These are all the Blogs posted on Friday, 5, 2010.
Friday, 5 March 2010
Rocking Dutchmen interlude IV
You knew it would be Golden Earring.
You expected Radar Love?
No, in the years since they formed in 1961 they have had more than one song. Don't read anything into this rather film noir/resistance/cold war spy movie video however. This is Twilight Zone from (I think) 1982.
PLANS for the controversial 'hijab-shape' archways at the entrance to Brick Lane have been withdrawn at the eleventh hour.
The proposals which triggered a flood of criticism from residents were due to be discussed by Tower Hamlets council's Development Committee tonight.
But Town Hall bosses confirmed this afternoon the applications had been taken off the agenda to give the council more time.
A statement issued by the council said: "Due to the large amount of public interest shown over the proposed Brick Lane arches, the planning applications have been withdrawn to allow time to build upon the extensive community engagement and consultation the council has already done."
Sounds to me like they intend to make a few more threats to the objectors. A little more persuasion like they exerted (and failed) on the organisers of the ‘unislamic’ (there is no fun in Islam) mela and the proprietor of the dating agency.
What no one seems to have mentioned, so I’ll mention it here, is that Brick Lane already has an arch leading into the stretch where the curry houses are concentrated. But it was built in a secular and vernacular Bengali style, and was not something that will put £1.8 million into the pockets of the (un)deserving.
The Kingdom of England is in a parlous state. Ruled by a rotten Scottish tyranny, the nation groans under the weight of oppressive, unconstitutional laws, the ruling elite is in the pay of its absolutist masters on the continent, and many Englishmen suspect their government is promoting an oppressive and reactionary religion against the will of the people.
The nation’s only hope is a charismatic young Dutchman fighting almost single-handedly against the creation of a united Europe under the rule of an unelected tyrant in Holland’s southern neighbour.
Three centuries after William III of Orange, another Dutchman comes to these shores, although at least King Billy never had to defend himself against charges of “Cathophobia”.
Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party is on course to top the polls in the Dutch election in the summer, after tremendous gains in local elections this week – it came first in Almere and second in The Hague, the two only local authorities the party contested, and this despite Wilders being put on trial earlier this year for “insulting Islam”.
Or maybe because of… Despite the media consensus that Wilders is “far-Right” and Islamphobic, and a trouble-maker with a dodgy haircut, the Dutch people obviously saw his trial for what it was – proof of his point that multiculturalism threatens freedom. They decided that, whatever the benefits of “diversity”, the most important thing is diversity of opinion. Freedom to eat two dozen different cuisines in an evening or visit half a dozen religious buildings is small comfort if it is at the expense of freedom of speech.
The Dutch establishment only has itself to blame, for they have made the people’s decision for them – either Wilders will be jailed or he will become Prime Minister.
There is almost nothing they can do to stop him. In central London right now United Against Fascism and the English Defence League are poised to repeat some of the retro-1930s street battles they’ve been having around the country these past few months. But whatever happens, and even if the EDL alienate everyone who is remotely worried about Islamic immigration by looking like a bunch of football hooligans, it won’t taint Geert Wilders.
Because unlike many opponents of mass immigration, he’s not a fascist or a racist – the British establishment would love Wilders to reveal himself to be another Nick Griffin or Jorg Haider, someone with lots of skeletons dressed in SS uniform in his closet, but he’s not. He’s just a normal mainstream conservative who sees, like many others, that the liberal establishment suffers from sort of groupthink madness when it comes to the subject of immigration.
As he said this week: “We’re going to take the Netherlands back from the leftist elite that coddles criminals and supports Islamisation.” Now if only David Cameron had said that last Sunday…
At this point, somebody - and it may as well be me - has to quote Sellar and Yeatman:
WILLIAMANMARY for some reason was known as The Orange in their own country of Holland, and were popular as King of England because the people naturally believed it was descended from Nell Glyn.
Better William of Orange than the banana republic that is modern-day Britain.
Caroline Glick On The Latest In The Series Of American Visitors Counselling "Patience"
Biden's lost cause
March 5, 2010, 11:18 AM
US Vice President Joseph Biden's job is about to stop being easy. Indeed, it is about to become impossible.
