European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

• Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the European Union’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.

• Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours — as “Orwellian.”

• “By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people… into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.'” — Douglas Murray.

• In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation.

The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe.

Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on “hate speech” is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with “counter-narratives” — as “Orwellian.”

The “code of conduct” was announced on May 31 in a statement by the European Commission, the unelected administrative arm of the European Union. A summary of the initiative follows:

“By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

“The IT companies will also endeavor to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives [emphasis added], new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

European Commission

Excerpts of the “code of conduct” include:

“The IT Companies share the European Commission’s and EU Member States’ commitment to tackle illegal hate speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws transposing it, means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin….

“The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. The spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms.

“While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously acted upon by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.

“The IT Companies, taking the lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online, have agreed with the European Commission on a code of conduct setting the following public commitments:

• “The IT Companies to have in place clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct.

• “The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

• “The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

EU code of conduct

The agreement also requires Internet companies to establish a network of “trusted reporters” in all 28 EU member states to flag online content that “promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct.”

The EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Vĕra Jourová, has defended the initiative:

“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”

Vĕra Jourová

Others disagree. The National Secular Society (NSS) of the UK warned that the EU’s plans “rest on a vague definition of ‘hate speech’ and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion.” It added:

“The agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers of Facebook censoring ‘atheist, secular and ex-Muslim content’ after false ‘mass reporting’ by ‘cyber Jihadists.’ They have asked their supporters to report details and evidence of any instances of pages and groups being ‘banned [or] suspended from Facebook for criticizing Islam and Islamism.'”

National Secular Society (NSS)

NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said:

“Far from tackling online ‘cyber jihad,’ the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under vague ‘hate speech’ rules. Poorly-trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is ‘hate speech,’ particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists.”

Benjamin Jones

In an interview with Breitbart London, the CEO of Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsburg, said:

“Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what ‘illegal hate speech’ is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.

“It devolves power once again to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police it — a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief this will make us all safer. It won’t. It will simply drive unpalatable ideas and opinions underground where they are harder to police — or to challenge.

“There have been precedents of content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial — yet legal — content via misuse or abuse of the notification processes.”

Breitbart London

A coalition of free speech organizations, European Digital Rights and Access Now, announced their decision not to take part in future discussions with the European Commission, saying that “we do not have confidence in the ill-considered ‘code of conduct’ that was agreed.” A statement warned:

“In short, the ‘code of conduct’ downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the ‘leading role’ of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for online companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression, as legal — but controversial — content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take-down mechanism.

“This means that this ‘agreement’ between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech.”

European Digital Rights and Access

Janice Atkinson, an independent MEP for the South East England region, summed it up this way: “It’s Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees its very re-enactment live.”

Even before signing on to the EU’s code of conduct, social media sites have been cracking down on free speech, often at the behest of foreign governments.

In September 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a live microphone confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on what he was doing to prevent criticism of her open-door immigration policies.

In January 2016, Facebook launched an “Online Civil Courage Initiative” aimed at Facebook users in Germany and geared toward “fighting hate speech and extremism on the Internet.”

Writing for Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas Murray noted that Facebook’s assault on “racist” speech “appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.” He wrote:

“By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.’ This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

Douglas Murray

Facebook has also set its sights on Gatestone Institute affiliated writers. In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation. Abu Toameh wrote:

“It’s still a matter of censorship. They decide what’s acceptable. Now we have to be careful about what we post and what we share. Does this mean we can’t criticize Arab governments anymore?”

Abu Toameh

In June 2016, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.” In an editorial, Gatestone wrote:

“After enormous grassroots pressure from Gatestone’s readers, the Swedish media started reporting on Facebook’s heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into damage-control mode. They put Ingrid’s account back up — without any explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid’s video more attention.

“Facebook and the EU have backed down — for now. But they’re deadly serious about stopping ideas they don’t like. They’ll be back.”

Ingrid Carlqvist

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a ‘code of conduct’ to combat the spread of ‘illegal hate speech’ online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called ‘Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.’

