More on The UK-Scandinavia Summit.

We made headlines! The UK-SCandinavian summit has been written up in the USA. The Center for Vigilant Freedom has taken the reports from all the various blogs, conducted interviews with the implicated parties and created a press release. The press release was taken by MichNews.com and can be read here.

It would appear that our American cousins are following our progress. They too are beginning to organise against their own Islamisation and are perhaps looking to us to give them a lead in the right direction.

This is good news. If we can gather interest on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, then we can make this global.

Another new development is the formation of a new alliance in Denmark. SIAD and a few other like minded groups are getting organised in Denmark. According to the SIAD Danish blog, a new alliance is being formed out of similar groups with one common theme. The counter-jihad movement.
Anti-jihad Danmark (SIAD, Nationale Danskere, I Media, Frit DK og Frie Danske Nationalister) are organising their first demonstration in Aalborg in Northern Jutland on the 12th of May.

The SIAD Danish website can be found on the blogroll to the right of this page.

One to Watch…!

We were contacted by one of our readers who suggested we link to this little gem that he found on “liveLeak”.

Follow the link and sit back and watch.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=418_1176494781

This is known as “getting it off your chest”!

The Death of Democracy.

This dreadful piece of legislation is due to be discussed and adopted as European Law. It will in effect, give the Euro thought police the right to prosecute and imprison or otherwise punish you for merely thinking, or daring to think, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. It will also be illegal to publish such thoughts in any country within Europe.

Council Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.

Racism and xenophobia are direct violations of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles upon which the European Union is founded and which are common to the Member States.

We would dare to argue, that the above statement is directly contrary to our right to freedom of speech, expression and thought. The implication in the legislation is, that by merely saying that one would not be prepared to accept Islam in any form, one is a criminal and may be tried by not only the courts in ones country of residence, but also in a court superceding that of ones country. In other words, if your country is unwilling to prosecute, then the mighty EU can. Freely and without discourse.
Citizens, welcome to the totalitarian EU!
The simple truth is, that no-one can stop this. It was formulated by a social democratic EU, it will discussed by the same people and it will be approved by them. We have no means of stopping this. The EU has effectively built a system where no opposition is present in the halls of the EU lawmakers. Democracy is a thing of the past.

Read the following and weep. Our democratic freedom just died.

Article 1

Offences concerning racism and xenophobia

1. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable:

(a) publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin;

(b) the commission of an act referred to in point a) by public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material;

(c) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group;

(d) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.

1a. For the purpose of paragraph 1 Member States may choose to punish only conduct which is either carried out in a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting.

1b. For the purpose of paragraph 1, the reference to religion is intended to cover, at least, conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.

2. Any Member State may, at the time of the adoption of this Framework Decision by the Council, make a statement that it will make denying or grossly trivialising the crimes referred to in paragraph 1(c) and/or (d) punishable only if the crimes referred to in these paragraphs have been established by a final decision of a national court of this Member State and/or an international court or by a final decision of an international court only.

Article 2

Instigation, aiding and abetting

1. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that aiding and abetting in the commission of the conduct referred to in Article 1 is punishable.

2. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that instigating the conduct referred to in Article 1(c) and (d) is punishable.

Article 3

Sanctions

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 1 and 2 is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties.
2. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the conduct referred to in Article 1 is punishable by criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between 1 and 3 years of imprisonment.

Article 4

Racist and xenophobic motivation

For offences other than those referred to in Articles 1 and 2, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that racist and xenophobic motivation is considered an aggravating factor, or, alternatively that such motivation may be taken into consideration by the courts in the determination of the penalties.

Article 5

Liability of legal persons

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons can be held liable for the conduct referred to in Articles 1 and 2, committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, who has a leading position within the legal person, based on:

(a) a power of representation of the legal person, or

(b) an authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person, or

(c) an authority to exercise control within the legal person.

