These are all the Blogs posted on Sunday, 19, 2006.
Sunday, 19 March 2006
Actions Speak Louder than words, so why the silence ask Mothers Union?
I am a member of the Mothers Union, a worldwide Anglican Womens organisation for the support of Women and Family Life. I have always admired my Mother-in-Law's work within MU, and enjoyed attending their Christmas dinners at the invitation of other friends but I didn't join until I read of the trouble experienced by MU leaders in the Sudan. They were placed under house arrest when they tried to attend a leadership meeting in Kenya - they were offensive for the triple reason of being women, Christians and organised. Suddenly this organisation was revealed as dangerous and subversive, and my subscription and prayer seemed to be the least I could offer. Not that my friend's work - they run a creche in a local prison and a neutral ground for estranged fathers to meet their children - is without danger. In Africa the MU are quietly busy with projects to improve literacy and discourage female genital mutilation.
Anyway the MU went to the United Nations last week to attend the 50th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) .45 governments and thousands of women (along with a few men!) get together for a fortnight in New York discuss about the situation of women in the world and to make recommendations for improving it. Each year the CSW looks at two themes; this year, they were Women and Development and Women and Decision-Making. The Mothers Union focused on the former, by sharing what it has learnt, particularly through the MU Literacy and Development programme where gender equality issues are central.
And came away disappointed. This press release tells why.
The United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) has failed to adopt final conclusions on “Women and Development” after two weeks of deliberation. For Mothers’ Union (MU) representatives attending this event, this casts a shadow of doubt over governments’ commitment to women’s rights, and to their assertion at the 2005 UN World Summit that gender equality is essential to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGS)
This is mild language for something many women, and not just those in the MU have long suspected, and about the area beyond the UN as well. This is a big mistake. Educate a woman and you educate a family. But you don't need me to tell you this.
Posted on 03/19/2006 2:21 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Sunday, 19 March 2006
Women at War with the Mullahs
I wrote below about the feeling among the leaders of the MU that governments in general and the UN in particular are not taking women's rights and gender equality seriously enough. A big mistake and women like Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are the reason why. A lot had been written recently about Dr Sultan and her appearance on Al Jazeera. This article from The Sunday Times gives more background about her life and journey.
What seems to have most infuriated many Muslims were Sultan’s comparisons between how Jews and Muslims have coped with the tragedies that have befallen them.
“The Jews have come from tragedy and forced the world to respect them,” she said, “with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling.
“We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”
Sitting in the airy living room of the spacious modern home where Sultan and her husband live, it is hard to believe this small, neatly dressed woman could be at the centre of an international firestorm. Just as improbable is that the most important and controversial critics of Islamic fundamentalism, violence and intolerance are, like Sultan, women, mostly from Islamic countries.
Which takes us straight back to the UN and their disappointing attitude.
Posted on 03/19/2006 2:56 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Sunday, 19 March 2006
Zut! We're overrun by les rosbifs
Remember 1066? It's payback time. From the Sunday Times:
THE Duke of Westminster’s purchase of a famous Paris flea market is the latest rout in what is being decried on the French side of the Channel as a British invasion.
“Not only have you stolen ‘our’ Olympic Games, you are also shamelessly occupying our towns and countryside,” writes José-Alain Fralon, author of Help, the English are Invading Us, which is shortly to go on sale.
"Help, the English are Invading Us"? No prizes for guessing the line he is going to take. Rather like a book by Ho Jong Ho published in North Korea, called, "The US Imperialists Started the Korean War". But I digress.
“The English . . . have their own airports, their newspapers, their pubs, their lawns, their grocer, sometimes their own French wife.” He suggests that the influx of Britons is causing profound damage to relations between the two nations...
“How the Entente Cordiale is fading in our own beautiful countryside.”
You could just as easily argue that the French have sometimes got "their own English husband".
Fralon cites villages such as Couesmes Vauce in the Loire Valley — where the local bar has just fallen to a Brit — as among those in peril. So great is the influx of Britons that the French cricket league is thriving.
In the Ile de France region, Saint-Nom-La-Bretèche is widely known as Saint-Nom-les-British. The enemy presence is also growing in Pas-de-Calais in the north, and Lyons in the centre is threatened, too, sniffs Fralon.