On Monday Biden will arrive in Israel for a three-day visit. Biden, who will meet with Israel's leaders, will be the most senior official in the cavalcade of senior US officials that have descended on Israel in recent weeks. Biden will replace Senator John Kerry, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who was here this week. Kerry himself replaced Adm. Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was here two weeks ago.
In his press conference in Jerusalem on Monday, Kerry explained the purpose of these visits. As he put it, "...I am here and other people were here and Vice President Biden is coming shortly... to make sure we are all on the same page and that we are all clear about [Iran]."
Although Biden is just the latest senior US official to visit Israel to try to coerce the government not to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, his visit is novel in one respect. In addition to his meetings with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the rest of Israel's senior officials, Biden intends to make a case for the Obama administration's policies towards Iran, the Palestinians and Israel directly to the Israeli public. During his trip he will give what is being billed as a major policy speech at Tel Aviv University.
In light of the gaping disparity between the Obama administration's policies and those of the Israeli government, the apparent goal of Biden's address is to shore up the position of the Israeli Left as an alternative to Netanyahu. Apparently, the picture emerging from all of the senior US officials' meetings with Netanyahu is that Israel's leader still feels comfortable defying them. Presumably, they now believe that the only way to force him to toe their line is by making him believe that the price of defiance will be his premiership.
This of course is a difficult task. The Left after all was roundly defeated in last year's elections. Making it a credible alternative is no mean task.
The Israeli Left for its part is doing its best to tie its own fortunes to the administration. Opposition leader Tzipi Livni placed herself squarely in the Obama camp this week during her confrontation with Netanyahu at the Knesset. Belittling the results of last month's Gallup poll which showed that Israel enjoys the support of two-thirds of Americans, (and 80 percent of Republicans vs. 53 percent of Democrats), Livni blamed the premier for Israel's international standing. By not bowing to Obama's demands and ending all Jewish construction in Jerusalem and accepting the radical peace proposals she and former prime minister Ehud Olmert made to the Palestinians during their tenure in office, Livni claimed that Netanyahu is ruining Israel's diplomatic position in the US and throughout the world.
There is nothing new or surprising about Livni's use of the Obama administration's animosity towards the government as a means of positioning herself as an alternative to the government. And on the surface it makes sense for her to use it. After all, it was by building a partnership with the Clinton administration against Netanyahu the last time he was in power that the Israeli Left was able to bring down his government and win the 1999 elections.
The Left's hope of forming a coalition with Obama against Netanyahu was given its most explicit expression last July in an op-ed by Ha'aretz's editor-at-large Aluf Benn in the New York Times. After expressing his support for Obama's policies, Benn bemoaned the fact that due to Obama's low approval ratings among Israeli Jews, (at the time they stood at 6 percent and later plunged to 4 percent), it would be hard for him to convince the Israeli public to abandon its support for Netanyahu in favor of Obama's - that is the Israeli Left's - policies. To improve this dismal state of affairs, Benn suggested that Obama simply needs to make his case to the Israeli public, which "will surely listen," to him.
As far as Benn - and his fellow leftists were concerned - Obama's credibility problems redounded not to his policies, which the Left supports. Instead they owed to his failure to dazzle the Israeli people with the same rhetorical magic he used on the Arabs and the Europeans. It was Obama's tone, not his programs that needed to be improved.
In arguing thus, Benn, like Livni and their colleagues on the Left are acting on their memories of their glory days with the Clinton administration. As president, Bill Clinton was able to simultaneously embrace Yassir Arafat, and take down Netanyahu without anyone ever questioning his undying love for Israel and the Jews. And because of this, he became the hero of the Israeli Left which he swept back into power in 1999.
As the Left sees it, Clinton retained his reputation as the greatest friend Israel ever had in the White House, despite the fact that his policies were the most hostile policies the US had ever adopted towards Israel, because he knew how to charm the Israeli electorate. His frequent visits to Israel and his saccharine, lip-biting declarations of love for Rabin and Israel were all it took in their view to convince the public to reject the Right. If Obama would just repeat Clinton's practices, he too could bring down Netanyahu and convince the Israeli public to trust him.
When Benn's article was published his recommendation was shrugged off by the administration. So too, the White House rejected repeated requests from the local media for interviews with the President. Now however, with Obama's approval rates slipping and his Iran policy in tatters, the White House apparently decided that it needs to embark on a charm offensive in Israel to make Netanyahu more vulnerable to coercion.