2. Apart from the cases already provided for in paragraph 1, each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person can be held liable where the lack of supervision or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1 has made possible the commission of the conduct referred to in Articles 1 and 2 for the benefit of that legal person by a person under its authority.

3. Liability of a legal person under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons who are perpetrators or accessories in the conduct referred to in Articles 1 and 2.

4. “Legal person” means any entity having such status under the applicable national law, except for States or other public bodies in the exercise of State authority and for public international organisations.

Article 6

Sanctions for legal persons

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 5(1) is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions, such as:

(a) exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid;

(b) temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities;

(c) placing under judicial supervision;

(d) a judicial winding-up order.

2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 5(2) is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions or measures.

Article 7

Constitutional rules and fundamental principles

1. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles, including freedom of expression and association, as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty establishing the European Union.

2. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of requiring Member States to take measures in contradiction to […] fundamental principles relating to freedom of association and freedom of expression, in particular freedom of the press and the freedom of expression in other media as they result from […] constitutional traditions or rules governing the rights and responsibilities of, and the procedural guarantees for, the press or other media where these rules relate to the determination or limitation of liability.

Article 8

Scope of criminal liability

[…] Conveniently omitted.

Article 9

Initiation of prosecutions

Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that investigations into or prosecution of conduct referred to in Articles 1 and 2 shall not be dependent on the report or accusation made by a victim of the conduct, at least in the most serious cases where the conduct has been committed in its territory.

Article 10

Jurisdiction

1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction with regard to the conduct referred to in Articles 1 and 2 where the conduct has been committed:
(a) in whole or in part within its territory; or
(b) by one of its nationals; or
(c) for the benefit of a legal person that has its head office in the territory of that Member State.
2. When establishing jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 1(a), each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that its jurisdiction extends to cases where the conduct is committed through an information system and:
(a) the offender commits the conduct when physically present in its territory, whether or not the conduct involves material hosted on an information system in its territory;
(b) the conduct involves material hosted on an information system in its territory, whether or not the offender commits the conduct when physically present in its territory.
4. A Member State may decide not to apply, or to apply only in specific cases or circumstances, the jurisdiction rule set out in paragraphs 1(b) and (c).

Article 11

Implementation

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Framework Decision by

1. Two years after adoption of this Framework Decision.

2. By the same date Member States shall transmit to the General Secretariat of the Council and to the Commission the text of any provisions transposing into their national legislation the obligations imposed on them under this Framework Decision. By […]1 at the latest on the basis of a report drawn up on the basis of this information and a written report from the Commission, the Council shall assess whether Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with this Framework Decision.

3. Before the expiry of three years after the deadline referred to in Article 11(1), the Council shall review this Framework Decision. For the preparation of this review, the Council shall ask Member States whether they have experienced difficulties in judicial cooperation with regard to the offences under Article 1 paragraph 1. In addition, the Council may request Eurojust to submit a report, on whether differences between national legislations have resulted in any problems regarding judicial cooperation between the Member States in this area.

Article 12

Repeal of Joint Action 96/443/JHA
The Joint Action 96/443/JHA is hereby repealed.

Article 13

Territorial application

This Framework Decision shall apply to Gibraltar.

1 Five years after adoption of this Framework Decision.

Article 14

Entry into force

This Framework Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal
of the European Union.

Done at Brussels,
For the Council
The President

This is why we have to meet in Brussels to protest against the further erosion of our rights as citizens in the EU. This has gone too far. Enough is enough, and was enough already long ago.

Guest Post from Sweden.

The SIOE sitemaster was contacted by a concerned citizen in Sweden wishing to have the following information published anonymously on the blog. His name and e-mail are known to SIOE but he specifically asked that we protect his identity. This, of course, will be respected. Here is his posting through SIOE.

