A treat for those of you either living in Ottawa, or planning a visit here during the festival. This is the official announcement, which I received via email today:
|
|||||
|
P.S. I plan to donate at least one of my paintings, ‘Aisha’ (inspired by the fate of Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow), to be auctioned off during the festival.
Last Saturday, there was a ‘multi-faith’ protest against the blasphemous movie, ‘Innocence of the Muslims’.
In so many parts of the worlds, these protests have been extremely violent and, well, deadly. And not just from the primary rioting: in many places of the world, Muslims who were not deemed to be sufficiently ardent in protesting have faced violence. In one famous example, a man who declined to close his shop in order to join the riots in Pakistan has been charged with ‘blasphemy’ and is facing life in jail or a death sentence. In another example, journalists whom the rioters suspected of not giving their riots sufficient coverage (or casting them in positive enough light – depending on which sources you read) were violently attacked and barely escaped with their lives.
So, I am very happy to report that the Toronto protests were all peaceful.
Well, peaceful in the sense that the people protesting did not riot – and that is a good thing. That some of the protesters called for violence – and even the death of the moviemakers – that is less good.
Here are some videos of both the protest and the coverage thereof by Sun Media:
Ezra Levant with Raheel Raza:
If you’d like to check it out – Muslims Facing Tomorrow website is here.
Michael Coren’s (who made it to the protest personally) coverage is here:
BTW – I oppose the laws that forbid the denial of the holocaust. Not because I don’t thing it happened – my mother, as a small child, guided by her mother – actually sneaked food to Jewish concentration camp inmates when they were on a work detail in her neighbourhood. My grandmother saw, with her own eyes, a prisoner, dive onto a compost heap to eat some potato peels – and how, for this, he was beaten to death by his guard…using a beam with a nail in it… Yes, I know it happened and I have heard 1st person testimony of just how nightmarish it was. That, of course, is not the point: even if they are vicious lies, people must be free to say them, and say them publicly. To me, freedom of speech is absolute.
BlazingaCatFur – who was also there – asks some very basic questions:
SDAMatt2a, who also attended the event in order to report on it, captured the protester’s assertion that ‘Islam condones racism’. In case you think this is a linguistic error, please, do consider that the Koran itself considers the supremacy of Arabs over other races (and the Qureshi tribe is given supremacy over other Arabs) and that under Sharia – even today, it is not just illegal for any non-Muslim men to marry a Muslim woman, it is also illegal for non-white Muslim men to marry white Muslim women, it is illegal for non-Arab Muslim men to marry Arab Muslim women and it is illegal for non-Qureshi Muslim men to marry Qureshi Muslim women. That is recognized by ALL the ‘schools’ of Sharia and women whose wali (legal guardian) who agrees on their behalf to a marriage contract (as women cannot agree on their own – that power is reserved for their guardian alone) to a man in contradiction of this race-based rule have the right to sue for divorce on the grounds of having been married ‘below their racial status’. All schools of Islamic jurisprudence recognize this and side with the race-based ‘status’. I personally think this is wrong – but I do not have any influence over Sharia…
Sad.
So sad…
Free speech is paramount to the continuation of our society.
Finally, even our elites are beginning to realize this, even if they are not willing to express it openly – yet.
Even a few in the media are begginning to acknowledge this, even though most are still confused about what ‘incitement to riot’ is.
Aside:
Just for the record, saying “Your Mama wears army boots!” is an insult, not incitement to riot, violence or murder. Saying “Kill those who say My Mama wears army boots!” is incitement to murder.
Even if you replace ‘your Mama’ with ‘Your Prophet’ and ‘wears army boots’ with ‘rapes little girls’.
And offering money to anyone who kills ‘Steve X’, because ‘Steve X’ said or wrote or drew or filmed something, is conspiracy to murder…and a criminal act.
I’m only explaining this because so many policymakers in the USA and UK and media members everywhere seem to have trouble understanding this simple distinction.
Back to the French…
Last week, the satirical magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’ published some more ‘Mohammed cartoons’. Good for them.
What is more, they announced ahead of time that they were going to do so.
The response of the French government: send riot police to guard the magazine from rioters, because, as they quite correctly said, free speech must be protected. And, they beefed up the security at their Embassies, in case there was a backlash there.