Biden was selected as the man for the job because he is widely perceived as the most pro-Israel senior member of the administration. The fact that before becoming Vice President Biden had one of the most pro-Iran voting records in the Senate has done nothing to mitigate this perception. Indeed, despite the fact that Biden voted repeatedly against sanctions on Iran, claimed that Iran's quest for nuclear bombs was understandable and called for the US to sign a non-aggression pact with the mullocracy while threatening to move for George W. Bush's impeachment if he were to order a military strike against Iran's nuclear weapons programs, Biden continues to be viewed as a solid supporter of Israel.
And indeed, in line with this perception, he can be expected to declare his undying love for the Jewish state several times during his speech. Yet still, and sadly for the Israeli Left and for the Obama administration, his charm offensive will fail to get the girl. The most his visit is likely to yield is a momentary rise in support among Israelis that will quickly recede. And there are four reasons this is the case.
First, Obama himself is far weaker than Clinton was. His obsequious attempts to curry favor with the Arabs and Iran have been even more disturbing to Israelis than his refusal to visit the country. Moreover, unlike Clinton, who was popular with Israelis even before he was elected, Obama has never been popular in Israel. Part of this can perhaps be chalked up to timing. Clinton of course succeeded George H.W. Bush who was deeply unpopular in Israel. Obama replaced his son - who was regarded as a great friend of Israel.
Given Obama's weakness, it is hard to see how he can convince the Israeli public that he will be capable of protecting the country from a nuclear-armed Iran or that he can force the Palestinians and the Syrians to end their support of terror in the event of an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria or the Golan Heights.
Second, the Netanyahu Obama faces is not the Netanyahu Clinton faced in the 1990s. Today the premier leads a far broader coalition than he did in his previous government. It is also more stable. Labor Party chief Defense Minister Ehud Barak knows he cannot unseat Netanyahu. Indeed, he knows he can't even trust his party to continue supporting him if he leaves Netanyahu's government. As for opposition leader Tzipi Livni, the latest polls show her trailing far behind Netanyahu as the people's choice for prime minister. Her party's popularity rates are decreasing, Likud's are growing.
Third, there is the fact that today the Left does not control public opinion to the degree it did the last time Netanyahu was in power. During his first government, due in large part to the media's delegitimization of the Right in the wake of Rabin's assassination, the media was able to market the PLO as a credible peace partner for Israel. Yassir Arafat himself was portrayed by a popular television show as a sweet, peace loving sock puppet who only wanted to make peace with the craven, war mongering Netanyahu. Consequently it became socially unacceptable in polite circles for Israelis to admit that Arafat and the Palestinians were less than devoted to the notion of peaceful coexistence with Israel or that Netanyahu was right not to give up the store. So too, it was socially unacceptable in certain quarters to criticize Clinton who presented himself as Rabin's greatest friend. Today, people are far less embarrassed to make these claims.
This is the case of course, for the fourth reason that Biden will fail in his mission. In the 11 years since Netanyahu was forced from office, the Left's political platform has been discredited by events. Since 1999 the Palestinians - as well as the Lebanese - have demonstrated that the Left's appeasement policies are disastrous. The 1,500 Israelis who have been killed since then by the Palestinians and Hizbullah, the transformation of post-Israeli withdrawal southern Lebanon and Gaza into jihadist enclaves, the rise of Iran, and Fatah's open rejection of Israel's right to exist have all made the Left's policies unacceptable to a wide majority of Israelis.
The public's rejection of the Left's policies is so overwhelming that it has even rejected the Left's current central claim - namely that Israel will lose its Jewish majority if it abstains from surrendering Judea and Samaria. By a 53-28 percent margin, a Ha'aretz poll last month showed that Israelis do not believe that Israel's continued presence in the areas will lead to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.
What all of this shows of course is that it will take much more than a change in tone for the Obama administration to win over the Israeli public. Indeed, Obama's open hostility towards Netanyahu has probably been a significant factor in shoring up the public's approval of his performance in office.
The Israeli public is not interested in a change of tone - from Obama or from the Israeli Left. It is interested in a change of policy. Until it gets it, the public will in all likelihood remain loyal to Netanyahu.
Is Geert Wilders the odds on favorite for the next Dutch PM?