Sir,
Some weeks ago, a collegue of mine - No Sharia - also living in Sweden, published an article at Islam Watch about the detailed policy regarding integration or assimilation of muslim immigrants in Europe. One of the answers was: zero tolerance of Sharia laws. His opinion is that we now know enough about islam to formulate a detailed, practical and effective policy that will keep Europe free for the next few hundred years. He hopes that the article will start a debate regarding the detailed and concrete rules that must be instituted in every free country:

http://www.islam-watch.org

One aim of the first article in the series was to give a prognosis of the political development in European countries, if the on-going islamization process is not interrupted. The conclusion of that analysisis is that the islamists´dreams about a peaceful transition to Eurabia is a complete illusion. What we will experience in the future in European countries is an ever increasing level of violence interrupted by spikes of violent cruelty. Civil strife and in the end civil war in some countries, if the islamization process is not stopped, is the outcome according to his theory. For each month that passes now, that prognosis will be more and more validated:

Article 1

Another one of his articles describes a model that can be used when a government wants to stop the process:

Article 2

Besides formulating an integrated approach to prevent islamization, he has also written about three areas of the model and about which rules and laws we shall have there.
One can find all articles at: http://www.islam-watch.org

I hope that you find his articles of interest for your work.

Living in a part of a Scandinavian city with a majority of islamic immigrants, I hope that you will help me to keep my anonymity.

Many regards,

(Name removed at authors request.)
Stockholm
Sweden

The links provided show articles treating the political, social and religious aspects of dealing with Islamisation. It is worthwhile reading the articles and they provide us with a possible method of ridding ourselves of further encroachment on our rights, values and ideals. Our thanks to this tipster.
Follow the links at your leisure.

---

Note:If you have an article that you would like to publish at this blog, other than comments to posts, you may like to read the “Publish Here” page in the upper menu on this blog. The rules for submitting articles to this blog are to be found there.
Sitemaster.

Saturday Night’s Alright…

A remarkable coincidence. The same evening that we held the UK Scandinavian Summit, a different kind of party was going on in the streets of Rosengaarden in Malmö, Sweden. One member of the Swedish group, Ted Ekeroth, returned home to be greeted by the following events (as he describes them) from his hometown area. Now we understand why this young man is so passionate about what he is doing. Here is his report:

Riots and stonethrowing in Malmo.

On the 14th of April the Swedish police were subject to stonethrowing in the southern city of Malmö (third largest in Sweden). A large gang attacked the police who were filing a police report regarding a man with a sword. The gang, mostly younger people, then started the stonethrowing. At one point, the police backed off (sic!) to “calm the situation down” but, of course, that did not work.

The gang was soon reinforced by more people, and at around 20:30 they numbered approximately 15 persons in the lower teens. Stones, eggs and bottles were thrown at the police. A warehouse was set on fire and when the fire department got to the scene, they too were attacked with stones. Quote from the fire department:
“Because of this [the stonethrowing, edit.] and due to the current violence and disturbances in the area the rescue service will wait for police backup before we enter the area…”

At 23:00 there were two storage facilities that were burning. The fire department went near the scene, waited for a large police force and then put the fire out. Again, the stonethrowing started. No one was hurt, and no arrests were made.

One hour later yet another storage unit was set on fire. Again, the fire department waited for police backup and due to the stall they had to bring in additional fire units.

A store nearby was also subject to stonethrowing and the police were called in. Again they were attacked. No arrests were made.

Please visit the newspaper “Sydsvenska Dagbladet”, the largest newspaper in the south of Sweden. On this website you can find the article that I have copied the information from. Please note that last picture: the “youngsters”, as they keep referring to, are all immigrants. The area in question is a highly dense immigration area. The area is called “Rosengård” and Fox News did a story regarding Malmo and Rosengård some time ago.
—————————-

The riots in Malmo continue.

Rosengård, an area with a very high immigration population, is yet again on the frontpage as the riots from Saturday continues. On Sunday several storage facilities were set ablaze but the most disturbing thing was that a 17 year old boy was brutally assaulted by a group of 6 “youths” (as described in the local newspaper) that beat him so severely that he is now being treated in intesive care in Lund Hospital.

