HATE preacher Abu Qatada has sparked a security alert after ringing up a convicted terror chief in Jordan. The chubby extremist, 52, who lives under virtual house arrest, was only released from prison in February.
But he has already been in touch with another terror leader, Abu Mohammed al-Tahawi, who was jailed for plotting attacks on the US and Israeli embassies in Jordan’s capital Amman.
And British spooks believe Qatada has spoken to a second man, al-Qaida “poet” Mohammed Zuhairi, who writes songs praising jihad and Osama bin Laden.
Home Secretary Theresa May, 55, is trying to boot out Qatada, 52, who is wanted by officials in Jordan. But lawyers for the preacher have argued that he cannot be extradited because he would not get a fair trial.
He has been living in a tax- payer-funded house in Wembley, north London, with his family.His bail conditions let him use a landline phone but not the internet or a mobile.However these conditions may be relaxed from tomorrow if Qatada’s lawyers make a successful application.
British agents are believed to be checking Qatada’s calls.It has been revealed he had been chatting with al-Tahawi to try to discover whether charges against him in Jordan might be dropped. He was apparently advised by al-Tahawi not to return.
Lord Nazir Ahmed, 53, who in 1998 became the first Muslim life peer, was reported to have made the comments at a conference in Haripur in Pakistan.
A Labour Party spokesman said: "We have suspended Lord Ahmed pending investigation. If these comments are accurate we utterly condemn these remarks which are totally unacceptable."
According to Pakistan's Express Tribune newspaper Lord Ahmed offered the bounty in response to a US action a week ago.
The US issued a $10 million reward for the capture of Pakistani militant leader Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, founder of the Lashkar-e-Taiba group, who it suspects of orchestrating the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 166 people died as terrorists stormed hotels and a train station.
The British peer reportedly said: "'If the US can announce a reward of $10 million for the (capture) of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of £10 million (for the capture of) President Obama and his predecessor, George Bush."
Lord Ahmed reportedly said he would arrange the bounty at any cost, even if he had to sell his own personal assets including his house. He was said to have made the comments at a reception arranged in his honour by the business community of Haripur on Friday.
Lord Ahmed, who was born in Pakistan, became Baron Ahmed of Rotherham at the age of 40. (for 'services' to the fish ad chip industry) In 2007 he was highly critical of the awarding of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie, claiming the author had "blood on his hands." In 2009 he was jailed for dangerous driving after sending and receiving text messages minutes before being involved in a fatal motorway crash. The Court of Appeal later suspended his 12-week jail sentence.
But Lord Ahmed complained that party chiefs had not spoken to him before announcing the move and challenged the party to produce evidence against him. "They have suspended me? That's a surprise to me. I did not know," he said. "If the Labour Party want to suspend me I will deal with the Labour Party. They will have to give me some evidence." Asked about the reported comments, he said: "I never said those words.
I suspect that the Respect party have just gained a new member.
During a recent visit to Pakistan, Lord Nazir Ahmed, a member of the British House of Lords who originally hails from Pakistani Kashmir, announced he was putting up a bounty of £10 million for the capture of U.S. President Barack Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush. The announcement, made at a conference held in the Pakistani town of Haripur, came in response to a recent U.S. announcement offering a $10 million reward to anyone providing information leading to the capture of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, founder of the Pakistani jihadi organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and emir of LeT’s charity arm, Jamaatud Dawa.
As ever, all MEMRI has done is find something that another one of the west’s fifth column infiltrators and destroyers says when he thinks nobody is paying attention. Well we’ve got news for you “Lord” Ahmed: you’re not the only one in the world who reads the Pakistani press.
It was also Lord Ahmed that called for 10,000 Muslims (a highly significant number from the Koran) to march on the Houses of Parliament if Geert Wilders was allowed into the UK. It’s likely that his threats of violence caused the Home Secretary to block Wilders entry (which was later found to have been unlawful). Geert returned to the UK successfully a few months later.
He is also the same Lord Ahmed who I personally invited to a lunch time talk given by Bat Ye’or at the House of Lords in 2007! I personally printed and envelope stuffed invitations to every member of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. I also invited a fair few of the media. We had a pretty good turn out for these kinds of events, maybe 50 or 60 and among the audience, much to everyones surprise was Lord Ahmed.
He sat and listened to Bat Ye’or’s presentation of her Eurabia thesis and at the end his arm went up to ask a question. The moderator (Edward Leigh MP whose office had invited Bat Ye’or to speak) called on him.