Der Spiegel published an article yesterday, in the wake of Wednesday's local elections in The Netherlands - see here- suggesting that Geert Wilders represented a minority of "disgruntled Dutch voters". Further, the Der Spiegel article opined and that he would ultimately be unable to form a ruling coalition after the upcoming June parliamentary elections in the Netherlands. That is message nattering EU elitists are conveying in the wake of Wednesday's local election victories for the Dutch Freedom Party in both Almere and The Hague.
Apparently, those same naysayers in the EU haven't checked with the bookmakers on the real odds of a possible Wilders national victory in Holland.
Here in the US, the virtual on-line bookmakers are giving Wilders favorable odds in the early June parliamentary elections. Take a look at this latest Inkling, Inc. question:
Who will become the Dutch prime minister after the elections of June 9th 2010?
If you believe these odds, then Geert is running neck and neck with caretaker PM Jan Peter Balkenende of the Christian Democrats for the top PM position. We wonder what the odds are on the Dutch PM race over at Ladbrokes. PLC, the UK bookmaker?
There is a quote from the fabled Afro American baseball pitching great, Satchel Paige that applies here: "don't look back, [someone] maybe gaining on you." The Dutch parliamentary elections are getting very interesting in large measure we believe because Wilders is listening to the concerns of Dutch "groundlings' on more than just the "tsunami of Islamification" issue. Meanwhile the parties on the left are arrogantly dismissive of the intelligent ordinary Dutch voters. The left in Holland is behaving like fawning Dhimmi to defend Muslim interests.
Geert Wilders was expected to land in England at 9am and to show his film Fitna to Parliament at 11am, followed by a Press Conference.
I arrived in Westminster at around 10.20 as the various Unite Against Facism groups were arriving.
As you can see from the uniformly made placards being unloaded white vans are not the preserve of Essex man tory voters.
Placard de jour today, in fetching purple:- EDL + BNP = Nazi-racist thugs.
I do hope those placards are made by adults paid the minimum wage and not in some sweatshop by non union labour.
The UAF and friends were being marshalled by the police opposite the Houses of Parliament around the statue of King George V.
I made my way to meet the men and women of March for England at their arranged meeting place and was introduced to Trev an EDL organiser.
He asked me to emphasis that the EDL are not against Muslims. They are against Sharia, extremism, the burqua. They are against Islam as an ideology in so far as that ideology wants to change English culture. They are not against individual Muslims private worship.
They told me that the EDL were meeting by the Tate Gallery and intended to march down Millbank towards parliament.
I made my way back to Abbey Gardens where, from previous occasions, I believed (correctly) the showing and press conference would be held. By this time the UAF had been moved to a spot in the middle of the road where Great College Street meets Millbank. I was distracted by a police announcement requiring the group to move and so missed Geert Wilders’ exit and just caught the back of the last car of his three car convoy. I won’t bore you with that photograph as it is probably the worst one I took all day.
Meanwhile the UAF had made themselves comfortable and didn’t want to move.
London Metropolitan University is a former technical college in Whitechapel.
Mr Green man was enjoying himself with the megaphone.
I decided to see what was happening at the other end of Millbank.
The EDL procession approached the Tate Gallery from Vauxhall Bridge. They were singing the National Anthem and adapted a popular football chant. To the tune of Guantanamera they were singing “One Geert Wilders, there’s only one Geert Wilders”. There were also calls of “No Surrender to the Taliban” and “Muslim bombers off our streets”.
They formed up outside the Tate Gallery for speeches. The same young Sikh man, Gurjamat Singh, spoke who addressed the meeting in Stoke, followed by businessman Alan Lake. I expect to be able to find the full speeches on EDL Media tomorrow. I also have some short video clips of my own which I hope to do something with in the morning. I was viewing this from the steps of the Gallery, behind the speakers, facing the marchers.
There was a minutes silence for the latest British casualties in Afghanistan and the two Sikhs beheaded in Pakistan last week for refusing to convert to Islam.
This was followed by the National Anthem and the procession moved of further down Millbank.
Members of the UAF had found their way into Victoria Tower Gardens (which was closed earlier) and they started to shout “Nazi scum off our streets”
The EDL/MfE/protect free speech crowd was mixed and people joined in along the way.