Adverts from Days Gone By

Good Old Days feature

2016 None of these Adverts would Fly in today’s PC World and to think they said the WWII was for our right to be FREE

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Reynold for the email contribution

Good old Days

Old Adverts 01 Lux Toilet Soap (01)
Old Adverts 02 Lucky Strike Cigarettes (01)
Old Adverts 04 Ivory Soap (01)
Old Adverts 05 Fairy Soap (01)
Old Adverts 03 Dr. Batty's Asthma Cigarettes (01)
Old Adverts 06 Jantzen Swim Suits (01)
Old Adverts 07 Skinny No More (01)
Old Adverts 09 Hoover for Christmas (01)
Old Adverts 08 Dial-Eze Fingernail Protection (01)
Old Adverts 11 Cocaine Toothache Drops
Old Adverts 10 Gillette Safety Razor (01)
Old Adverts 15 Babies and Cola (01)
Old Adverts 12 Screw Top Bottle (02)
Old Adverts 13 Ridgid 504 (1953) (02)
Old Adverts 14 Bell & Howell Projector (02)
Old Adverts 08 Brain Tonic Coca-Cola
Old Adverts 06 Penicillin
Old Adverts 05 Cellophane Bags
Old Adverts 03 Pall Mall Cigarettes
Old Adverts 02 Ironing Boards
Old Adverts 01 Beer Schlitz
Old Adverts 04 Hat to Grow Hair
Old Adverts 07 Maternity Corset

A German’s View on Islam

Ostrich No Politically Correct (01) feature

Hard to argue with this: A German’s View on Islam – worth reading. by Dr. Emanuel Tanya

This is one of the best explanations of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read.

The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, Authorship Note1)On 21 February 2006, Canadian Paul Marek published on his blog Celestial Junk an article titled “Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant.” In passages such as the following, Marek’s essay warned about the dangers of Islamic fanaticism and dismissed as irrelevant the notion that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful.a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist. A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

:1: ‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come.

:2: My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.

:3: We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

:4: The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

:5: The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

:6: The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving?’

:7: History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

:8: Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

:9: Now Islamic prayers have been introduced in Toronto and other public schools in Ontario, and, yes, in Ottawa, too, while the Lord’s Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?). The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.

:10: In Australia, and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within the nation’s shores.

:11: In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of “no-go” zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.

:12: As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts – the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

:13: Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.

— with Peter Terence D’Cruz and Krizstyle Sunshine.

Source:      | “Deport the Grand Mufti” | Nov 21, 2015

Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant by Paul MarekFeb 21, 2006

I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

:1: “Very few people were true Nazis” he said, “but, many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. :2: My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”

:3: We are told again and again by “experts” and “talking heads” that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. :4: The fact is, that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. :5: The hard quantifiable fact is, that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority” and it is cowed and extraneous.

:5: Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. :6: The Average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of Killing that included the systematic killing of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”.

:7: History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. :8: Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Original Source: cjunk.blogspot.com.au “Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant”

Dr. Emanuel Tanay
red Claim: Holocaust survivor Dr. Emanuel Tanay penned an essay on the dangers of Islam.
red INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED
Example:   [Collected via e-mail, January 2015]
Origins:   On 21 February 2006, Canadian Paul Marek published on his blog Celestial Junk an article titled “Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant.” In passages such as the following, Marek’s essay warned about the dangers of Islamic fanaticism and dismissed as irrelevant the notion that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful:
We are told again and again by “experts” and “talking heads” that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is, that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is, that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority” and it is cowed and extraneous.

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Marek’s article has been republished in books such as How to Achieve a Heaven on Earth2)Amazon: amazon.com/Achieve-Heaven-Earth… and Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam,3)Amazon: amazon.com/Getting-Through-Non-Muslims… and it has been widely circulated on the Internet under the title “A German’s View on Islam.” However, in the latter form the essay has most commonly been attributed to the late Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor who isn’t German (he was born in Poland and immigrated to the United States) and had nothing to do with writing it.

It is uncertain how Dr. Tanay’s name became attached to Internet-circulated versions of this essay. Some versions of the message state Tanay was one of the people (perhaps the first) who forwarded Marek’s article to a wider audience, but this explanation does not seem likely and has not been proved.

Tanay, who passed away on 5 August 2014, talked about his experience living in occupied Poland during World War II with Dr. Sidney Bolkosky of the University of Michigan-Dearborn for the Voice/Vision Holocaust Survivor Oral History Archive in 1987:

I think one of the areas that has been neglected, I believe, is the survivor experience. That is, you know, variety of aspects have been talked about, written about, like people who died, who were annihilated or exterminated or whatever term you want to use, their resistance, but the people who survived, I think have been in a certain sense both in writing and teaching about the genocide, avoided. And that is why I think it is a value that we are discussing here today, and I certainly would think that the project that you were involved in of talking to survivors who have had a variety of experiences, I think it is very worthwhile because one day, once the last survivors are gone, there will be less ambivalence towards survivors and more appreciation of survivors as people who have achieved a great deal.