The assault took place at 20:30 when two boys were on their way home from soccer practice. The gang concentrated on the 17 year old and his friend got away to alert the police. When the police arrived at the scene they found the boy laying on the ground with wounds to his head. According to the friend who got away the attackers were unknown to them which indicates that this is random unprovoked act of violence.

The boy, in critical condition, is sedated and is on life support in a respirator.

The police have made no arrests and the motive is unknown.

A frightening glimpse of a Saturday night´s entertainment in Malmö. We have to stop this.

---

The UK and Scandinavia Counterjihad Summit

After six weeks of intensive planning and organisation, hundreds of e-mails and hours of work, the UK-Scandinavian counterjihad summit was finally held in Copenhagen. Despite a few minor setbacks with some of the main participants the summit was a great success. Representatives from SIAD, SIOE, The910 Group, TheCentre for Vigilant Freedom and FOMI (from Sweden) met with bloggers to determine a course of coordination between publicity and political intent.
Others from the meeting have blogged it as well, if not better, as can be done here. Therefore, we will supply the links and you can read all about it.
This meeting was crucial. It was necessary. It may yet define the resistance to Islamisation. It will not be the last of such gatherings.

Gates of Vienna: The UK and Scandinavia Counterjihad Summit

Beer & Sandwiches: UK and Scandinavia Counter Jihad Summit

Exile on the Wing: UK and Scandinavia Counterjihad Summit

Gates of Vienna: A Few Reports Trickle in…

Snaphanen: En Baron Vågner (A baron awakens) with pictures

SIAD Blog: UK and Scandinavia Counterjihad Summit. (Including Anders Gravers’ Speech)

Mitt Sverige: The US, UK and Scandinavian Counterjihad Summit (In Swedish)

The New Zonka Blog: UK Scandinavian summit in Copenhagen

---

Cross Posting.

The following article is cross-posted from “On the Wing”, written by “Exile”.

Know Thine Enemy. He is Called “Islam”.

I stumbled upon an article from Greg Lewis, at www.newmediajournal.us, today. His ruminations on the present world wide upheaval caused by Islamic militancy and terrorism started me thinking.
I am, like most others of my fellow western people, used to thinking in terms of countries and nations. We communicate through diplomats and politicians with our neighbouring lands and come to a cohesive style of living together, or making war upon each other, land for land. We can single out one nation, or a collection of nations as being either friend or foe. We think in terms of people and government on a national basis. Each country has, to some greater or lesser degree, its own military to guarantee its survival and protect what others have invested in terms of money and industry within its borders. At times these armed echelons are needed to protect the interests of these individual lands. Not all the people, within each individual nation, belong to the armed segment of the population. This vast majority are what we call “the civilians”. The few that are charged with keeping the land secure are called “the armed forces”. At present the armed forces of several lands are deployed into what are, for them, foreign countries, to stabilise the situation within those lands and assist a faltering or fledgeling government, or governments, in building a stable and lawfully ruled society. Strangely, these lands are predominantly Islamic by tradition. We are in these lands because, at some point, citizens of these lands have attacked us in some way and our retaliation has brought about the collapse of their original government. I say citizens and not armed forces because these lands have never declared war on us as a land or state, but simply allowed their people, their citizens, to arm themselves and bring destruction to our lands. That many lands are involved in this undeclared war between “us” and “them” leads me to conclude that there is some collusion between the lands that allow their citizens to attack our way of life and our property. There is therefore, a higher level of authority than simple government and politics. A higher purpose is at work. Greg Lewis sums it up like this:

The time has come to consider, not whether it is Islamo-fascists who are waging war against the United States and Israel, but rather whether it is Islam itself that is waging war against us. Indeed, while Islamist terrorists are numerically a relatively small segment of Islam, there are so few Muslim voices being raised even against the most heinous atrocities the Islamists commit that it is not inaccurate to say that Muslims in general desire the fall of the west at the hands of their terrorist forces.