This lady doesn’t look in the least like “nazi scum” or a football hooligan.
As I followed along the pavement I fell into conversation with a man from the English Democrat Party. He had been talking earlier to a woman from Eritrea who was very critical of Islam and supportive of the EDL aims. I didn’t see her myself. I did see a black lady blowing kisses to the marchers.
The procession, which I would estimate at nearly 1000 strong came to a halt by Old Palace Yard. The police ushered maybe 200 EDL members into the space around King George originally occupied by the UAF while what was left of the UAF grouped along the pavement on the other side of the road. Chants were exchanged. I found out later that missiles and bottles were hurled at the EDL.
I overheard two young men of the UAF talking. One was a recent arrival.
“How’s it going?”
“OK, we were outnumbering them until the police arrested a load of our lot”.
He may be accurate on the arrests but they were never outnumbered.
I only saw one obvious Muslim. He was a lone elderly man in a white robe who went and engaged some members of the EDL in conversation. There were none of Lord Ahmed's boasted band and nobody who resembled the members of now forbidden Isalm4UK. It was noticable that the EDL and associated groups were there to welcome Geert Wilders and generally support free speech while the UAF were there only to oppose the BNP (who were not there) and the EDL.
I didn’t see which group the chap below came from but I saw where he went – into the back of the police van.
I saw another young man escorted firmly from the UAF group
“No, you are not under arrest son, but if you come back and behave like that again next time you will be”.
Megaphone? Check! Green Morph suit? Check! Do I look a pratt? Check!
I didn’t realise that there were people still left alive who not only admit to being Bolsheviks but are happy to go on the streets of London waving a Soviet flag.
Given a choice between the Three Lions of England (technically leopards but lets not be pedantic) and the hammer and sickle I know which I chose every time.
Looking down Millbank from Old Palace Yard. Houses of Parliament and UAF on the left of the picture, EDL etc to the right. Police in the middle.
Somebody I overheard expressed concern to his friend about what he took to be Nazi salutes. The UAF make this claim constantly.
Having watched them closely it isn’t a Nazi, or Facist salute but a football gesture of an outstretched arm. A sort of “Oi you!” finger wag which being made in a crowd goes up rather than forward. But every gesture made by so called “Nazi scum” is a Nazi salute I suppose.
I decided I had had enough and left for some refreshment.
I’ll put some more photos up on Flickr tomorrow – in England its nearly my bedtime.
Thank you. It is great to be back in London. And it is great that this time, I got to see more of this wonderful city than just the detention centre at Heathrow Airport.
Today I stand before you, in this extraordinary place. Indeed, this is a sacred place. This is, as Malcolm always says, the mother of all Parliaments, I am deeply humbled to have the opportunity to speak before you.
Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for your invitation and showing my film ‘Fitna’. Thank you my friends for inviting me.
I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.
And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!
Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: “Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (…) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book ‘The River War’ from 1899.
Churchill was right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.
Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.
As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”. End of quote.
Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent”. End of quote. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!
Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.
I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. It are opposite values.
No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ “the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, bur pregnant with its message”. As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book ‘The Second World War’, a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill’s comparison of the Quran and ‘Mein Kampf’ is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.
Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That’s a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.
We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being destroyed. Burqa’s, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don’t get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.
As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.
Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine - Elsevier - calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.
I don't know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was, and I quote, to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”. If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.
Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The left is facilitating islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.
Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women’s rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.
Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn’t in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.
Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned.
Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. Fortunately, my dear friend and heroic American psychiatrist dr. Wafa Sultan is one of them. But their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.
I’m being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to ‘Mein Kampf’. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial… Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.
But it is not all about me, not about Geert Wilders. Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book 'The Rage and the Pride'. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing ‘legal jihad’. This is Islamic ‘lawfare’. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.
Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone.
I believe it is our obligation to preserve the inheritance of the brave young soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy. That liberated Europe from tyranny. These heroes cannot have died for nothing. It is our obligation to defend freedom of speech. As George Orwell said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can’t wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:
First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.
Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don't be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.
Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.
Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.
Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.
And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchills. Let's elect real leaders.
Ladies and gentlemen. To the previous generation, that of my parents, the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope in my country, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my fellow country men listened to it, underground. The words ‘This is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon.
What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be “This is London”? Or will it be “This is Londonistan”? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.
Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.