You know, prior to my analysis, I would have never thought of my own survival as an achievement. I always thought of it as an accident, like most survivors. Oh, I view it now as an accomplishment and achievement. I needed help of great many people. But it began with me. And I think that is true of most survivors and there is limited understanding of that. You know, we, for example, the whole notion that there could have been resistance misses the point. Resistance at that time was a form of collaboration. The true resistance was to survive. I was aware of it even then as a youngster.

I’ll never forget the January 1, 1943, or rather, December 31, 1942, I was aware that this was a landmark. I was on a train and I had a sense of victory. I made it beyond January 1, 1943. Because already then, the rumors circulated that Hitler supposedly said that if a Jew will be free after January 1, he will tip his hat to him. I mean there was that kind of a, whether it was true or not, I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. The point is, there was a sense of accomplishment and achievement just in the very fact that one survived.

Last updated:   14 January 2015

References   [ + ]

1. On 21 February 2006, Canadian Paul Marek published on his blog Celestial Junk an article titled “Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant.” In passages such as the following, Marek’s essay warned about the dangers of Islamic fanaticism and dismissed as irrelevant the notion that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful.
2. Amazon: amazon.com/Achieve-Heaven-Earth…
3. Amazon: amazon.com/Getting-Through-Non-Muslims…

Strong Message in the wake of Brussels attack

Ostrich No Politically Correct (01) feature

Pauline Hanson delivers this message!

close-the-gate

MP Pauline Hanson has never been shy about voicing her opinion loud and clear.

And in the wake of the devastating terrorist attacks in Brussels this week, Ms Hanson has released a new tirade against Islam and terrorists.

She released a message on her Facebook page calling for Australia to ban all Muslims from immigrating here, to stop taking in Syrian refugees, and to ban women from wearing the Burka or any full-face covering.

“Murder and mayhem has been the message sent out around the world, including the USA, Paris, Australia, Turkey and last night Brussels as a reminder to all non-believers of Islam who dare to oppose, stop, disrespect, or criticise Islam,” she wrote.

 
“They leave their rubbish and shit all over the place; they rob, steal and bash the innocent. Rape is a common occurrence. They have no respect for women who are not fully covered or touch them up on the streets. There is no other word for these perpetrators, other than scum.”

MP Pauline Hanson

Many have come out and blasted her for the post saying she is causing unnecessary tension and stirring up trouble in already tense times.

They criticised her failing to draw a difference between the majority of muslims and the minority of extremists whose acts of unfairly terrorism tarnish the religion.

Others though, threw their full support behind her.

When their numbers increase in suburbs, Australians are forced to move out of their homes from abuse or gunshots through windows,

she continued.

The police are in fear of performing their duties to the best of their ability, due to a lack of back up or discrimination laws that are a joke. They also fear for their families safety, asking the question is it worth it?

Islam and its believers are a cancer on our society and should be removed. It will eat away at us as it grows and will eventually kill us if not cut out.

She finished the post by listing the key points she says she would work to enforce if elected:

» We must stop the intake of the 12,000 refugees from Syria.

» Stop further Muslim immigration.

» Ban the Burka or any full-face covering.

» Stop the building of more mosques and have cameras installed for surveillance at all times. Muslim schools must also have security cameras installed and if their teachings are not appropriate for Australia and our culture, close them down.

» Muslims must respect our courts by standing before a Judge and if not, immediately imprison them.

» Stop the Halal certification tax immediately.

» Review our anti-discrimination laws to stop frivolous claims against anyone who speaks out against their religion.

» We must have a full enquiry to determine if Islam is a religion or a totalitarian, political ideology.

» Ensure Sharia Law is never practiced on Australian soil.

politically-correct-mob-02

The post has caused hot debate, with some accusing her of deliberately causing tensions and others praising her for her views.

Where do you stand?

What do you think about Pauline Hanson’s stance on this issue? 

Is she speaking the truth or just causing trouble?

by Starts at Sixty Writers | Original Source: startsat60.com "Pauline Hanson has a strong message in the wake of Brussels attack"

Denmark Criminalizes Free Speech – Selectively

According to the court decision, pointing out the totalitarian and cruel aspects of Islam itself is now a criminal offense, considered “insulting and demeaning” to Muslims in Denmark and therefore constituting “racism.” In effect, this means that the court is conflating what might possibly constitute blasphemy with racism.

Conversely, when a Danish imam called Jews “the offspring of apes and pigs,” he was officially reported to the police for breaching § 266b, but no legal charges were ever filed against him.

In Denmark, apparently, it is a crime to criticize Islam and “Islamists,” but calling Jews the “offspring of apes and pigs” and inciting their murder in a packed mosque (and calling non-Muslims in general “animals”) can be done with impunity.

Last week, a Danish district court ruled that what a Danish citizen had written on Facebook in November 2013 violated the Danish criminal code.