“Why deny it? The news from the front is more and more anguishing,” he writes. “From Dunkirk to Perpignan, from La Rochelle to Chambéry, the English are invading.” ...
At least some of the invaders are determined to integrate. Several have been elected as councillors and most engage in camembert-eating competitions and pétanque with as much gusto as the natives.
Some have brought their own customs to the occupied territory. In the 1980s Stuart Edwards, owner of the Entente Cordiale, a restaurant bar in northern Périgord, introduced a very British tradition to Abjat-sur-Bandiat. The village is now a world centre for conkers and stages regular international contests. The French, it turns out, are particularly gifted.
This is not without precedent. William the Conkerer?
Edwards, 55, agrees the latest influx amounts to an invasion. There are 30 British residences in his village of 600 people: “You could say the same about every village round here.” The men have adopted the local tradition of kissing people four times on the cheeks. The mayor is delighted.
Now steady on. If they are going to carry on like that, let's hope these particular rosbifs stay in France. I didn't live through two world wars only to see red-blooded Englishmen turn soft. Actually I didn't live through two world wars at all, but that isn't the point.
Sir Mick Jagger fell in love with the French countryside and likes the fact that he can pass unrecognised there. He was reportedly asked by a chateau owner near his home outside Amboise, on the Loire: “So what do you do in life, young man?”
Come off it. Young? But why all this hostility? Here's why:
Fralon says that the British are also trying to escape a “barbarous Anglo-Saxon” socio-economic model whose rigours make them worthy of pity. The fact is, he says, that France is a country “more beautiful, more agreeable, more convivial, more sunny, more human and social than theirs”.
French students are revolting because of some of these rigours. And it was fear of those Anglo-Saxon models (Kate Moss, perhaps?), not to mention le plombier polonais that led the French to pull the plug on the proposed EU constitution.
No, they don't want us going over there with our Anglo-Saxon attitudes:
Alice ... was still looking intently along the road, shading her eyes with one hand. 'I see somebody now!' she exclaimed at last. 'But he's coming very slowly—and what curious attitudes he goes into!'
- (For the Messenger kept skipping up and down, and wriggling like an eel, as he came along, with his great hands spread out like fans on each side.)
- 'Not at all,' said the King. 'He's an Anglo-Saxon Messenger—and those are Anglo-Saxon attitudes.'"
And who can blame them?
Posted on 03/19/2006 7:36 AM by Mary Jackson
Sunday, 19 March 2006
Man faces death over Christianity in Afghanistan
Our men and women should NOT be dying to protect a government such as this...I am all for special forces "diplomacy" the moment our security is threatened, but Muslim civilization needs its own Enlightenment which we cannot create for them out of whole (erstwhile turban) cloth, and at great expense of human lives and American treasure..
A MAN detained by police for converting from Islam to Christianity could face the death penalty if he refused to become a Muslim again, an Afghani judge said today.
Islamic sharia law proposes the death sentence for Muslims who abandon the religion. Afghanistan's new constitution says "no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam".
Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada said the suspect, Abdur Rahman, was arrested after members of his family informed police of his conversion.
He would be charged with abandoning Islam, Mr Mawlavizada said.
"The prosecutor says he should be executed on the basis of the constitution," Mr Mawlavizada said, who added that Mr Rahman could come back to Islam.
"If he does not ... he will be punished," he said.
Posted on 03/19/2006 11:03 AM by Andy Bostom
Sunday, 19 March 2006
The riots in France may seem to have nothing to do with the general unpleasantness, unease, and disruption of life that the large-scale presence, and demands, of Muslims has caused.
What, after all, is the proposed law about? It is about giving work to the unemployed. Which unemployed? Oh, all the unemployed, of course. But with special attention to the young Muslims whose failure to enter the work-force, it is claimed and even believed by some, is what prompts their murderous hostility to the circumambient society, to the Infidel nation-state, and to non-Muslims (few dare to look at the texts, the attitudes, the atmospherics of Islam for an alternative explanation). But it is understood that employers will not wish to be saddled with young employees who reveal, as they most likely would, either the kind of unfitness for work, as some young non-Muslims would, or perhaps fitness but a dangerous attitude of hostility toward non-Muslim workers, or give signs of other cause for alarm (perhaps unwillingness to do what an Infidel shop-steward, or employer, demands).
