The EU Constitution is Dead. Long Live the EU Constitution.

If you thought the idea of a European Constitution was dead, then think again. The constitution as such was blackballed by Holland and France, or perhaps more correctly, by the Dutch and French citizens. The Eurocrats, however, didn’t take that lying down. Determined to have their constitution, they have been busy seeking ways to improvise and eventually have their way. They have found the means to do this during the last two years.
Having been forced to abandon the constitution as a single document they will now reform the existing treaties that legalise the European Union and by using the back door, we will have a constitution. It will now be called a Treaty, and be dictated by two documents instead of one. The beauty of this is, that we, the people, need never be asked to vote on this in a referendum and that the Eurocrats merely need to approve the necessary ammendments to the existing ratified and accepted treaties.
The whole process is to be termed “The Treaty Reform Process” and there is nothing that the citizens of Europe can do to stop it.
We are to be governed. Not consulted.
The following is an extract from the EU commission (in PDF form at this link):

TREATY REFORM PROCESS

The European Council agrees that, after two years of uncertainty over the Union’s treatyreform process, the time has come to resolve the issue and for the Union to move on. The period of reflection has provided the opportunity in the meantime for wide public debate and helped prepare the ground for a solution.

Against this background, the European Council welcomes the report drawn up by the Presidency (doc.10659/07) following the mandate given to it in June 2006, and agrees that settling this issue quickly is a priority.

To this end the European Council agrees to convene an Intergovernmental Conference and invites the Presidency without delay to take the necessary steps in accordance with Article 48 of the TUE, with the objective of opening the IGC before the end of July as soon as the legal requirements have been met.

The IGC will carry out its work in accordance with the mandate set out in Annex I to these conclusions. The European Council invites the incoming Presidency to draw up a draft Treaty text in line with the terms of the mandate and to submit this to the IGC as soon as it opens.

The IGC will complete its work as quickly as possible, and in any case before the end of 2007, so as to allow for sufficient time to ratify the resulting Treaty before the European Parliament elections in June 2009.

Notice please, “before the EP elections in 2009″ and also notice please, allowing “sufficient time for ratification”, not “putting to referendum”. The mandate for the Intergovernmental Conference is put simply below and is again extracted from the PDF file:

DRAFT IGC MANDATE
The present mandate will provide the exclusive basis and framework for the work of the IGC that will be convened according to paragraph 10 of the European Council conclusions.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

The IGC is asked to draw up a Treaty (hereinafter called “Reform Treaty”) amending the existing Treaties with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the enlarged Union, as well as the coherence of its external action. The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing Treaties and replacing them by a single text called “Constitution”, is abandoned. The Reform Treaty will introduce into the existing Treaties, which remain in force, the innovations resulting from the 2004 IGC, as set out below in a detailed fashion.

The Reform Treaty will contain two substantive clauses amending respectively the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty establishing the European Community. (TEC). The TEU will keep its present name and the TEC will be called Treaty on the Functioning of the Union, the Union having a single legal personality. The word “Community” will throughout be replaced by the word “Union”; it will be stated that the two Treaties constitute the Treaties on which the Union is founded and that the Union replaces and succeeds the Community. Further clauses will contain the usual provisions on ratification and entry into force as well as transitional arrangements. Technical amendments to the Euratom Treaty and to the existing Protocols, as agreed in the 2004 IGC, will be done via Protocols attached to the Reform Treaty.

The TEU and the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union will not have a constitutional character. The terminology used throughout the Treaties will reflect this change: the term “Constitution” will not be used, the “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs” will be called High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the denominations “law” and “framework law” will be abandoned, the existing denominations “regulations”, “directives” and “decisions” being retained. Likewise, there will be no article in the amended Treaties mentioning the symbols of the EU such as the flag, the anthem or the motto. Concerning the primacy of EU law, the IGC will adopt a Declaration recalling the existing case law of the EU Court of Justice.

As far as the content of the amendments to the existing Treaties is concerned, the innovations resulting from the 2004 IGC will be integrated into the TEU and the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union, as specified in this mandate. Modifications to these innovations introduced as a result of the consultations held with the Member States over the past 6 months are clearly indicated below. They concern in particular the respective competences of the EU and the Member States and their delimitation, the specific nature of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the enhanced role of national parliaments, the treatment of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and a mechanism, in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, enabling Member States to go forward on a given act while allowing others not to participate.

The 2004 IGC is what gave us the rejected constitution. It is therefore remarkable that “the innovations resulting from the 2004 IGC will be integrated into the TEU and the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union”. Surely, it was those innovations that were rejected by the Dutch and the French?
The final and most worrying part of all this is the simple statement found later in the document, quote:

“The innovations as agreed in the 2004 IGC will be inserted into the Treaty by way of specific modifications in the usual manner.”