In response to a debate about the local activities of a radical Islamic organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which works for the re-establishment of the Islamic caliphate, he wrote:

The ideology of Islam is as loathsome, disgusting, oppressive and as misanthropic as Nazism. The massive immigration of Islamists into Denmark is the most devastating thing to happen to Danish society in recent history.

According to § 266b of Denmark’s criminal code, it is prohibited and punishable by fine or prison publicly to threaten, insult or demean a group of persons because of their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.

The man was fined 1600 Danish kroner (approximately $240), which makes it unlikely that he will be allowed to appeal the sentence: the fine is so small that an appeal to the Higher Court requires special permission.

The Danish district court found that the man’s statements about Islam were “generalizing statements” that were “insulting and demeaning towards adherents of Islam.”

The district court reached this conclusion despite the defendant’s testimony, according to which he specifically wrote “the ideology of Islam” in order to make a distinction between the religion of Islam and the ideology of Islam. The defendant explained that, “‘Islamist’ is a normal term for extremist groups, who commit crimes against humanity and do the most terrible things, whereas Islam is a peaceful religion.”

The district court decided to disregard “the defendant’s explanation that a distinction should be made between the ideology of Islam and the religion of Islam”.

The court reasoned that

“the statements that the defendant has made should be seen in the societal and historical context of the fall of 2013, and in this context the court sees the statements about ‘the ideology of Islam’ as pertaining to Islam generally and not only the extreme part of Islam. In this regard, the court has furthermore emphasized that the quoted statements were written on 29 November 2013 at 17.13 and that at 17.27 on the same day — as pointed out by the defense — the defendant wrote in the same [Facebook] thread that “Islam wishes to abuse democracy in order to get rid of democracy.”

Danish district court

For the incredulous reader, it should be pointed out that the court presumably meant that in 2013, Islamism as an ideology had not manifested itself through terrorism in Denmark and Europe in the same way as it has today, a few years later. This is, of course, nonsense, as pointed out by the defendant’s lawyer, Karoly Nemeth: “I believe the court is expressing a lack of historical understanding. The ideology of Islam has existed for over 1,000 years,” he said.

According to this court decision, then, pointing out the totalitarian and cruel aspects of Islam itself is now a criminal offense, considered “insulting and demeaning” to Muslims in Denmark and therefore constituting “racism.” In effect, this means that the court is conflating what might possibly constitute blasphemy with racism. Despite this decision being wrong in every single aspect, the court did, however, get one thing right: It refused to distinguish between Islam as an ideology and Islam as religion. The prosecutor, Bente Schnack, said it did not make a difference whether the defendant spoke of the ideology or the religion of Islam. “It is pretty difficult to tell the difference,” she said.

While the court’s decision was widely criticized in Denmark, two leading professors of Danish criminal law agreed with it. One professor, Gorm Toftegaard Nielsen, said that, “§ 266b is about subjecting a group of people to hatred by threatening, insulting or demeaning them. When you group Islamists with Nazis, then it is not a compliment.”

The following question, of course, inevitably arises: Since when is public debate supposed to be restricted to complimenting each other?

The professor continued: “When he [the defendant] says ‘the massive immigration of Islamists,’ it can easily be interpreted as meaning that those people are as immoral as Nazis… It is not nice to compare those two groups. But that is what he does indirectly and that amounts to subjecting a group to hatred.”

What the Danish district court did was what the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation has long sought: the establishment of Islamic “blasphemy laws,” making criticism of a religion a criminal offence. The UN Human Rights Commission’s Resolution 16/18 does exactly that, although it is non-binding — except presumably for the countries that want it to be. Infractions, as in Denmark now, are punishable by law. The UNHRC Resolution, originally known as “Defamation of Islam,” was changed in later versions — it would seem for broader marketability — to “Defamation of Religions.”

Conversely, in October 2014, when Mohamed Al Khaled Samha, a Danish imam from the Odense mosque, called Jews “the offspring of apes and pigs,” he was officially reported to the police, and local Danish police began an investigation of the imam with a view to charging him for breaching § 266b, but as far as Gatestone Institute has been able to ascertain, no legal charges were ever filed against him. (Incidentally, this imam was among the group of imams who traveled to the Middle East presumably to stir up anti-Danish sentiment in the aftermath ofJyllands-Posten newspaper’s printing of the Mohammed cartoons). In his sermon, Samha also said, “”Palestine has been and will remain the land of Islam. It is the land of the great battle, in which the Muslims will fight the Jews, and the trees and the stones will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.'”