A rational article provokes bigoted frenzy at the FT
Friday, 5th March 2010
A few days ago, the historian Andrew Roberts wrote a piece in the Financial Times trenchantly defending the presumed assassination by Israel in Dubai of the Hamas terrorist Mahmoud Habhouh. In this article, which was itself a response to two examples of standard boilerplate bigotry that the paper had run about this, Roberts wrote:
All that the Dubai operation will do is remind the world that the security services of states at war – and Israel’s struggle with Hamas, Fatah and Hizbollah certainly constitutes that – occasionally employ targeted assassination as one of the weapons in their armoury, and that this in no way weakens their legitimacy. As for the ‘separation walls’ and checkpoints that one sees in Israel, the 99 per cent drop in the number of suicide bombings since their erection justifies the policy. There is simply no parallel between apartheid South Africa – where the white minority wielded power over the black majority – and the occupied territories, taken by Israel only after it was invaded by its neighbours. To make such a link is not only inaccurate, but offensive.
Not nearly as offensive, however, as what then followed. For as Robin Shepherd points out, the readers’ comments on Roberts’s article constituted an outpouring of vicious hatred, lies and libels about Israel. Not for the first time, one has to wonder at the unique and profoundly unbalanced frenzy of this particular hatred, based on a startling ignorance of the history of the Middle East which is thus comprehensively inverted. Here’s a taster, if you can stomach it:
Is it terrorism when a thief invades my house, kills my family and ends up complaining to the ‘police’ after I try defend my place against him and his criminal acts? Now transport yourselves to years and years and years of ethnic cleansing, bulldozing of homes, killing of unarmed civilians in filthy refugee camps and use of prohibited weapons. Add to that the stockpiling of illegally obtained and undeclared nuclear weapons, the official statement that a certain State is ‘Jewish’ (probably the most blatantly racist qualification ever to grace the constitutional texts of a single State) and HAS to preserve its ‘jewishness’, or the catastrophe brought about by a colonial power that was too incompetent and biased to ensure a home to the REAL inhabitants of Palestine.
Note, inter alia, the reversal of the historical fact that it was only the Jews for whom Israel was ever their national homeland, hundreds of years before the Arabs invaded and most certainly not the ‘Palestinians’ who did not then exist; and the vicious double standard by which a Jewish state which gives full civil rights to its Arab and other non-Jewish inhabitants is deemed to be ‘racist’, while a ‘Muslim’ or ‘Arab’ state which refuses to allow one single Jew to live there is not.
Some clearly attempt to equate Israel with Nazi Germany by reference to the ‘abused’ having become ‘the abusers’. Others are obsessed with the ‘Jewish’ character of Israel. One (in an irony that would certainly escape him) appears to allege a Jewish conspiracy with the notion that Mossad has taken over the FT newsroom since that is the only explanation for the appearance of a very rare piece of pro-Israeli writing. One refers obliquely to the ‘chosen people’. Another describes as ‘laughable’ the ancient Jewish presence in the Middle East.
But as Shepherd observes, the really disturbing thing is not this tsunami of bigotry – alas, it is now all too common in Britain – but the fact that this filth has been up on the FT website for days without anyone there thinking that the FT should not be playing host to such incitement to hatred.
The FT is most certainly no longer the standard-bearer of cool and rational objectivity that it once was.
Remember, however, that the FT has one very important use. If you are meeting someone in an adulterous hotel, and waiting in the lobby, a copy of the Financial Times gives you a certain respectability, makes you seem llke one more innnocuous financial finagler. Many copies of the FT have been, and no doubt will be, bought precisely for this purpose, and some of those pink-hued pages may, depending on the length of the wait, even turn out to be read.
Daniel Mandel On The Folly Of Catering To Muslim Perceptions
The Guaranteed Failure of Catering to Muslim Perception
Posted By Daniel Mandel On March 5, 2010
So long as widespread suspicion exists, and it does exist, amongst the Arab population, that the economic depression … is largely due to excessive Jewish immigration, and so long as some grounds exist upon which this suspicion may be plausibly represented to be well founded, there can be little hope of any improvement in the mutual relations of the two races. — 1930 statement by the British government
What does this statement, following an inquiry into the 1929 Muslim attacks upon Jews in Mandatory Palestine, have to do with a recent disinvitation to speak at Britain’s Cambridge University for Israeli historian Benny Morris?