This does not mean that the rioters are Muslim. This does not mean that the law in question is prompted only by considerations of giving Muslims a chance to be hired. But the unstated, but clear connection, of the disruption to general understandings of what France is, what its social and economic covenant is, even the possibility of retaining the system of entitlements with a large, growing, and unintegrable population that has been completely unscrupulous in its exploitation of the welfare state set up, paid for, administered, and maintained, by Infidels who never thought that the system would be bled of resources by a discrete and hostile population.
Here is what today's, the Sunday edition of The New Duranty Times, reports:
"In Lyon, French youths protesting the law clashed with Turks demonstrating against the construction of a memorial to Armenian victims of a 1915 massacre, Reuters reported. The youths shouted, 'Fascists!' and "Go home!'"
Now that is mere reporting. What should we make of it? Nothing? Something? When French students suddenly shout at Turks "Go home!" is there anything else going on? Is this merely indignation over a Turkish protest at an Armenian memorial? Or is it something else, an as yet confused, not quite comprehended, expression of a "Go home" intended not so much for Turks as for Muslims in general, to whom those students were shouting, or thinking, or not even consciously thinking but feeling -- "Go home!" Leave us in peace.
For that Muslim presence, a presence that consists of a fast-breeding population, supported with free education, free medical care, subsidized housing (I have seen that housing, and it is far beyond what is available as public housing in America), and itself inclined to inshallah-fatalism and to a hostility directed at Infidels that makes many, though not all, Muslims, difficult for employers and co-workers alike, and bring tension to the workplace, is what is responsible for the collapse, in France and elsewhere, of the social compact and the entitlements, that are now leading to economic ruin. That same large-scale presence forces the French state to defend its laicity, to worry about the indiscipline and riotous behavior by Muslims that in so many places, has caused such havoc in French public schools -- once the pride of France. And when, to the physical danger to teachers, and to fellow, but non-Muslim students, one adds the refusal to allow the government-manded curriculum to be followed either because it is deemed by Muslims anti-Muslim (reading Voltaire for example), or treats of subjects to which they are indifferent or hostile (the Kings of France, the Holocaust and World War II from any perspective that appears to deplore the former, and celebrate the Allied victory in the latter).
And when one adds to this the mistreatment of women, both Muslim women, and those "brigittes" who are regarded as fair game for every sort of degradation, so that many places are now simply unwalkable by women at night, or during the day, when one realizes that Muslims have been encouraged by their belief-system to regard Infidels as a source for loot, whose property rightly belongs, and can be taken by, the "best of people," the People of Allah, the members of the umma al-Islamiyya, not because "property is theft" as Proudhon said, but because "Infidel property is not really their property at all -- it belongs to Allah and to his people, and taking it whenever possible is licit because it is, essentially, helping oneself to the Jizyah that must be paid (for one example of a Norwegian imam preaching this openly, read Bruce Bawer's "While Europe Slept").
There are events. They are reported. And then there is the significance of those events -- their true meaning, or the meaning that is often hidden within. That is the duty of the columnist, the analyst, the person who makes sense of things. The New Duranty Times, and almost all of the major press, fails to report much of the news about Jihad and dhimmitude. And it also fails to connect events that may seem to have nothing to do with Islam, but when looked at more closely, may in fact have a connection.
Posted on 03/19/2006 12:02 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Sunday, 19 March 2006
Our man in Kabul
Smooth Karzai, oleaginous Karzai, Our Man In Kabul Karzai, forever blotted his copybook when he emerged from the anti-Infidel antisemitic rant of Mahathir Muhammad at a meeting of the O.I.C., and declared the speech "splendid." That was it. He could have remained silent. He could have said, with studied ambiguity, "a speech about Muslim weakness that provokes thought." He could have said "it is a speech that is certainly controversial." He could have said "No comment." He could have had an aide say "Mr. Karzai is currently unavailable" or "Mr. Karzai will not be able to speak to you now, for he has a pressing meeting."
But no. Karzai praised that awful speech. And the most attractive purple-and-green robe, the most sincere smile, the outrage at the Taliban, will simply not do enough to offset the hint of his "sorry-just-can't-go-the-whole-distance" and "I-have-to-remain-in-the-end-true-to-Islam-and-to-the-Mahathir-Mohameds-of-this-world" attitude.