That is what the French got right.
It’s the next bit I have a problem with: the French banned all protests against the cartoons!
I’m sorry, but that is just as wrong as banning the cartoons themselves!
Peaceful protests are a necessary expression of the freedom of speech and no government may ban them, on any grounds.
EVER!
Sure, if the protests turn violent, the police are obligated to arrest those who break the law and riot. That goes without saying. But banning a protest just because it might – even if it is very likely that it might – turn violent is a violation of the very principles that were upheld by protecting the publication of the cartoons!
You cant’d punish pre-crime and you cannot limit someone’s rights because of what they might do.
Well, obviously, you can – the French just did it.
What I mean is that it is wrong to do so…
Freedom of speech is for everyone.
It is especially important that we protect the freedom of speech of those who say things we don’t like.
Sure, the protests were likely to turn violent. Pretending otherwise would be naive.
But the power of the government does not extend to limiting the freedoms of their citizens to commit crimes – only to arrest them and punish them in accordance with the laws after they break the law!
Yes, there is a problem in many places with protests turning violent: but that is because in the past, the police have been negligent in apprehending and punishing those who break the laws during protests. That is a problem which needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.
But past negligence in enforcing the laws sufficiently does not give any goverment the right to abrogate the rights of its citizens – especially a core right, like freedom of speech.
Burning a flag is a very clear way of sending a message: fuck you and the horse you rode in on!
Or, for the more dainty among us: we reject you and what you represent.
OK, fair enough.
Except the hose bit – cruelty to animals is never OK.
The sentiment, however, is validly expressed by the burning of the flag that represents the despised ‘rider’.
Sure, it is not a pleasant sight to see the symbol of one’s culture (and, by extension, values) so unambiguously rejected. But, that is rather the point, isn’t it!
As is burning someone in effigy: it is an unambiguous rejection of who they are and what they stand for.
As a political statement, flag-burning is not only a valid form of expression, it is one that must be protected at all costs, whether it is directed at us, our allies or our enemies. Regardless of whoose jimmies it rustles!
What is not valid is violence against actual people and property damage (unless, of course, it is your property you are damaging – then that is your business entirely)!
For clarity’s sake – raping and murdering a country’s ambassador falls into the ‘not OK’ category…it being an act of war and all. As is raiding a foreign embassy, ripping down their flag and putting yours in its place. After all, every embassy is legally the soil of the country of that embassy, so using violent means to enter the embassy grounds and replacing its country’s flag with your own quite literally means the conquering of a part of that country’s sovereign territory and annexing it to your political entity, as symbolized by your flag.
In other words, storming an embassy and replacing its flag with your own is also an unequivocal declaration of war.
Pretending otherwise is past naive. It is criminally negligent or actively complicit or a host of other unpleasant things, but it is past even wilfully naive.
Luckily, you and I are not the people who have to make the call about what is an appropriate response to an act of war – against your country (if you are an American) or that of your allies (if you are part of the Western World) – we are just the people who will have to live with the aftermath of whatever decisions those in power will make.
And, this is certain: whether you are an American, a Westerner or live in another part of the world – whatever the response (or lack thereof) is, you and I will have to live through the consequences.
A war has been declared.
Whether or not those in power send it the troops (literally or figuratively), it is happening…
What is within our power, however, is to let our leaders know what our opinions are.
In order to do that, in order for the mesage to cut through the clatter and chatter, in order for it not to be misunderstood or misinterpreted, the message has to be clear, visible and unequivocal.
I suggest that at all the anti-Islamism protests planned in the Western world, we include the burning of the Islamist flag.
Remember, this flag does not represent Islam in general: it represents exclusively political Islam.
And, as it was the flag raised over the US Embassy in Egypt, it is fair comment to burn it here, during our protests, in order to send the clear and unambiguous message that we rejcect it and what it represents.
After all, flag-burning is a message that is understood by all.
It’s about time we started sending it!
And, in the meanwhile in Europe:
This is the email I received from One Law for All, whose urgent message needs to be seen by as many people as possible (please, spread the word!):
Dear Friend,
We are writing to you today to ask for your urgent and immediate support.