I would take Mr. Lewis to task on his idea of who it is that Islam is attacking. It is not merely the US and Israel. It is everything western. Everything and anything other than Islam. However, I agree with him on the broader aspects of his article.
The “numerically small segment” that he refers to, represents the equivalent of the numerically small segment of our individual countries which we each call our “armed forces”.
The vast majority, are merely civilians. So it is with Islam. We have to broaden the picture here. When state makes war on state the civilians tend to polarise and support their own forces. They do not speak out against their troops who are, after all is said and done, protecting their interests, way of life and property. Or so they believe. Even if their land is the aggressor. This is also true of Islam. No single country has declared war on us. The whole of Islam has.
Islam is not a state. It is not a country. It is made up of a coalition of peoples. They are not united by the terms of government or borders or states. Their politics are dictated by religious beliefs and a handful of religious leaders. But they do regard themselves as one people. One Ummah. It is that one people that is allowing their armed forces to attack us and they collectively wish for our destruction. And the hugely overwhelming majority of their civilains are behind them. There are few dissenters.
They see us as one people too. Westerners. The infidels. The enemy.

Islam has found our weakness. We see ourselves as a collection of individual lands, each with its own people. Not as one common enemy of Islam. They can attack one land and claim not to be attacking the rest of us. We agree. What happened in London, happened in England. What happened in Madrid, happened in Spain. Not in “The West”. Meanwhile, our political leaders cannot even agree amongst themselves as to whom our enemy really is, or what we should call him. They do not collectively acknowledge that we are at war.

That internal division in “The West” may yet prove to be our downfall.

Links: Greg Lewis’ article.

Dear UNHRC…

Following up on our post on the resolution from the UNHRC on religious freedom, we found a letter from (and posted on his website by) Michiel Mans in Holland. He decided to write to both the OIC (The Organization of The Islamic Conference) and the UNHRC “congratulating” them on the resolution and the effects this resolution may have.

On reading his letter, we can see he raises such points, that if the freedom of religion is to be practised by all countries, including those that voted for the resolution, how long will it be before christians will be allowed to worship freely in muslim countries? When will muslims be allowed to freely leave the religion of peace, if so desired, without the threat of a death sentence?

He writes, quote;

Does this mean that e.g. Christians in Islamic countries like Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia and many others, will now be able to worship openly, carry bibles in public or build churches? Can I express my atheist views freely now in predominantly Islamic countries?

If anyone would like place bets on that, then don’t bet too heavily. It is a losing proposition. Mr. Mans has grasped the nettle here, realising that the UNHRC’s resolution has nothing to do with religious freedom in the Middle East. It is designed purely to limit our freedom of speech. We in the west will probably follow the line set by the UNHRC. The Middle East and Islamic countries will not. This is the usual practise and is further evidence of Islamisation on a global scale. We will be expected to respect and follow the principles mentioned in the resolution but the UNHRC, or indeed the UN, will do nothing to pressure the muslim elements in the world to do likewise. There will be no Christian churches in Saudi Arabia.
We have no idea as to whether or not Mr. Mans has received a reply from either party. Follow the link below to read the entire text of the letter.

---

Link: Michiel Mans’ letter.
Tip: Gates of Vienna.

The UN Human Rights Council. More “Newspeak”.

The UN has its own version of what global human rights should be. They are not afraid to let the rest of us know what they find acceptable or not and we are supposed to follow blindly along, nodding our heads in full agreement. One of the most valued organs within the UN is the Human Rights Council. They too have their version of what is right and wrong. On the 30th March 2007 the council adopted a resolution which reflects the recent moves by the EU to prevent the calling of islamic terrorists by the proper name. Islamic terrorists. Not content with the EU going dumb, they apparently want the rest of the world to follow suit. Here is the extract from that resolution:

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 30 March 2007

Action on Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions.