In July 2014 another Danish imam, Abu Bilal Ismail, from the Grimshøj mosque, prayed for the death of Jews at a sermon in a Berlin mosque. “Oh Allah, destroy the Zionist Jews. They are no challenge for you. Count them and kill them to the very last one. Don’t spare a single one of them,” Ismail said. This, too, was officially reported to the Danish police, who never acted against that imam, either.

Instead, it was German authorities who criminally charged him. In December 2015, he was sentenced to a €10,000 fine for inciting hatred against Jews as well as non-Jewish groups in Germany. The Berlin court found that Ismail targeted “Jews with hatred, as well as all other non-Muslim groups living in Germany.”

The German court also said that the Lebanese-born cleric had shown deep contempt for the United States and Europe in his sermon, and that his assault on European civilization and Zionists had met the definition of incitement. The verdict said that Ismail considered Jews as “criminals who kill prophets and children, and Jews are worse than wild beasts in the world of the jungle,” and that “Allah should kill Jews.” Since Ismail had already been convicted in Germany, and a person cannot be punished twice for the same criminal act, the Danish police decided not to press charges.

In another, ironic, development regarding the use of § 266b of the Danish penal code, the state Prosecutor decided that Hajj Saeed, who incited against Jews in the Masjid Al-Faru mosque in Copenhagen, on February 13, 2015 — the very same sermon, in fact, that the terrorist Omar Abdel Hamid El-Husseini attended the day before he murdered Dan Uzan at the Copenhagen synagogue — will not be prosecuted for his statements. In his sermon, Saeed said that the Western “infidel” civilization has led non-Muslims “to an abyss of deprivation and corruption and has reduced them from being human to being at the level of animals”. He incited Muslims to wage war against Jews:

“Our prophet Muhammad had Jewish neighbors in Medina. Did he talk about closer ties, harmony and dialogue with them — in the same way as the UN and those who call for reconciliation between what is true and what is false? Or did he tell them to worship Allah? When they broke their promise and did not accept his calling, well, you know what he did to them… He declared war against the Jews.”

Hajj Saeed

Danish police investigated the imam and recommended that the state prosecutor indict him under the same provision of the penal code, § 266b, for inciting hatred and threatening a particular group of people because of their ethnicity — in this instance because they were Jews. The state Prosecutor, for reasons that are unknown at this point, evidently thought otherwise.

Ironically, the mosque in question, Masjid Al-Faru, is connected with Hizb-ut-Tahrir; and the imam, Hajj Saeed, is considered to be one of the organization’s “rising stars” in Denmark.

In 2002, in fairness, the spokesman at the time for Hizb ut-Tahrir, Fadi Abdullatif, was sentenced for violating § 266b, when his organization handed out flyers against Jews with the words, “And kill them, wherever you may find them and banish them from where they banished you.”

Members of the Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir demand a worldwide Islamic Caliphate during a demonstration in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2006. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Epo)

After the February 2015 terrorist attacks in Copenhagen against the synagogue, where Dan Uzan was murdered, and the Krudttønden café, where film director Finn Nørgaard was murdered, Hizb ut-Tahrir told Muslims not to condemn the terrorist attacks, but instead “put things in their right context.”

In Denmark, apparently, it is a crime to criticize Islam and “Islamists,” but calling Jews the “offspring of apes and pigs” and inciting their murder in a packed mosque (and calling non-Muslims in general “animals”) can be done with impunity.

gatestoneinstitute.org "Denmark Criminalizes Free Speech - Selectively"

Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech

Master Censorship feature

• Facebook is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might decide is racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”

• The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week came reports of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on social media.

• In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations and only violence is left.

• The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.

Now one of the most sinister stories of the past year was hardly even reported. In September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook at a UN development summit in New York. As they sat down, Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.

At the time, perhaps the most revealing aspect of this exchange was that the German Chancellor — at the very moment that her country was going through one of the most significant events in its post-war history — should have been spending any time worrying about how to stop public dislike of her policies being vented on social media. But now it appears that the discussion yielded consequential results.

Last month, Facebook launched what it called an “Initiative for civil courage online,” the aim of which, it claims, is to remove “hate speech” from Facebook — specifically by removing comments that “promote xenophobia.” Facebook is working with a unit of the publisher Bertelsmann, which aims to identify and then erase “racist” posts from the site. The work is intended particularly to focus on Facebook users in Germany. At the launch of the new initiative, Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, explained that, “Hate speech has no place in our society — not even on the internet.” She went to say that, “Facebook is not a place for the dissemination of hate speech or incitement to violence.” Of course, Facebook can do what it likes on its own website. What is troubling is what this organization of effort and muddled thinking reveals about what is going on in Europe.