He gave a breathless and largely incoherent admonishment to Bat Ye’or: told her that everything she had said was rubbish (without refuting any facts) but he ended with something very clear:
“If that is your definition of an Islamist, madam, I am an Islamist.” – Lord Ahmed of Rotherham
And then he got up and left.
Her definition of an Islamist was pretty much the same one we use today: someone seeking to take over and rule the world, in this case using the political part of Islam’s political military complex.
So I think we should probably take him seriously when he puts a bounty on the head of the sitting and former presidents of the US and, in my opinion, ask Muslims world wide to go and kill them. Are you paying attention over there in the Secret Service? That’s a credible threat against the life of not one, but two of your presidents.
Surprising Developments in the Trial of Lars Hedegaard
The following is a translation from the original Danish published on Sappho.dk sent us by Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Press Society with a report on what occured at his Danish Supreme Court hearing on Friday, April 13th that we covered in our recent posts, see here.
Surprising Developments in the Trial of Lars Hedegaard
Lars Hedegaard and his counsel Karoly Németh in front of the Danish Supreme Court, 13 April 2012
By a special correspondent to Sappho.dk
The Eastern Superior Court's grounds for convicting Free Press Society President Lars Hedegaard on charges of "racism" and "hate speech" were deficient, said the prosecutor in the Danish Supreme Court. Nevertheless she asked the Court to uphold the verdict.
The Supreme Court proceedings in the trial of Lars Hedegaard on April 13 were mostly concerned with juridical details regarding intent – i.e. whether the defendant had intended his remarks on rape in Muslim families to be publicly disseminated. On May 3, 2011 Lars Hedegaard was fined 1000 dollars for the crime of having denigrated male Muslims all over the world.
The lawyers for the prosecution and defence spent most of three hours juggling with intricate points of law and precedent, however, the prosecutor, Alessandra Giraldi, representing the Director of Public Prosecutions, delivered a sensation when she openly admitted that the grounds for Lars Hedegaard's conviction in Superior Court were plainly wrong.
In its judgment of 3 May 2011 the Eastern Superior Court found Hedegaard guilty of hate speech in accordance with Article 266b of the Danish penal code because he "ought to have known" that his statements regarding family rape in Muslim families were intended for public dissemination.
Alessandra Giraldi had to admit that logically the wording "ought to" implied that he didn't know and consequently could not have intended that his remarks to be publicised without having a chance to vet them. And intent is what Article 266b requires for a conviction.
Her solution was to encourage the Supreme Court to confirm the sentence but come up with a better justification.
Guilty of negligence
Lars Hedegaard's counsel, Karoly Németh, would have none of this. He argued that according to Danish law, the Supreme Court must base its verdict on the evidence presented in the lower court, where his client has been acquitted in January 2011, and in the Superior Court, where he was subsequently convicted without any new evidence having been presented.
In other words, the Supreme Court was bound by the conclusion of the Superior Court that Lars Hedegaard did not know – and consequently could not have had any intent – but only that he "ought to" have known. That being the case, the Supreme Court was obliged to declare him not guilty.
The most that could be argued, said Karoly Németh, was that his client was guilty of negligence, which was insufficient for a conviction under Article 266b.
Who wrote the indictment?
As was the case in the lower and superior courts, Karoly Németh levelled a withering attack on the indictment itself, which he claimed was based not on what his client had actually said but quoted his remarks out of context and was in fact a condensation of a much longer statement.
Several of the justices were seen taking notes when Karoly Németh accused the public prosecutor of having based the indictment on news articles produced by among others the politically correct newspaper Politiken.
If for no other reason, noted counsel Németh, his client must be acquitted on the basis of deficiencies in the indictment.
Better Place user David Rose w/keys to Renault Fluence ZE electric car in Israel [photo: David Rose]
With no local fanfare or announcements, electric car network provider Better Place has started delivering cars to its first paying customers in Israel.
One the first customers is David Rose, who reserved his car in October 2011. His home charging spot was installed a month after he submitted his reservation, and he waited until last week to receive his car.
Better Place has had a fleet of around 100 Renault Fluence ZE cars in the hands of employees since January, who use them on the country's roads.
In Israel, Better Place sells the Renault sedan without a battery. The sale is combined with a battery lease and a mileage-based subscription plan that includes the cost of the electricity necessary to drive those miles.