As you may have seen in the papers recently, there is growing evidence that young children – some as young at 5 years old – are being “married” to older men in Sharia courts across Britain. This is increasingly being sanctioned by the Islamists who run Britain’s network of Sharia courts, and there is evidence that this practice is growing.
Recent Investigations
A recent undercover investigation by the Sunday Times found imams in Britain willing to “marry” young girls, provided this was carried out in secret. The imams had been approached by an undercover reporter posing as a father who said he wanted his 12 year old daughter married, to prevent her from being tempted in to a “western lifestyle”.
Imam Mohammed Kassamali, of the Husaini Islamic Centre in Peterborough, sanctioned the marriage, but stressed the need for total secrecy. He stated: “I would love the girl to go to her husband’s houses (sic) as soon as possible, the younger the better. Under sharia (Islamic law) there is no problem. It is said she should see her first sign of puberty at the house of her husband. The problem is that we cannot explain such things (the marriage) if the girl went tomorrow (to the authorities).”
Abdul Haque, who officiates at weddings at the Shoreditch mosque, east London agreed to carry out the formalities of the wedding. However, he told the reporter that he should “tell people it is an engagement but it will be a marriage”. He added: “In Islam, once the girl reaches puberty the father has the right, the parents have the right, but under the laws of this country if the girl complains and says her marriage has been arranged and she wasn’t of marriageable age, then the person who performed the marriage will be jailed as well as the mother and father”.
Earlier this year, it was also reported that at least 30 girls, some as young as 9, were “married” in sharia courts in one London borough alone.
Clearly, child “marriages” are an abomination; they are nothing short of religiously-sanctioned child rape and paedophilia.
Sharia proponents deceptively say that forced marriages are unacceptable under Sharia and that both bride and groom must choose to marry as if that is the issue at hand. Islamists have gotten away with years of misogyny against Muslim women under cover of “choice” and are now using similar language with regards children. Nonetheless, child welfare must take precedence irrespective of religious beliefs. This is something we must urgently remind the Government of. Sharia courts are a scandal and must be stopped.
Arbitration and Mediation (Equality) Bill
One important way to tackle this matter is to galvanise support for the Arbitration and Mediation (Equality) Bill introduced to the House of Lords last year by crossbench peer, Baroness Caroline Cox. The Bill is due for a second reading in October.
The Government has so far declined to support Cox’s Bill. They do not believe there is a parallel legal system in operation. They also insist that everyone has full right of access to the British courts. This is simply not the case. There are many with little or no English language skills, trapped by community pressure, who believe Sharia courts operate as real courts and who regard their decisions as legally binding. The idea that they can easily instruct a high street solicitor to help them access their full rights under UK law is far from reality.
The Government must be pressured into taking immediate action, including by supporting Cox’s Bill, and shutting down Sharia and religious courts. If child welfare takes precedence then the Government is duty-bound to take action.
Sign our new petition in support of Baroness Cox’s Bill; tell the Government that enough is enough! Please sign it now.
Help Us
Baroness Cox has said in the past that her Bill was inspired by One Law for All. To donate to our important work, please either send a cheque made payable to One Law for All to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK or pay via Paypal. We need regular support and also for supporters to commit to giving at least £5-10 a month via direct debit. You can find out more about how to join the 100 Club here.
If you shop online, please do so via the Easy Fundraising’s website. It won’t cost you anything extra but can help raise much needed funds for One Law for All.
We look forward to your immediate intervention in this matter.
Best wishes,
Maryam Namazie and Anne Marie Waters
Spokespersons
One Law for All
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: 
+44 (0) 7719166731
onelawforall@gmail.com
www.onelawforall.org.uk
Many people think that it is a reasonable limitation on the freedom of free speech to prohibit someone from yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre – provided, that is, that there is no fire.
That little caveat – provided that there is no fire – is often forgotten by those who wold consider this to be a reasonable limitation of free speech. This, indeed, is not surprising – failure to recognize real warnings of danger and simply treating unpopular statements equally, whether they are true or not, is symptomatic of the individuals who most loudly profess that this limitation on the freedom of speech is somehow ‘reasonable’.
According to these people, giving a warning of a real ad present peril (like, say, a fire in a crowded theatre) is worse than letting everyone sit complacently until they burn to death.