The mass movement of millions of people — from across Africa, the Middle East and further afield — into Europe has happened in record time and is a huge event in its history. As events in Paris, Cologne and Sweden have shown, it is also by no means a series of events only with positive connotations.

As well as being fearful of the security implications of allowing in millions of people whose identities, beliefs and intentions are unknown and — in such large numbers — unknowable, many Europeans are deeply concerned that this movement heralds an irreversible alteration in the fabric of their society. Many Europeans do not want to become a melting pot for the Middle East and Africa, but want to retain something of their own identities and traditions. Apparently, it is not just a minority who feel concern about this. Poll after poll shows a significant majority of the public in each and every European country opposed to immigration at anything like the current rate.

The sinister thing about what Facebook is doing is that it is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might consider racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”

And it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of “racist” speech appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.

By deciding that “xenophobic” comment in reaction to the crisis is also “racist,” Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into “racist” views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as “racist.” This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

Because even if some of the speech Facebook is so scared of is in some way “xenophobic,” there are deep questions as to why such speech should be banned. In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations, and only violence is left. Weimar Germany — to give just one example — was replete with hate-speech laws intended to limit speech the state did not like. These laws did nothing whatsoever to limit the rise of extremism; it only made martyrs out of those it pursued, and persuaded an even larger number of people that the time for talking was over.

The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week, reports from the Netherlands told of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on Twitter and other social media.

In this toxic mix, Facebook has now — knowingly or unknowingly — played its part. The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

February 5, 2016 | by Douglas Murray | Source: gatestoneinstitute.org "Facebook's War on Freedom of Speech"

We Want The Truth

Pat Condell (01) feature

… and we’ll take it where we find it.

US confidence in protection from attack lowest in over a decade
http://www.military.com/daily-news/…

Government missed red flags on San Bernadino killers
http://www.breitbart.com/national-sec…

San Bernadino killer passed three background checks to gain entry to the US
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic…

FBI admits there is no way to screen all the Syrian refugees Obama plans to accept into the US
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic…

Donald Trump calls for a temporary ban on Muslims coming the the US
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-ca…

Trump still winning despite Muslim backlash
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/20…

Trump wins more support as petition reaches half a million signatures
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world…

Trump is right. Police say parts of Britain are no-go areas
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/6255…

US report warns of ISIS ability to create fake passports
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/11/pol…

Obama bows to the Saudi king
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world…

France’s Politically Correct War on Islamic Terror

French leaders consistently act in ways that undermine their stated goal of eradicating Islamic terror.

Critics of the policy say “Daesh” is a politically correct linguistic device that allows Western leaders to claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic — and thus ignore the root cause of Islamic terror and militant jihad.

French leaders have also been consistently antagonistic toward Israel, a country facing Islamic terror on a daily basis. France is leading international diplomatic efforts to push for a UN resolution that would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within a period of two years. The move effectively whitewashes Palestinian terror.

French critics of Islam are routinely harassed with strategic lawsuits that seek to censor, intimidate and silence them. In a recent case, Sébastien Jallamion, a 43-year-old policeman from Lyon was suspended from his job and fined 5,000 euros after he condemned the death of Frenchman Hervé Gourdel, who was beheaded by jihadists in Algeria.

“Those who denounce the illegal behavior of fundamentalists are more likely to be sued than the fundamentalists who behave illegally.” — Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s Front National.

French President François Hollande has vowed to avenge the November 13 jihadist attacks in Paris that left more than 120 dead and 350 injured.

Speaking from the Élysée Palace, Hollande blamed the Islamic State for the attacks, which he called an “act of war.” He said the response from France would be “unforgiving” and “merciless.”

Despite the tough rhetoric, however, the question remains: Does Hollande understand the true nature of the war he faces?

Hollande pointedly referred to the Islamic State as “Daesh,” the acronym of the group’s full Arabic name, which in English translates as “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,” or “ISIL.”

The official policy of the French government is to avoid using the term “Islamic State” because, according to French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, it “blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists.”

Critics of the policy say “Daesh” is a politically correct linguistic device that allows Western leaders to claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic — and thus ignore the root cause of Islamic terror and militant jihad.

Islamic ideology divides the world into two spheres: the House of Islam and the House of War. The House of War (the non-Muslim world) is subject to permanent jihad until it is made part of the House of Islam, where Sharia is the law of the land.

Jihad — the perpetual struggle to expand Muslim domination throughout the world with the ultimate aim of bringing all of humanity under submission to the will of Allah — is the primary objective of true Islam, as unambiguously outlined in its foundational documents.