In a resolution (A/HRC/4/L.12) on Combating defamation of religions, adopted by a vote of 24 in favour, 14 against, and nine abstentions, as orally amended, the Council expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations; notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination including through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence; also urges States to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance; further urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided; invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to regularly report on all manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights; and requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Human Rights Council on the implementation of this resolution at its sixth session.

Clearly, a bid to prevent the excercising of our right to freedom of speech. The UN seems to have a problem with calling a spade a spade. We are not allowed to combine the words “Islam” and “Terrorist”. A clear signal that there are things we must not say for fear of insulting the muslims. And since it is they, the muslims, that decide what is insulting and what isn’t, and that their level of tolerance is, as we know, very low indeed, this can only cause problems when the discussion comes round to terrorism. Indeed, it is an attempt to quash any discussion concerning islamism, the fascist pendant to Islam.

The voting was hardly surprising either.

In favour (24): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.

Against (14): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (9): Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Peru, Uruguay and Zambia.

The “nay-sayers” are interesting. France, Great Britain, Netherlands. Three countries suffering under creeping Islamism. They are normally considered as being tolerant countries and they voted “No”? Is this a sign of beginning resistance to Islam?

That the muslim lands voted for the resolution is certainly no surprise. The surprise is that Russia, China and Cuba voted for it, having no real feelings for the muslim faith.
They are however totalitarian states. Any attempt at free speech in these countries is already a thing of the past, so this may only further their domestic interests.
Freedom of speech is the enemy of dictatorships.

And so, if for no other reason, we must fight this trend to the end. Terror in the name of Islam is Islamic terrorism. Jihad is a war against the west. The war is being carried out by Islamic terrorists. Islamofascists.

Let us vigourously defend our right to call things by the proper name and damn the UN Human Rights Council for its cowardice.

Link: Resolution text.

EU Newspeak. More Islamisation.

Our attention has been brought to an article on the Brussels Journal website concerning new moves by the EU parliament to further restrict our freedom of speech. Or at least, the freedom of speech for EU ministers and civil servants. The EU is currently working on a secret handbook which replaces certain words or phrases when discussing terrorism or terrorists. The article first appeared in The Daily Telegraph in Great Britain. Quote:

“The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements. Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers ‘non-offensive’ phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks. Banned terms are said to include ‘Jihad’, ‘Islamic’ or ‘fundamentalist’.”

So what are we to call Islamic fundamentalists in the future? What new name must we use for Islamofascism? For Jihad? The EU is now openly afraid to confront terrorism on its own doorstep. By pandering to pressure from Islamists they are now inventing “Newspeak” to quell the rising awareness of the Islamic Jihad that is slowly destroying the European continent and eroding our hard won civil rights. Rights that our parents fought hard and long for.

The article in the Daily Telegraph continues;

The word “jihad” is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life. One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term “Islamic terrorism” to be replaced by “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam”. An EU official said that the secret guidebook, or, “common lexicon”, is aimed at preventing the distortion of the Muslim faith and the alienation of Muslims in Europe. “The common lexicon includes guidance on a number of frequently used terms where lack of care by EU and member states’ spokespeople may give rise to misunderstandings,” he said.

The only distortion of the Islamic faith is the present distortion we are seeing from the EU parliament. The Islamic faith is not the religion of peace. It is a warrior code invented by Mohammed when he began his campaign of destruction in his own neighbourhhood. It has remained so since and is still being practised today. Not recognising that is not merely naive, it is also very dangerous.

Equally dangerous is the dumbing-down of the general public by the EU politicians. One of them dares to stand up to the plate:

Meanwhile, UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten claimed that the EU was in denial over the true roots of terrorism.
“This type of newspeak shows that the EU refuses to face reality,” he said. “The major world terrorist threat is one posed by ideology and that ideology is inspired by fundamentalist jihadi Islam.”

And so say all of us. No amount of lingual manipulation can change that simple undeniable fact. Well said, Mr. Batten.