I must admit, there was a time when I was persuaded that if there indeed were no fire, then shouting a warning of it ought not happen. OK, I still think that it ought not happen – but not because there are laws against it.
To explain my change of mind, I have to digress a little bit to some examples on utilitarian morality from philosophy. Not that I am particularly versed in philosophy – my ideas are mostly self-reasoned, but a little education has made me widen the scope of my reasoning.
There is that classical moral dilema question: if you see an uncontrollable train going down some tracks where it will hit six people, but there is a lever you can pull that will divert that train onto another set of tracks, where it will only kill one person, should you pull the lever?
Most ‘utilitarians’ will say that yes, you should, because one death is less tragic than 6 deaths.
I don’t think this is anywhere near as clear cut.
If the train stays on its original track, you (presuming the uncontrollable-ness of the train is not your fault to start off with) are not responsible for the deaths of those 6 people.
If, however, you do pull the lever, you will be the direct cause of the death of that 1 person.
People are not cogs, interchangeable for each other. We are individuals. And, if you pull that lever, you will indeed be guilty of causing the death of that individual. What is more, since you have had time to consider it, that constitutes premeditation. You would therefore be commiting murder.
This means that the question itself is improperly formulated.
Rather, it ought to ask if you could pull that lever and save the 6 people – but in the process murder 1 person, with all the legal consequences this carries, should you still pull that lever?
Because that is the real question: is saving the lives of 6 people worth murdering someone – and, perhaps, spending the rest of your life in prison as a result! After all, real actions have real consequences…
Similarly, the person who shouts ‘FIRE!” in a crowded theatre has not actually killed anyone.
It is the people who act before checking whether their actions are based on fact or not, and those who put their lives above others by trampling them to death to save themselves, who are guilty of, well, the trampling. Not the person who – rightly or wrongly – shouts ‘Fire!’
It is always the tramplers who are the ones guilty of the trampling.
But, because there are many of them, and our moral compass has for too long been corrupted by the profoundly immoral Judeo-Christian doctrine of ‘scapegoating’, of ‘vicarious redemption’, that we are willing to put the blame of the many ‘tramplers’ onto the one who may not, indeed, have done any ‘trampling’ at all!
It is precisely this predisposition we have of shifting the blame for the actions of the individuals who actually carry them out onto a scapegoat who is said to have ’caused’ their bad or immoral behaviour that is going to be the downfall of our society!
It is precisely this scapegoating which is at the heart of political correctness and the erosion of the freedoms which we ought to be able to exercise unfettered.
How have we improved our lot if we have liberated ourselves from Christian religious dogmas, if we permit its worst shackles to still imprison our morality, albeit under the new name of ‘political correctnes’?
So, now, I agree with Christopher Hitchens on this point:
OK – I have been avoiding commenting on the happenings in the Muslim world lately.
That is because I feel like a Cassandra…
And it’s only going to get worse.
Much worse!
There is a guide as to how a country will be affected by Islam based on what percentage of the population is Muslim. The lower the percentage, the more easy-going and moderate the Muslim population is. As the percentage increases, so does the aggressiveness of the messages being preached in Mosques and so does the aggressiveness of Muslim’s demand for accommodation and eventually for the supremacy of their way of life. I have seen it in many variations at different places, but here is one scale that is typcial:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will — for the most part — be regarded as a
peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities
and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and
among street gangs.
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to
their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the
introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing
food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on
supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with
threats for failure to comply.
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow
them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic
Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the
entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase
lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we
are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and
results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition
to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen
daily.
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues.
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror
attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers
of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic
ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya,
the tax placed on infidels.
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some
state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations
drive out the infidels, and move toward 100%.
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House
of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a
Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only
word.
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the
most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood
lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
This is true – more or less, let’s put our political correctness in its place and face reality for a while – within individual countries.
Currently, the World Muslim population is at over 20 percent – and climbing fast…because uneducated and subjegated women tend to have way more children than educated, emancipated women do. And, because we stil don’t protect children from being brainwashed into their parents’ religious prejudices…
So, keep in mind the 20% description:
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues.
Please, keep this in mind when you consider world events these days:
And that is why I have not really been commenting on current events…
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 