our ads again. And so we have. And they are brilliant.

My new ads announce the imminent release of Can’t We Talk About This? The Islamic Jihad Against Free Speech, a shocking new film and follow-up video series detailing the concerted effort by international organizations to compel the U.S. and other Western countries to curtail the freedom of speech and criminalize criticism of Islam.

Featuring exclusive new interviews with me, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Mark Steyn, Douglas Murray, Ezra Levant, Lars Vilks, Garland Muhammad cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin, and many other heroes of freedom, this web series will be the first ever to expose the war on free speech. It is certain to shock the American public and awaken many. These interviews reveal events at Garland and its aftermath that have never before been made public, and demonstrate how far advanced the war on free speech really is.

In this film, we’re setting the record straight about our Garland free speech event, at which we were not only targeted by Islamic jihadis but apparently by the FBI as well. But we’re doing much more as well: we’re telling the whole, as-yet-untold truth about the war on free speech.

Hollywood will never tell this story. The media will never tell this story. Our public schools and universities will never teach our children what happened. The truth must be told.

Can’t We Talk About This? is a follow-up to AFDI’s acclaimed 2011 documentary, The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks. This much-needed new web series gives viewers the inside story of what happened in Garland and why, and lays out the full and appalling details of the all-out assault on the freedom of speech that is taking place today – and why this may be the most crucial battleground today in the war for the survival of the United States of America as a free republic.

The web series also features seldom-seen news footage and revealing details not only of the Garland event and the jihad killers who wanted to wage jihad there, but also of the many other battlegrounds in the war for free speech that led up to the Garland attack, including the death fatwa issued in 1989 by the Islamic Republic of Iran against Salman Rushdie for his supposed blasphemy in The Satanic Verses; the assassination of Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim on an Amsterdam street in November 2004 for his alleged blasphemy; the Dutch newspaper Jyllands Posten’s cartoons of Muhammad, published in September 2005, which touched off international riots and killings by Muslims – and most disturbing of all, calls in the West for restrictions on the freedom of speech; the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s years-long struggle at the UN to compel the West to criminalize “incitement to religious hatred” (a euphemism for criticism of Islam); and the U.S. under Obama signing on to UNCHR Resolution 16/18, which calls on member states to work to restrict incitement to religious hatred.

Can’t We Talk About This? also covers lesser-known skirmishes in the war against free speech as well, such as Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris’ “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” in 2010, after which Norris was forced to go into hiding and change her identity after threats. And it traces what immediately led up to the Garland event – most notably, the January 2015 massacre of Muhammad cartoonists at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris and the subsequent “Stand with the Prophet” event in Garland, at which Muslim groups gathered in the wake of that massacre not to defend free speech, but to complain about “Islamophobia,” while AFDI members and supporters protested outside.

We set out the media firestorm that followed the Garland event, as well as the attempts to kill me, and explain why the event’s detractors were all missing the point: the freedom of speech doesn’t apply only if you like the message; it applies to everyone. And if it is gone, so is a free society.

Can’t We Talk About This? tells the whole horrifying story of how advanced the Islamic war on free speech is, and how close leftist and Islamic authoritarians are to final victory and the death of the freedom of speech and free society.

Don’t miss the exclusive advance screening of Can’t We Talk About This? on September 5 on VIMEO. And if you’re in New York City, watch for our truth-telling ads. And please help us meet the massive expenses of our truth campaigns: contribute here.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Also see:

Should Anti-trust Laws Be Used to Break Up the Social Media Giants?

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, Sept. 1, 2017:

The secular Left and the proponents of Islamic blasphemy laws have a new issue on which they are making common cause: the quest to destroy the freedom of speech, the cornerstone of our democracy. After Charlottesville, the Left sees its chance to crush all dissent, and given its alliance with Islamic supremacists, this means the implementation in the West of prohibitions on criticism of Islam, including counterterror analysis of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists. This anti-free speech initiative, if it succeeds, will destroy free society, which cannot exist if one is unable to speak out against the tyrant.

The Left is trying to use Charlottesville as its Reichstag Fire moment to try to crush all dissent. CNN gave the Southern Poverty Law Center’s spurious “hate group” list wide play, and an effort has begun to deny all platforms to those “hate groups,” without any regard for the fact that the SPLC includes legitimate organizations that dissent from the Leftist agenda (including the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Jihad Watch) on the list along with the KKK and neo-Nazis, in an attempt to defame and destroy the legitimate groups.

Spearheading anti-free speech efforts on the Islamic side is a little-known organization that comprises most of the Muslim governments around the world today: the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is made up of fifty-six member nations plus the Palestinian Authority and constitutes the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. The OIC has been working for years to try to compel the West to restrict the freedom of speech, and particularly the freedom to criticize Islam.

Essentially, they want to impose a key principle of Sharia — which forbids blasphemy against Allah, Muhammad, and Islam — on the entire non-Muslim world. They are advancing this initiative by trying to compel the West to criminalize “incitement to religious hatred,” which essentially means criticism of Islam; no international body has ever objected to criticism of Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion.

Aiding this OIC initiative has been the popularization of the term “Islamophobia.” Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former imam, writes that “this loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” Islamic groups tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, most notably the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have for years been wielding this term like a club to smear anyone who speaks honestly about the jihad threat; by doing so, they have intimidated many into silence.

The SPLC has eagerly taken up this term as a key element of its censorship strategy, publishing lists of key “Islamophobes” (including David Horowitz and me) that have grown so absurd that they even include a reformist Muslim, Maajid Nawaz. Nawaz and his associates are themselves not above using similar tactics, but his presence on the SPLC’s list does highlight its absurdity.

The anti-free speech initiative is also proceeding even aside from the SPLC’s hate group list. Canadian psychologist and social critic Jordan Peterson recently had his Google account revoked, without explanation, and then restored without explanation. “Maybe it was just an error,” Peterson told Tucker Carlson, “but the fact that things have been happening in such a strange way politically brings up the specter of censorship.”

And Google has been engaging in censorship. The establishment media in the West completely ignored the story, but Turkey’s Anadolu Agency reported several weeks ago that “Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as ‘jihad’, ‘shariah’ and ‘taqiyya’ now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results.”

“Reputable” according to whom? “Questionable” according to whom? Google is bowing to pressure from Muslims such as Texas imam Omar Suleiman, who is mentioned in the Anadolu story as the driving force behind this initiative, without considering whether those who are demanding that the search results be skewed in a particular direction might have an ulterior motive. Could it be that those who are pressuring Google want to conceal certain truths about Islam that they would prefer that non-Muslims not know?

This is a real possibility, but of course Google executives would have to study Islam themselves in order to determine whether or not these Muslims who are pressuring them are misleading them, and that’s not going to happen. Still, they could have done a bit more due diligence, and made some efforts to determine whether those being tarred as “hate groups” really deserved the label, whether the Southern Poverty Law Center was really a reliable and objective arbiter of which groups were and weren’t “hate groups,” and whether the information that Google was suppressing was really inaccurate. Instead, Google seems to have swallowed uncritically everything Omar Suleiman and the others said, and applied it as policy.

Meanwhile, Facebook’s Vice President Joel Kaplan traveled to Pakistan in July to assure the Pakistani government that it would remove “anti-Islam” material. That endeavor had already started before Kaplan’s trip. In mid-February, traffic to Jihad Watch from Facebook dropped suddenly by 90% and has never recovered. We do not post any hateful or provocative material and neither incite nor approve of violence, but Facebook is acting as judge, jury and executioner in all this. There is no appeal and no recourse.

A high-placed source in the tech industry told me: “Countries like Pakistan basically tell Facebook and Google that they either comply or the government will arrest all their employees in the country and make it illegal to use their produce. So, FB and Google are faced with either leaving the country or complying. Google famously refused to comply with the Chinese government’s censorship policies and withdrew from China at great cost to Google. Facebook is obviously less principled. By the way, this is a growing phenomenon with more and more countries moving to censor US tech companies (plus there’s been a recent vigorous campaign from the left demanding censorship in the US). They won’t cave to domestic pressures, because it makes no business sense. They will cave to foreign pressure in foreign countries, because it makes business sense.”

In his interview of Jordan Peterson, Carlson asked what governments should do with companies such as Google that are more powerful than the government itself. Peterson answered: “I’m not sure the government knows what to do.” Susan Benesch, director of the Dangerous Speech Project, said in July: “Facebook is regulating more human speech than any government does now or ever has.”

So what is to be done? In other industries the government has used anti-trust laws when free markets are threatened. Here the free marketplace of ideas is threatened. Should the anti-trust laws be invoked to break up Google and Facebook?

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies). Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

***

Video: Robert Spencer on the social media giants’ war on the freedom of speech

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.

Silencing Opponents Through Accusations of McCarthyism or “Islamophobia”

blasphemy

This tactic of accusing those concerned about threats to freedom of being themselves threats to freedom ought to sound alarm bells whenever it is tried.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, October 14 2016:

One can see some similarities between the Cold War accusations of McCarthyism and false claims of Islamophobia today.  Then as now, it is possible to stifle the voices of those concerned about real threats to Western freedoms by claiming that those voices are themselves enemies of Western freedoms.   This is not wholly a partisan issue:  A Dutch woman with a leftist background, Machteld Zee, is among those sounding the alarm.  Zee has witnessed first-hand Sharia courts in the UK, the UK’s Independent states:

Machteld Zee, a legal scholar at Leiden University in the Netherlands, secured extraordinary access to the secretive courts, attending 15 hours of hearings at the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton, east London, and the Birmingham Central Mosque Sharia. She was able to scrutinise more than a dozen cases, and interview an array of sharia experts including nine qadis – Islamic judges.

Some of the disturbing observations against women Zee noticed include:

A case where a woman who claimed to be married to a physically and verbally abusive man is told by a “laughing” judge: “Why did you marry such a person?”

A woman “ready to burst into tears” is sent away without an answer after saying that her husband took out a loan in her name on the day they married and is denying her a divorce until she gives him £10,000.

A married couple asking for advice on whether the woman had been religiously divorced from her former husband were told “the secular divorce counts as nothing”.

Is that the kind of justice those in the UK want for their women?  Islamic law and Western law are incompatible at the core – for instance, how women are routinely treated as inferior to men (Sahih Bukhari 1.6.301).  Zee exposes how some individuals are letting this Islamization to take place, Breitbart reports:

Interviewing the political scientist, Dutch journalist Wierd Duk noted that in Holy Identities Zee argues Islamic fundamentalists who share the Saudi regime’s goal of Islamisation are being helped by “useful infidels” — non-Muslim intellectuals, politicians, and opinion-shapers who don’t want to cause offence.

Zee replied: “Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological harm. Although there are many Muslims who find this view idiotic, others use it to call those who criticise Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.”

We have been seeing that tactic in play throughout Europe, and as a result Muslim immigrant communities have overwhelmingly embraced leftist political parties. For example, an article from The Economist reveals how “One study in France found that 93% of Muslims voted for the Socialist, François Hollande, in the 2012 presidential election.” However, since many Muslims feel leftist parties aren’t satisfying their Muslim constituents enough, Muslim political parties are starting to emerge. We are seeing this phenomenon occur in the Netherlands with the Denk party breaking off from the Dutch Labour party. The two former Labour party members to start Denk are Tunahan Kuzu and Selcuk Ozturk – both with Turkish origins and accused of having connections with Turkish President Erdogan’s Islamist AKP party. Denk is so radical that it advocates for “Racism Police” to essentially censor speech that is against the Muslim immigrant community. Legal Insurrection reports on this blatantly anti-Western plan:

The party [Denk] wants stricter sentences for “racist and discriminatory behaviour”, and treat so-called offenders much like child molesters by listing them on a nationwide “Racism Register”. The Muslim-dominated party promises to create a 1,000-men strong force to go after “Dutch racists”.

Imagine being arrested for pointing out the Sharia values of some Muslim immigrants and how they’re incompatible with Dutch values. Truthful speech thus becomes racist. Legal Insurrection confirms the troubling trend we are seeing throughout the West,saying:

Denk Party stands in the tradition of George Galloway’s Respect Party in UK, a new mutant ideology taking root in Europe that fuses leftist “social justice” issues with political Islam, dipped in fierce hatred for Israel and Western heritage. Last month, the Denk Party attracted media attention when party’s leader and Dutch MP Tunahan Kuzu refused to shake hands with the visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu.

We are also seeing this same pattern happening in the U.S. with Islamist groups such as CAIR and ISNA exhorting their constituents to support Hillary Clinton for president. For Islamists in the U.S. they don’t necessarily need a separate political party when leftist Democrats further their agenda for them, such as: hindering counterterrorism measures, stifling Israel’s ability to effectively defend itself, and seeking to punish those who insult Islam (for a pertinent example, see Clinton’s support of UN Resolution 16/18). Furthermore, the Islamists have a sympathizer in Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s top aides, to help advance the cause.

This tactic of accusing those concerned about threats to freedom of being themselves threats to freedom ought to sound alarm bells whenever it is tried.

***

download-16

Machteld Zee: “Islamization is Planned” by Vlad Tepes

A young Dutch political scientist is causing consternation among the bien-pensants of the multicultural Left in the Netherlands with her analyses of Islamization. Her impeccable liberal background and credentials make it more difficult for the establishment to discredit her.

Dr. Van Helsing has translated an interview with this iconoclastic young woman. He includes this introductory note:

Machteld Zee Ph.D. is a Dutch scholar who investigated sharia courts in the UK for her Ph.D. thesis. This interview was published in the Algemeen Dagblad, a nationwide Dutch newspaper, on October 4, 2016.

The interview is relevant for several reasons:

  • Very few non-Muslims ever have gained access to the world of sharia courts in the UK. She has.
  • The University of Leiden is fairly highbrow in the Netherlands, because it is not only one of the oldest universities. but also because the heir to the Dutch throne traditionally studies at this university (for example, our former Queens Juliana and Beatrix did, just like our current head of state King Willem-Alexander). The reputation of this university gives authority to her voice.
  • She has become a target of attacks by leftist apologists for radical Islam since she published her thesis. She could do with some positive publicity. Similarly, Islam-sceptics could benefit from her work.

The translated interview:

“Islamization is Planned”

Investigating Sharia

The Islamization of Europe follows a strategy, according to Machteld Zee in her book Holy Identities, which was published today. ‘Once you have knowledge of it, you understand what is going on.’

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law that contradicts our secular laws.’

Investigating sharia courts

Machteld Zee (32), a Dutch political scientist from the University of Leiden, studied sharia courts in the UK and wrote her Ph.D. thesis on it in 2015.

She was one of the few outsiders who gained access to the sessions of these Islamic courts. 95% of the cases before these courts are divorce cases. Her investigations resulted in a pamphlet, Holy Identities.

‘If you compare the Netherlands in the 1980s with today,’ says the political scientist and law school graduate Machteld Zee, ‘you will see an increased influence of Islam everywhere. Saudi Arabia and other countries flooded the world with thousands of imams, Islamic text books, mosques and tons of money.’

Machteld Zee needed barely 150 pages to describe the background of Islamic fundamentalism, which is gaining ground in Western countries. Her book Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State is an analysis of the problems of the multicultural society.

You say that conservative Muslims want to convince their fellow Muslims to embrace sharia, the religious law of Islam. These fundamentalists are being helped by ‘useful non-believers’, non-Islamic intellectuals, politicians and opinion leaders who don’t want to offend Muslims.

‘Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological damage on them. Although many Muslims consider this an idiotic point of view, others use it to call those who criticize Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.

You described yourself as left-leaning liberal when you started your investigation on sharia courts in the UK. Now you warn against a lack of knowledge of and a lack of resistance against the advancing radical Islam.

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law — far more systematic then I had expected — that contradicts our secular laws. Many Muslim women are locked into a religious marriage because their community thinks a divorce according secular law is insufficient. In these communities — Muslim communities — sharia law trumps secular law when it comes to marriage. Women have to ask a sharia judge or an imam to dissolve their marriage, for example when the husband physically abuses her. Even Dutch Muslim women travel to the UK to appear before sharia courts. It is a parallel society. I object to it because these practices go against women’s rights.’

You have analyzed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a political and religious movement that aims for world domination, and is supported by lots of money from fundamentalist circles. The sharia courts are part of this project, you wrote.

‘That is why it is so important that we know what is going on. Authors that I studied for my investigation were generally benevolent towards sharia courts. It turned out, however, that none of them ever attended a session of such a court. They don’t know what is going on in these courts. Now they ask me to tell all about it. Women are advised by these courts to accept polygamy and to not file criminal complaints in case of domestic violence. Physically abusive fathers are given custody of their children. I have the impression that the tide of the public debate is turning now that these facts are becoming public. I hardly hear anyone pleading in favour of sharia courts anymore.’

In your book you call out the politically correct elites, who tries to cover up abuse within Islam and tries to downplay the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

‘In the first place, I think I am reporting facts. Where I notice that influential Western intellectuals tend to discourage critics of Islam and help fundamentalists to isolate and ‘Islamize’ Muslim communities, that is a matter of fact. My book is a compact discourse that aims to bring its readers up to date on fundamentalist Islam.’

How do you see the future?

‘We will have to act more defensively and resist Islamization. We should not yield to demands that images of scantily dressed women in public have to be covered up, for example. Just say no. Citizens should not leave everything to the government. They can defend our beliefs and values themselves, too. Why does a college in The Hague decides to abandon the Christmas tree pre-emptively? Why is alcohol banned in places where Muslims show up? There is no need for that. We are doing it to ourselves.’

Do you fear criticism? Undoubtedly, you will be labeled as a right-winger.

‘I don’t experience that when I speak in public. Even a ‘leftist’ audience responds positively to my story. Right-wing? Come on, equal rights for women and resistance against representatives of a religion who make threats of violence — let’s call that common sense.’