The statement marks the emergence of the Western phenomenon of making decisions on the basis of what Arabs and Muslims perceive, or are said to perceive, at the expense of the facts or the merits of the case.
Note the reasons offered by Jake Witzenfeld, president of Cambridge University’s Israel Society, for disinviting Morris:
I decided to cancel for fear of the Israel Society being portrayed as a mouthpiece of Islamophobia. … We understand that whilst Professor Benny Morris’ contribution to history is highly respectable and significant, his personal views are, regrettably, deeply offensive to many.
Morris, once the darling of anti-Israel radicals, is in recent years execrated by them for emphasizing Arab rejection of Jewish statehood as the origin of enduring conflict. Mr.Witzenfeld is clearly overawed by this. Note, in Mr. Witzenfeld’s words, the 1929 leitmotiv: the facts aren’t important — how they could be perceived or portrayed is.
This intellectually and morally bankrupt approach can be seen among those who urge an alteration of U.S. policy. Three examples from recent years:
January 2008: Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, urged America to engage Iran over its nuclear weapons program because “most Arabs don’t see Iran as a major threat.”
April 2004: Egyptian president Husni Mubarak reportedly argued that “many Arabs perceive a sense of ‘injustice’ in the way the United States has offered strong backing for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel.”
Were these sorts of representations to be heeded, what would occur? We needn’t guess — Western governments have been listening for years to this sort of talk, with the following results:
Iran has replied contemptuously to Western diplomatic coaxing by turning up the uranium enrichment lever. Sunni Arab powers, far from yawning in their imagined security, are likely to engage in a nuclear arms race with Shia Iran.
Through much of the Oslo process (1993-2000), Israel was deeply attentive to the notion that Palestinian terrorists blow up Israelis because they are frustrated peace-seekers rather than jihadists — a theory still popular among policy analysts who call themselves “realists.” Yet unilateral concessions embolden rather than pacify jihadists — witness the 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which produced a dramatic increase in rocket assaults upon southern Israel and turned Gaza into a Hamas emirate clattering with imported arms.
In the past year, the Obama administration made ameliorating Palestinian perceptions of injustice a priority, strong-arming Israel to impose a ban on Jews moving to the West Bank and even parts of Jerusalem. Only the policy hasn’t helped the administration’s plan to reconvene peace talks. Far from it: the U.S. having raised the demand, Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority duly adopted it as a precondition and has refused to negotiate until Israel accedes to it.
The track record of policies designed to appease Arab and Muslim perceptions is provably poor, inasmuch as the irrationality, suspicion, and hatred that they seek to validate are impervious to facts.
Polls show, for example, that neither Egyptians nor Palestinians like America more despite being recipients of ever-rising levels of American largesse. Saudis have scant affection for the U.S. after decades of Washington’s fawning deference. Nor has Muslim opinion been perceptibly altered by the most striking examples of American aid and succor given to Muslims: in Bosnia in 1999, or in Indonesia after the 2005 southeast Asian tsunami.
Even Barack Obama is the partial exception that proves the rule: his popularity among Muslims after a year of strenuous outreach is limited relative to the rest of the world. His approach has not translated into Iranian mellowing or Arab gestures to Israel, two objectives he publicly sought to achieve in return for emollient diplomacy towards Muslims coupled with pressure towards Israelis.
More to the point, such popularity as Obama enjoys in the Muslim world is likely to be deeply conditional. With Obama unable to deliver an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that does not lie in his gift, or to pull out of Afghanistan, or to ignore what occurs in neighboring Pakistan, Arab and Muslim perceptions of Obama can be expected to erode over time. At present, he reportedly has the confidence of just 13% of Pakistanis — hardly a significant improvement over his predecessor’s 9%.
Lying behind the recurrent urge to adopt policies conditioned on what Arabs and Muslims perceive are many things, both general (fear of Muslim groups with a proven track record of violence; political correctness) and particular (rationalizing anti-American or anti-Jewish hatreds). But fear and rationalizing hostility offer no outlet: as in Palestine in 1930, it is a low level of statesmanship that caters to these, one that dooms its practitioners.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-guaranteed-failure-of-
URLs in this post:
 1930 statement by the British government: http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=1173