Electricity is supplied at owners' homes, public charging stations or via automated battery-switch stations that can replace a drained battery with a full one in 5 minutes. Each of these supply sources is operated and paid for by Better Place.
Installation of the home charging station, which draws electricity from a separate supply, is included in the package cost. Higher-mileage subscribers (those who contract for more than 16,000 miles per year) get two charging stations, usually for home and work.
The subscriber sees no bills from the electric utility for the added power devoted to car charging.
Fully networked smart grids--and Better Place has the only one at present--are the only allowable outlets to recharge electric vehicles, in the name of protecting Israel's electric grid.
Aside from the Renault Fluence ZE available through Better Place, no other plug-in electric vehicle is offered for sale in Israel today. This has been a source of criticism as it sets Better Place up as the sole supplier of electrified personal transport.
Rose's car was delivered to his home on a car transporter with a fully-charged battery. He voluntarily opted to take the car with a full pack of promotional stickers and labels announcing it as an electric car.
The car replaces a Mazda6 sedan, one of the most popular mid-size cars in Israel and one that's heavily used by fleets.
Better Place says its Fluence ZE is competitive on price and features with the smaller Mazda3 compact. Rose calculates that at the current pump price (roughly $8 per US Gallon), he will save at least $200 per month after paying the fixed subscription cost for electricity.
Rose says the car will be used primarily for his wife's drive to work, a round trip of 66 miles through the northern hills of Israel above the Sea of Galilee (known locally as the Kinneret).
Rose says the GPS system has already alerted him to heavy traffic, leading him to deviate from his usual route: the crowd-sourced iPhone app Waze gave him similar information. He's already noticed, however, that slow-moving heavy traffic extends the car's range.
Rose is now waiting for his wife's employer (an Israeli regional council) to give belated permission for Better Place to install a second charge spot at her office--as included in his subscription plan--to allow all-day charging.
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum got jeered for comparing the legalization of same-sex marriage to that of polygamy, but, whether or not the comparison is rationally sound, thoughts of the former's facilitating the latter bring a smile to many Islamists. If the definition of marriage can evolve in terms of gender, some Muslims ask, why not in terms of number?
Islam sanctions polygamy — more specifically, polygyny — allowing Muslim men to keep up to four wives at once. Though marrying a second woman while remaining married to the first is prohibited across the Western world, including all 50 U.S. states, a Muslim can circumvent the law by wedding one woman in a government-recognized marriage and joining with others in unlicensed religious unions devoid of legal standing.
The increasingly prominent profile of Islamic polygamy in the West has inspired a range of accommodations. Several governments now recognize plural marriages contracted lawfully in immigrants' countries of origin. In the United Kingdom, these polygamous men are eligible to receive extra welfare benefits — an arrangement that some government ministers hope to kill — and a Scottish court once permitted a Muslim who had been cited for speeding to retain his driver's license because he had to commute between his wives.
The ultimate accommodation would involve placing polygamous and monogamous marriages on the same legal footing, but Islamists have been relatively quiet on this front, a silence that some attribute to satisfaction with the status quo or a desire to avoid drawing negative publicity. There have, of course, been exceptions. The Muslim Parliament of Great Britain made waves in 2000 about challenging the UK's ban on polygamy, but little came of it. In addition, two of Australia's most influential Islamic figures called for recognition of polygamous unions several years ago.
With the legal definition of marriage expanding in various U.S. states, as it has in other nations, should we anticipate rising demands that we recognize polygamous marriages? Debra Majeed, an academic apologist for Islamic polygamy, has tried to downplay such concerns, claiming that "opponents of same-sex unions, rather than proponents of polygyny as practiced by Muslims, are the usual sources of arguments that a door open to one would encourage a more visible practice of the other." Yet some American Muslims apparently did not get the memo.
Because off-the-cuff remarks can be the most revealing, consider a tweet by Moein Khawaja, executive director of the Philadelphia branch of the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After New York legalized same-sex marriage last June, Khawaja expressed what many Islamists must have been thinking: "Easy to support gay marriage today bc it's mainstream. Lets see same people go to bat for polygamy, its the same argument. *crickets*"
The "same argument" theme is fleshed out in an October 2011 piece titled "Polygamy: Tis the Season?" in the Muslim Link, a newspaper serving the Washington and Baltimore areas. "There are murmurs among the polygamist community as the country moves toward the legalization of gay marriage," it explains. "As citizens of the United States, they argue, they should have the right to legally marry whoever they please, or however many they please." The story quotes several Muslim advocates of polygamy. "As far as legalization, I think they should," says Hassan Amin, a Baltimore imam who performs polygamous religious unions. "We should strive to have it legalized because Allah has already legalized it."
Again and again the article connects the normalization of same-sex marriage and Islamic polygamy. "As states move toward legalizing gay marriage, the criminalization of polygamy is a seemingly striking inconsistency in constitutional law," it asserts. "Be it gay marriage or polygamous marriage, the rights of the people should not be based on their popularity but rather on the constitutional laws that are meant to protect them."
According to a survey carried out by the Link, polygamy suffers from no lack of popularity among American Muslims. Thirty-nine percent reported their intention to enter polygamous marriages if it becomes legal to do so, and "nearly 70 percent said they believe that the U.S. should legalize polygamy now that it is beginning to legalize gay marriage." Unfortunately, no details about the methodology or sample size are provided, and in general quality data on Western Muslims' views of polygamy are scarce and often contradictory. Results from a recent poll of SingleMuslim.com users, many of whom live in the West, show significant support for the religious institution of polygamy, while findings from a more professional-looking survey of French Muslims indicate little desire for legalization.
Nevertheless, the number of polygamous Muslims and the opportunity presented by the redefining of marriage make it very likely that direct appeals for official recognition will ramp up over the next decade, as more Muslims join vocal non-Muslims already laying outthe case that polygamists deserve no fewer rights than gays. In the meantime, watch for Islamists and their allies to prepare for ideological battle.
For starters, one hears a lot about the alleged social necessity of recognizing Islamic polygamy. The hardships encountered by second, third, and fourth wives who lack legal protections are regularly highlighted, while polygamy is promoted as a solution to the loss of marriageable black men in America to drugs, violence, and prison. Because polygamists who are not legally married are known to abusewelfaresystems — for instance, Muslim women in polygamous marriages often claim benefits as single mothers — it would not be shocking to see legalization pushed even as a means of curbing fraud.
Netanyahu and Obama Square Off Over Iran Nuclear Negotiations
The P5+1 meeting on Saturday in Istanbul looked like a major stall maneuver appeasing Iran. The offers to have Iran turn over uranium enriched to a level of 3.5% to third parties like France or Russia looks weak in the face of strident comments by President Ahmadinejad just prior to the Istanbul parlay. Ahmadinejad made it clear in no uncertain terms that Iran was not going to be deterred from its nuclear development objectives. As noted in a Times of Israelreport:
He claimed that the Islamic Republic would insist on its “fundamental rights” to a nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad said that his country would not surrender its nuclear rights “even under the most difficult pressure.”
Catherine Ashton, EU Foreign Relations Commissioner thought the session went swimmingly. Ira Sharkansky noted ,in a Jerusalem Post “Window on Israel” blog post, the cognitive disconnect between Ashton, Netanyahu and Obama:
Catherine Ashton, serving as the European Union's foreign minister and the chair of a meeting in Istanbul between Iran and representatives of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the United States and China, is upbeat after the first meeting about Iran's nuclear program.
"We have agreed that the nonproliferation treaty forms a key basis for what must be serious engagement to ensure all the obligations under the treaty are met by Iran while fully respecting Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy."
She also said that the meeting provided a basis to establish a "sustained process of serious dialogue."
Ms. Ashton received a lashing from Israel's prime minister for doing little more than setting another meeting, in late May, and giving Iran more time to enrich uranium without inhibition.
Kenneth Timmerman, veteran Iran watcher and GOP candidate in Maryland’s 8th CD commented:
Just as I have been predicting, the Iranian regime successfully bought time at the first “negotiating” session over its nuclear program on Saturday in Istanbul, aided by Russia, China, and a gullible U.S. delegation.
See anything there about getting the Islamic Republic to stop uranium enrichment? Neither do I. Forget about any calls on the regime to lift its stranglehold on the Iranian people.
Netanyahu who was meeting with US Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut in Jerusalem lambasted the Istanbul meeting as giving the Islamic Republic a “freebie” of another five weeks to continue nuclear enrichment until the venue moves to Baghdad on May 23rd. That is, if the Al Maliki government in Iraq can assure security for the meeting.