Sorry, that's no longer acceptable. The West, the Infidels, can't accept that.
And as for the judge in Andy's posting below, his name sounds familiar (is there a hint of a Sufi whirling-dervish or mevlevi contained in his name?). Possibly he has been involved in previous examples of Sharia-based intolerance. The Afghani equivalent of Judge Khalkhali? Thought so.
Posted on 03/19/2006 12:39 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Sunday, 19 March 2006
Counter-Jihad not "War on Terror"
"My son just joined the Marines, what exactly are they fighting and dying for?....all this Muslim double talk crap." -- from a posting at JW
Tell your son it is not because of some gobbledygook about a misnamed "war on terror." It should properly be defined as a counter-Jihad, a war to prevent the spread of a belief-system, and the aggressive proponents of that belief-system, that threatens the laws, customs, manners, and understandings of all Infidels. Tell him to learn as much as he can about the tenets of Islam and the history of Islamic conquest. Send him the books of Spencer, Bat Ye'or, and others. Have him educate others. The generals apparently are too old to learn new tricks, and are too much, some of them, careerists (for who gets to rise in the ranks, if not those who parrot the party line), and are stuck in the esposito-michael sells-armstrong mud of apologetics.
As for that "Muslim double talk" -- the "war on terror" is nonsense that comes not from Muslims, but from Infidels. Ask yourself if, had you been alive in World War II, you would have been satisfied to hear a Fireside Chat in which FDR said "our war against the blitzkrieg" proceeds in France and Italy. No, you wouldn't. And you would know why.
Because the Administration initially failed to learn enough about Islam -- lack of knowledge can be excused up to 9/11/2001, but is not excusable, in any government officials, whose first duty was to remedy their own considerable ignorance -- it never understood that the only argument that made sense in invading Iraq was not that there was a necessary connection between Al Qaeda (merely one among many similar groups, and not even now the most important or necessarily the most dangerous) and Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was most interested in Saddam Hussein. They he was interested in his friends and relatives from Tikrit. Then in the Sunnis of Iraq. Then in being King of the Sunni Arabs. The idea of Islam conducting a world-wide Jihad was simply beyond his ken, not that he wouldn't have minded it, just so long as he could be King of the Caliph's Castle -- in order words, Mr. Big.
The failure to understand Islam meant that all sorts of goofy or messianic ideas were proposed and, in being proposed, believed. The belief that "democracy" is a plant easy to transplant to stony soil, with no thorough investigation of why Islam appears to favor despotism, since only Lebanon (with a large and powerful Christian presence) and Turkey (with 80 years of Kemalism, i.e. systematic constraints put on the political power and influence of Islam) have shown signs of tolerating, to some degree, a version of democracy. Not the full-fledged Western version, but at least the head-counting and to some degree, some legal protections against the force of Islam and the Sharia.
The failure to understand Islam meant that we would try to help Iraq, rather than to simply remove the dictator, and leave Iraq to dissolve, as it inevitably would, no matter what the Americans did (this was perfectly foreseeable in 2004, and had nothing to do with what the American policy was, or how long its presence lasted -- civil war became inevitable when the Sunni despotism was removed over the 60-65% of the population that is Shi'a, and deeply resentful, justifiably, with its previous treatment, and by the 20% of the population that is Kurd, not ethnic Arab, which is deeply resentful, justifiably, with ditto.
And the failure to understand Islam was accompanied by a failure to recognize, fully, the depth of that Shi'a resentment, and the depth of the Sunni rage at the perceived loss of power, and the depth of Kurdish desire to move from local autonomy to Independence. Very few intelligent people employing their intelligence in Washington. The Administration was wrong, and so -- horribly -- have been almost all of its critics.
Except here, where the most consistent, unrebuttable, criticisms, based not on a desire to appease or ignore the menace of Islam, but to take it, and the instruments of Jihad, all into account, and to figure out the thousand ways, little and big, from threatening Iran not only with destruction of its nuclear facilities but, as a delayed result, with dissolution (the Azeris, the Baluchis, the Kurds, the Arabs all rising), or in Europe, supporting intelligently those who, in each country, have perceived the menace and understand the kind of things that need to be done, but still lack political power.
Posted on 03/19/2006 2:48 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald