Geert Wilders movie released

Watch here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

Boycott Islamic countries and Islamic produce

 

A boycott of Danish goods is taking place across the so-called “Islamic world” in response to the “offensive” cartoons of the self-styled prophet/apostle Mohammed.

Below is a list of countries where muslims form the majority.

Unfortunately, Albania and the self-proclaimed “independent” state of Kosovo are within the geographic borders of Europe.

Fortunately, the rest of the countries in Europe are not oppressed by sharia law or controlled by islamist clerics and other islamists. At least not for the moment, although it would seem that our politicians and non-muslim religious leaders are trying their best to make Europe part of the worldwide Kalifate.

Kalifascists are attempting to suppress free speech in Europe with the connivance of politicians and non-muslim religious leaders.

Cartoons are harmless unless they portray child abuse or condone violence.

Individual people are open to ridicule and criticism in articles and cartoons. Every day politicians and religious figures are the subject of satirical caricature. They may be offended – so what?

If a politician or religious leader pompously called for a newspaper to be boycotted for publishing cartoons of him/her, then he/she would immediately become the subject of thousands of cartoons trashing his/her demand for a boycott.

However, islamic countries have boycotted Danish produce due to an individual being satirised.

BOYCOTTS WORK IN BOTH DIRECTIONS!!

Therefore, print out the list below of islamic countries and make it part of your shopping list.

Look at where produce comes from and if it is from one of the countries on this list

DO NOT BUY IT – RETURN IT TO THE SHELF!

Tell the store manager you will not buy produce from any of the countries on your list.

Send your list to supermarket complaints departments saying you are boycotting produce from them and demand that the supermarket concerned does not import from these countries.

WRITE TO STORES, POLITICIANS AND RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND TELL THEM YOU SUPPORT DENMARK AND FREE SPEECH AND ARE BOYCOTTING ISLAMIC COUNTRIES!

DO NOT TAKE YOUR VACATION/HOLIDAY IN ANY OF THESE COUNTRIES ON THE ISLAMIC BOYCOTT LIST!

INSTEAD TAKE YOUR VACATION/HOLIDAY IN DENMARK!

Your future depends on this action and future action against islamism.

BOYCOTT THESE COUNTRIES AND ANYTHING FROM THESE COUNTRIES (it is an easy thing to do)

Afghanistan                         Guinea Bissau                       Oman
Albania                                Indonesia                              Pakistan
Algeria                                 Iran                                       Palestine
Azerbaijan                           Iraq                                       Qatar
Bahrain                                Jordan                                   Saudi Arabia
Bangladesh                          Kazakhstan                           Senegal
Benin                                    Kosovo                                  Sierra Leone
Brunei Darussalam              Kuwait                                   Somalia
Burkina Faso                        Kyrgyzstan                            Sudan
Cameroon                            Lebanon                                Syrian AR
Chad                                    Libya                                      Tajikistan
Comoros                              Malaysia                                Tunisia
Djibouti                               Maldives                                 Turkey
Egypt                                  Mali                                         Turkmenistan   
Gabon                                 Mauritania                              United Arab Emirates
Gambia                               Morocco                                  Uzbekistan
Guinea                                Niger                                        Yemen
                                           Nigeria                                     

Danish minister invites Ayaan Hirsi Ali to live in Denmark

      

Danish minister of Cultural Affairs Brian Mikkelsen (Conservaties) sends a request to the country’s municipalities about inviting the Somalian-born author Ayaan Hirsi Ali to live in Denmark.

Read from SIADs blog: http://siad.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/danish-minister-invites-ayaan-hirsi-ali-to-live-in-denmark/

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.

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.

The Berlin Declaration:

The Berlin Declaration. Read it and weep.

Europe was for centuries an Idea, a hope for freedom and understanding. This hope has been fulfilled. European unity has enabled us to live in peace and prosperity. It has created a community and overcome differences. Every member has helped to unite Europe and to strengthen democracy, the rule of law. We have to thank the love of freedom of the people of central and eastern Europe that Europe’s unnatural divisions are today finally overcome. With European unity, we have learned the lessons from our bloody conflicts and painful history. We live today together in a way that was never previously possible. We citizens of the European Union are united in our good fortune.

Section 1

In the European Union we realise our common ideals: for us the individual is central. His dignity is inviolable. His rights are inalienable. Women and men have equal rights. We strive for peace and freedom, for democracy and the rule of law, for mutual respect and responsibility, for prosperity and security, for tolerance and participation, justice and solidarity. We live and function together in the European Union in a unique way. This expresses itself in the democratic co-operation of member states and European institutions. The European Union is based on equal rights and solidarity. That is how we make possible a fair balance of interests between the member states. We uphold in the European Union the individuality and the diverse traditions of its members. The open frontiers and the lively diversity of languages, cultures and regions enrich us. Many goals cannot be achieved independently but only through common action. The European Union, the member states and their regions and local communities share these tasks.

Section 2

We face great challenges which cannot be confined to national frontiers. The European Union is our answer to them. Only together can we preserve our European social model in the future to the benefit of all citizens in the European Union. This European model unites economic success and social responsibility. The common market and the euro make us strong.

That is how we can shape the increasing worldwide interdependency of the economy and ever expanding competition on international markets according to our values. Europe’s wealth lies in the knowledge and abilities of its people; this is the key to growth, employment and social cohesion. We will jointly fight terrorism and organised crime. We will also defend our freedom and civil rights against their enemies. Racism and xenophobia must never again be given their chance. We will act to ensure that conflicts in the world are solved peacefully and that people do not become victims of war, terrorism or violence.

The European Union will promote freedom and development in the world. We want to push back poverty, hunger and disease. In doing so, we will continue to play a leading role. In energy policy and protection of the climate we want to go forward together and make our contribution to heading off the global threat of climate change.

Section 3

The European Union will continue to live in the future on the basis of its openness and the will of its members to strengthen together the inner development of the European Union. The European Union will continue to promote democracy, stability and prosperity beyond its frontiers. European unity has made reality out of a dream nurtured by earlier generations. Our history warns us that we have to protect this good fortune for future generations. We must continue to renew and update the political shape of Europe. That is why, 50 years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome, we are today united in the goal of achieving a renewed common foundation for the European Union before the elections to the European Parliament in 2009.

Because we know: Europe is our common future.

Then please, answer us this:

“We will also defend our freedom and civil rights against their enemies.”
How? By eradicating our rights to freedom of speech and that of the press? By allowing only selected groups to demonstrate while denying others?

“Racism and xenophobia must never again be given their chance.”
Then why have they not addressed the racism that exists in the muslim community? The belief that they are superior to us? The belief that all other than muslims are secondary? That Islam is the only way?
Until they do that, they are not representing us.

“The European Union will continue to promote democracy”.
How? By admitting the enemies of democracy into our midst?

Finally: The opening statement…
“Europe was for centuries an idea, a hope for freedom and understanding. This hope has been fulfilled.”
And having achieved that, we are now allowing it to be destroyed from within by forces from without.

Actions speak far louder than words. Talk and declarations are cheap.

The newest blog on the block.

Well, at least for the moment!

This blog is intended to spread the word, that we, the silent, the uncomplaining and now finally the impatient, have lost faith in our politicians and need to start our own resistance to the creeping islamisation of Europe.

This site has been created on the initiative of SIAD, the organisation to stop the islamisation of Denmark.  Through it, we will publicise our thoughts and opinions and tell you things that the mainstream media dare not.

Welcome here.