Watch this You Tube video report showing Israeli PM Netanyahu speaking with Sen. Lieberman about the P5 +1 meetings and what should be done to rein in Iran’s nuclear program.
President Obama from the rostrum of a meeting in Cartagena, Colombia with the heads of Western Hemisphere governments on drug war issues,was quick to seize on Netanyahu’s remarks for yet another set to between the two heads of state.
Obama said he refused to let the talks turn into a “stalling process,” but believed there was still time for diplomacy.
His assessment, delivered at the close of a Latin American summit in Colombia, came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday had said the U.S. and world powers gave Tehran a “freebie” by agreeing to hold more talks next month.
Obama shot back: “The notion that somehow we’ve given something away or a ‘freebie’ would indicate Iran has gotten something. In fact, they’ve got some of the toughest sanctions that they’re going to be facing coming up in just a few months if they don’t take advantage of these talks.”
Still, in a news conference here, Obama warned to Iran, “The clock is ticking.”
A major Israel TV station on Sunday night broadcast a detailed report on how Israel will go about attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities in the event that diplomacy and sanctions fail and Israel decides to carry out a military strike.
The report, screened on the main evening news of Channel 10, was remarkable both in terms of the access granted to the reporter, who said he had spent weeks with the pilots and other personnel he interviewed, and in the fact that his assessments on a strike were cleared by the military censor.
No order to strike is likely to be given before the P5+1 talks with Iran resume in May, the reporter, Alon Ben-David, said. “But the coming summer will not only be hot but tense.”
[. . .]
Ben-David said that if negotiations break down, and Iran moves key parts of its nuclear program underground to its Qom facility, the IAF “is likely to get the order and to set out on the long journey to Iran.”
“Years of preparations are likely to come to realization,” he said, adding that “the moment of truth is near.”
The Bloomberg article cited earlier by Timmerman in his comment made reference to the possibility that tough EU sanctions to be implemented by July 1st, might be relaxed in furtherance of these discussions:
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the European Union should delay its July 1 ban on Iran’s oil imports to help the talks.
Of course Iran’s delegate to the parlay agreed with the Russian delegate’s suggestion:
Iran’s nuclear envoy, Saeed Jalili, said “we witnessed progress” in yesterday’s talks. “We said before that pressure doesn’t work, we believe that cooperation is fruitful,” Jalili said. “Today we experienced that.”
Obama has yet to implement the toughest authorized sanctions -a moratorium on delivery of refined gasoline and diesel fuel from offshore refineries authorized under PL111-195. That would cause further mayhem in the Iranian economy already alleged by experts to have a consumer inflation rate well in excess of 20%. Obama is out on a limb having postured about engaging Iran in the fruitless P5+1 talks, giving prevailing sanctions more time. Meanwhile those centrifuges in Natanz and Fordo whirl away for another five weeks allowing the Iranians to get closer to sufficient weapons grade fissile uranium to make bombs. If this pattern keeps up, then Iran has indeed entered the 'zone of immunity' for weapons development. Israel, thus, inches closer to 'en brera' - one option- to take out as many of the vulnerable nuclear development centers in Iran as is feasible. Obama and his West Wing NSC contingent believe that would be a US and world economic disaster because of likely closure of the Straits of Hormus in the Persian Gulf, retaliatory attacks against the US Fifth Fleet with resulting spikes in the oil commodity and distillate petroleum products markets. I think it behooves everyone to recall what the international oil markets were like during the covert Tanker Wars of 1987-1988 and what caused the Islamic Republic to capitulate.
You may recall Obama’s comment that he was “watching Israel’s back” when he spoke at the AIPAC Washington Policy Conference last month. One observer, Dr. Richard L. Rubenstein, author of Jihad and Genocide doesn’t put much stock in that promise. He commented:
I remain convinced that pro-Muslim, anti-colonialist Obama would not be too upset with the destruction of Israel (as indeed I wrote in Jihad and Genocide) and, if he can get away with it, he will stall until Iran has the bomb. Nor would the destruction of Israel sadden the Europeans. Whether or not stated publicly, their attitude would be “problem solved.” However, I have told my classes that the real measure of a nation is something Ghaddafi forgot, its potential for doing harm, e.g. North Korea. At present, Israel has the potential to do enormous harm. I hope it knows how to use it wisely.
The Israelis and the Iranians know the clock is ticking, we are not sure that the P5+1 delegates know what time it is on Iran’s nuclear clock.