Which basically means, they vote, you don’t.

Democracy is dead.

Terminology:
TEU: Treaty on the European Union.
TEC: Treaty establishing the European Community.
IGC: Intergovernmental Conference

Link: PDF file, EU Commission.

Why Terrorists Own Islam

Reader and commentator Stefcho has asked us to publish the following article:

---

Moderate Muslims are faced by a dilemma. One the one hand they consider themselves Muslims, but on the other they are faced with the Qur’an – the highest authority in Islam - which justifies intolerance towards other religions and war against non-believers. For example, Islamists often quote the following verse of the Qur’an:

God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers in return for the Garden (Heaven) - they fight in Holy war: they kill and are killed - this is the true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an.” Qur’an 9:111

Now moderates say that such verses are historic and no longer apply. But notice that they do not reject such verses outright. In fact, unlike Westerners, Islamists know very well that moderate Muslims cannot, and will not, be seen to reject or “cherry-pick” any part of the Qur’an. Why? Because the Qur’an is believed by all Muslims to be the direct, unmediated words dictated from Allah to Muhammad. The Qur’an, and the violent example of the Prophet Muhammad himself, leave moderate Muslims powerless to counter extremism. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. For example, a moderate Muslim might want to accept the notion that all religions should be treated equally. Unfortunately, they cannot because the Qur’an states that:

It is He (Allah) who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to show that it is above all other religions, however much the idolaters may hate this. Qur’an 9:38

And, if a Muslim rejects any part of the Qur’an then they open themselves to being condemned as non-believers. For, as the Qur’an states:

… those who desire to make a distinction between Allah and His Messenger and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and desire to take a course between this and that. These are truly unbelievers, and we have prepared for the unbelievers a disgraceful chastisement. Qur’an 4:150

And if that is not clear enough…

… believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in a part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so, save ignominy in the life of the world, and will be consigned to the most grievous doom in the next. Qur’an 2:85

For a Muslim, there is nothing worse than being a non-believer; for such people are consigned to hell for eternity. Furthermore, their own family is likely to reject them:

Believers, do not take your fathers and brothers as allies if they prefer disbelief to faith: those of you who do so are doing wrong. Qur’an 9:23

Hence, when Islamic terrorists quote freely from the Qur’an, the only solution for moderate Muslims is silence (or denying there is a problem). They cannot reject any of the violence, intolerant or barbaric verses of the Qur’an, since doing so opens them to claims of heresy. And this is why, where Islam is concerned, Islamists speak with the authority of the Qur’an, whilst moderates are consigned to nervously avoiding a plethora of verbal landmines they wish were not there.

My final point is this. Wherever there is Islam, there is the potential for intolerance and violence justified by religion. Even if, as in modern, there are more moderates than fanatics – the potential for using Islam to justify violence will always be present. Islam cannot compromise - which is why it should be banned.

---

This chap has certainly understood the problem. Banning Islam is, unfortunately, impossible. But it must be moderated to comply with modernity and our laws must not be changed merely to accomodate it. Getting Islam into the twenty first century will not be easy and will be opposed by those who cannot distance themselves from fundamentalist ideals. It is Islam that must change. Not the western world.
Our thanks to Stefcho for his input.

Brussels Demo: Clarification on Last Posted Update.

There has arisen a little confusion as to what information we must supply to the Belgian Police. They require the names of country coordinators and, possibly, the names of stewards. They do not require the names of every participant! (Impossible task!)

This is for identification purposes only and is to help the Police when dealing with coordinators or stewards, so that no person may be allowed to impersonate stewards or country coordinators. It is not a registration. It is for our protection.

Anyone wishing to participate is encouraged to contact sioe@siad.dk for more information and for eventual contact to country coordinators.

There is a video available on this link. Watch at your leisure.

Brussels Demo:- Update.

After a lengthy process of application, we are now working with the Brussels police to assemble the demonstration. The police require us to furnish them with the following details:

Coordinators from each individual country. (Names.)
Stewards for each country. (1 steward for every 50 participants. Names.)
Method of transportation to Brussels from each country.

The formal process of demonstration is decided by our provision of these details. If we can show a clear organisation for the event, then we will be allowed to demonstrate freely in Brussels. The police are, of course, responsible for the security necessary for the event. Basically, we have our permission, we merely have to follow the formal procedure outlined above.

This then, is an appeal for all interested parties to get involved. We have representatives from Denmark, Norway, Germany, and the UK. We have possible candidates for Sweden.

If you wish to be involved in the organisation of this demo either as a coordinator, steward or press officer then contact sioe@siad.dk stating your interest. You can also sign up for the demo at this e-mail address, whereafter you will be directed to your country coordinator.

The demonstration is now a reality. Everyone wishing to join us under the banner of Stop Islamisering of Europe is welcome to join in.
Now is the time for action.

The following is a press release which will be sent out to the various country coordinators for immediate release:

STOP ISLAMISATION OF EUROPE (SIOE) DEMONSTRATION 11th SEPTEMBER OUTSIDE THE EU PARLIAMENT.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
NO SHARIA HERE!
DEMOCRACY NOT THEOCRACY!

These are the rallying cries that people all over Europe are shouting far and wide to Islamists both within Europe and in other countries who seek to impose Sharia law upon European citizens.

It is not only to Muslims, who seek to expand Islam across the whole of Europe, that Europeans are saying “Enough” it is also to our politicians who connive with Islamists to establish Sharia law by stealth.

From building regulations to burial rights, the majority of Europe’s population is increasingly expected to adhere to Sharia law.

“Hate” laws now make it a crime to speak out against Islam even though it is just another totalitarian political system.

Our free speech, which has been gained over many centuries by defeating tyrannical regimes through many bloody wars, is now being removed solely to protect Muslims from being offended. Nobody has the right to not be offended.

SIOE is a Pan-European movement determined to not merely stopping the surreptitious Islamisation of Europe, but reversing it.

The first step in this reversal is a march comprising people, from many European countries, all demanding that all non-Islamic European nations remain non-Islamic and a halt to encroachment of Sharia law.

Anders Gravers (Founder of SIOE Denmark and leader of the political party SIAD) said: “We do not believe in the concept of ‘moderate Muslims’. The evidence points to Islam being the opposite of moderate. The heart of Sunni Islam is Saudi Arabia and the centre of Shia Islam is Iran. No rational person can describe these two countries as ‘moderate’; at least not when compared to European values. We now have children in Danish schools being forced to eat Halal meat so that Muslim pupils are not offended. What next? Are Danish women to be stoned to death for being raped as they are in Iran? Or are people to be beheaded for leaving Islam as they are in Saudi Arabia? No! We will not allow Europe to become a huge Saudi Arabia or Iran”

Dr. Udo Ulfkotte (Founder and president of the non-profit charity “Pax Europa”) said: “We clearly feel the pressure of Islamisation in Germany. German police and courts are more tolerant to Muslims than to non-Muslims. One of the highest German courts (Bundesgerichtshof) has just downgraded the punishment for Islamists who publicly declare and ask for violent Jihad in Europe. Unacceptably, some judges have quoted the Quran and not German law in court cases. Polygamy, once illegal in Germany, is now permitted only for Muslim men, who may even claim state benefits for their wives.

German life is changing to appease Muslims. For example, Christian crosses in our public institutions are being removed and there are separate swimming times for Muslims in supposedly public pools (which non-Muslims’ taxes pay for).

German Muslims demand a quota for “positive reports” from the German media, but they kick out the religious group Bahai from an inter-religious conference because they refuse to accept them within the “dialogue”.

All this was once described as hypocrisy, but is now actually promoted by our feeble politicians.

Stephen Gash (Founder of SIOE England) said: “Appeasement of Islamists has become ridiculous. Non-Muslims are expected to be buried facing Mecca and to sit on toilets facing away from Mecca because cemeteries and new homes have to conform to Muslim sensitivities. Toy pigs are banned from offices and Christmas lights must now be called ‘Winter Festival lights’ so as not to offend Muslims. None of these oppressive measures were even contemplated when Jews were the only ones who could possibly be offended by pigs and ‘Merry Christmas’.

Absurdly, to criticise Islam results in accusations of ‘racism’. Well, I’ve always considered racism as being the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia to be the height of common sense.”

Charlotte Westergaard (SIAD board member) said: “The biggest danger comes from our own politicians who promote Islamic values at the expense of our own values. The way things are going all European non-Muslim citizens will be paying the Jizzya tax to Muslims as they did during the days of the Ottoman Empire. Of course the politicians believe they will be exempt – until the local Imam knocks on their door.”

Anti-totalitarian stance of SIOE - http://sioe.wordpress.com/brussels-demo-2007
http://sioe.wordpress.com/ New website under construction
http://siad.wordpress.com/
http://siad.dk/ 15,500 hits per day average
http://akte-islam.de/1.html

Contacts:
Anders Gravers
SIAD and SIOE Denmark

New From “Islam Watch”.

Once again, our attention has been drawn to an article from islam-watch.org by a tipster who wishes to remain anonymous. Islam Watch is linked in our blogroll but we recommend you follow the link provided here to read the latest offering from this excellent blog. A lengthy article, but well worth reading.

Islam Watch.