Consequently, even if the Islamic State were to be bombed into oblivion, France and the rest of the non-Muslim world will continue to be the target of Islamic supremacists. The West cannot defeat Islamic terrorism by attempting to conceptually delink it from true Islam. But still they try.

After the January 2015 jihadist attacks on the Paris offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo that left 12 people dead, President Hollande declared:

“We must reject facile thinking and eschew exaggeration. Those who committed these terrorist acts, those terrorists, those fanatics, have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said: “We are in a war against terrorism. We are not in a war against religion, against a civilization.” Again, he said: “We are at war with terrorism, jihadism and radicalism. France is not at war against Islam and Muslims.”

At a June conference with more than 100 leaders of the French Muslim community, Valls denied there is any link between extremism and Islam. He also refused to raise the issue of radicalization because the topic was “too sensitive.” Instead, he said:

“Islam still provokes misunderstandings, prejudices and is rejected by some citizens. Yet Islam is here to stay in France. It is the second largest religious group in our country.

“We must say all of this is not Islam: The hate speech, anti-Semitism that hides behind anti-Zionism and hate for Israel, the self-proclaimed imams in our neighborhoods and our prisons who are promoting violence and terrorism.”

After the January 2015 jihadist attacks in Paris, France’s President François Hollande declared: “We must reject facile thinking and eschew exaggeration. Those who committed these terrorist acts, those terrorists, those fanatics, have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”

France is home to around 6.5 million Muslims, or roughly 10% of the country’s total population of 66 million. Although most Muslims in France live peacefully, many are drawn to radical Islam. A CSA poll found that 22% of Muslims in the country consider themselves Muslim first and French second. Nearly one out of five (17%) Muslims in France believe that Sharia law should be fully applied in France, while 37% believe that parts of Sharia should be applied in the country.

France is also one of the largest European sources of so-called foreign fighters in Syria: More than 1,500 French Muslims have joined the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and many more are believed to be supporters of the group in France.

Since the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the French government has introduced a raft of new counter-terrorism measures — including sweeping surveillance powers to eavesdrop on the public — aimed at preventing further jihadist attacks.

French counter-terrorism operatives have foiled a number of jihadist plots, including a plan to attack a major navy base in Toulon, and an attempt to murder a Socialist MP in Paris.

As the latest attacks in Paris (as well as the failed attack on a high-speed train from Amsterdam to Paris in August) show, surveillance is not foolproof. Claude Moniquet, a former French intelligence operative, warns that European intelligence agencies are overwhelmed by the sheer number of people who may pose a threat. He writes:

“Some 6,000 Europeans are or were involved in the fighting in Syria (they went there, they were killed in action, they are still in IS camps, they are on their way there or their way back.)

“If you have 6,000 ‘active’ jihadists, this probably means that if you try to count those who were not identified, the logistics people who help them join up, their sympathizers and the most radical extremists who are not yet involved in violence but are on the verge of it, you have something between 10,000 and 20,000 ‘dangerous’ people in Europe.

“To carry out ‘normal’ surveillance on a suspect on a permanent basis, you need 20 to 30 agents and a dozen vehicles. And these are just the requirements for a ‘quiet’ target.

“If the suspect travels abroad, for instance, the figure could go up to 50 or 80 agents and necessitate cooperation between the services of various countries. Work it out: to keep watch on all the potential suspects, you’d need between 120,000 and 500,000 agents throughout Europe. Mission impossible!”

Meanwhile, French leaders consistently act in ways that undermine their stated goal of eradicating Islamic terror.

The French government has been one of the leading European proponents of the nuclear deal with Iran, the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism. Although Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, are responsible for deaths of scores of French citizens, Fabius wasted no time in rushing to Tehran in search of business opportunities for French companies. In July, Fabius proclaimed:

“We are two great independent countries, two great civilizations. It is true that in recent years, for reasons that everyone knows, links have loosened, but now thanks to the nuclear deal, things are going to change.”

Fabius also extended an invitation for Iran’s President, Hassan Rouhani, to visit France in November. This trip — which has been mired in controversy, not over terrorism or nuclear proliferation, but over Iran’s demand that no wine be served during a formal dinner at the Élysée Palace — was postponed indefinitely after the Paris attacks. Hollande’s advisors apparently concluded that this is not the right moment for a photo-op with Rouhani, a career terrorist.

French leaders have also been consistently antagonistic toward Israel, a country facing Islamic terror on a daily basis.

After Israel launched a military offensive aimed at stopping Islamic terror groups in the Gaza Strip from launching missiles into the Jewish state, France led international calls for Israel to halt the operation. French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said:

“France calls for an immediate ceasefire… to ensure that every side starts talking to each other to avoid an escalation that would be tragic for this part of the world.”

More recently, France has been a leading European advocate of a European Union policy that now requires Israel to label products “originating in Israeli settlements beyond Israel’s 1967 borders.” The move is widely seen as part of an international campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the move:

“The labelling of products of the Jewish state by the European Union brings back dark memories. Europe should be ashamed of itself. It took an immoral decision… this will not advance peace, it will certainly not advance truth and justice. It is wrong.”

France is also leading international diplomatic efforts to push for a United Nations resolution that would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within a period of two years. The move effectively whitewashes Palestinian terror. Netanyahu responded:

“The only way to reach an agreement is through bilateral negotiations, and we will forcibly reject any attempts to force upon us international dictates.

“In the international proposals that have been suggested to us — which they are actually trying to force upon us — there is no real reference to Israel’s security needs or our other national interests.

“They are simply trying to push us into indefensible borders while completely ignoring what will happen on the other side of the border.”

Meanwhile, after more than a year as a member of the US-led coalition against the Islamic State, French officials waited until late September to begin striking targets in Syria. But they refused to destroy the headquarters of the Islamic State in Raqqa — where the Paris attacks were reportedly planned.

Back in France, critics of Islam are routinely harassed with strategic lawsuits that seek to censor, intimidate and silence them.

In a recent case, Sébastien Jallamion, a 43-year-old policeman from Lyon, was suspended from his job and fined 5,000 euros after he condemned the death of Frenchman Hervé Gourdel, who was beheaded by jihadists in Algeria in September 2014. Jallamion explained:

“According to the administrative decree that was sent to me today, I am accused of having created an anonymous Facebook page in September 2014, showing several ‘provocative’ images and commentaries, ‘discriminatory and injurious,’ of a ‘xenophobic or anti-Muslim’ nature. As an example, there was that portrait of the Calif al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State, with a visor on his forehead. This publication was exhibited during my appearance before the discipline committee with the following accusation: ‘Are you not ashamed of stigmatizing an imam in this way?’ My lawyer can confirm this… It looks like a political punishment. I cannot see any other explanation.

“Our fundamental values, those for which many of our ancestors gave their life are deteriorating, and that it is time for us to become indignant over what our country is turning into. This is not France, land of Enlightenment that in its day shone over all of Europe and beyond. We must fight to preserve our values, it’s a matter of survival.”

Meanwhile, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s Front National (FN) and one of the most popular politicians in the country, went on trial in October 2015 for comparing Muslim street prayers to the wartime occupation of France. At a campaign rally in Lyon in 2010, she said:

“I’m sorry, but for those who really like to talk about World War II, if we’re talking about an occupation, we could talk about the [street prayers], because that is clearly an occupation of territory.

“It is an occupation of sections of the territory, of neighborhoods in which religious law applies — it is an occupation. There are no tanks, there are no soldiers, but it is an occupation nevertheless, and it weighs on people.”

Le Pen said she was a victim of “judicial persecution” and added:

“It is a scandal that a political leader can be sued for expressing her beliefs. Those who denounce the illegal behavior of fundamentalists are more likely to be sued than the fundamentalists who behave illegally.”

Responding to the jihadist attacks in Paris, Le Pen said:

“France and the French are no longer safe. It is my duty to tell you. Urgent action is needed.

“France must finally identify her allies and her enemies. Her enemies are those countries that have friendly relationships with radical Islam, and also those countries that have an ambiguous attitude toward terrorist enterprises.

“Regardless of what the European Union says, it is essential that France regain permanent control over its borders.

“France has been rendered vulnerable; it must rearm, because for too long it has undergone a programmed collapse of its defensive capabilities in the face of predictable and growing threats. It must restore its military resources, police, gendarmerie, intelligence and customs. The State must be able to ensure again its vital mission of protecting the French.

“Finally, Islamist fundamentalism must be annihilated. France must ban Islamist organizations, close radical mosques and expel foreigners who preach hatred in our country as well as illegal migrants who have nothing to do here. As for dual nationals who are participating in these Islamist movements, they must be stripped of their French nationality and deported.”

In the aftermath of the attacks, Le Pen, who has long been critical of President Hollande’s politically correct counter-terrorism policies, is certain to rise in public opinion polls. This will increase the political pressure on the government to take decisive action against the jihadists.

Faced with similar pressure after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January, Hollande seemed reluctant to push too far, apparently fearful of the consequences of confronting the Muslim community in France. It remains to be seen whether the latest attacks in Paris, which some are describing as France’s September 11, mark a turning point.

November 16, 2015 | by Soeren Kern | Source: gatestoneinstitute.org "France's Politically Correct War on Islamic Terror"