The Archbishop of Canterbury is as keen on criminalising criticism.
The recent rise in metal prices on the international market has caused a dramatic increase in the number of roof and other metal thefts from churches, causing immense damage. In the period 2002-2007, Ecclesiastical Insurance have seen metal theft-related claims rise from 14 claims with a total value of around £11,000 to 2,300 claims with a total value around £8.5 million (figures supplied by Ecclesiastical Insurance).
The theft of lead, copper and stainless steel roof coverings, copper lightning conductors, lead and copper rainwater pipes, bronze statues, iron gates and even church bells causes irreplaceable loss of heritage and huge financial costs. and UK State donations for acient buildings have dropped over the years from 10/11 mil. pound Sterling to merly 1 milion per year.
More: crusaders battle over wind mill, black prince see [+] front row, winning his spurs.
Islamopobia is new Deutsch feindlichkeit, L'hostilité contre l'islam, nouveau Allemange hosilite or German hostility and critics, the plie-bargening implementor-agents of Islam have no knowledge of the islamic dogmata nor teachings so this religion gets here the devils advocat in the form of this Britsh State Church employed primaat Williams* confirming to the EU-Lexicon anti-islamfobie doubletalk among those dark Satanic Mills.
*Who visions a revieval of the Saxon-Arabian III Reich, conquerer of space in nations of serfs without faith, holding their head bowed in submission to the Islamic siege on infidels with physical genocide in Darfur and cultural genocide in Europe, the wouldbe Eurabia Nation of Islam for Arab-Frankistani
From Le monde.fr L'ONU contre les droits de l'homme:
"...Quel est le prix de la liberté pour Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
ex-députée néerlandaise, menacée de mort, après l'assassinat
en 2004 de son ami le réalisateur Théo Van Gogh, accusé d'avoir blasphémé l'islam dans le film Soumission ? Les exemples s'additionnent qui, de Taslima Nasreen à Salman Rushdie,
de Robert Redeker à Mohamed Sifaoui, apportent la preuve
que l'intégrisme islamiste impose sa loi par la terreur.
Combien d'Algériens, de femmes au Maghreb, au Proche-Orient,
en Turquie, au Pakistan ont déjà payé du prix de leur vie
le refus de se soumettre à l'obscurantisme religieux ?
Si, par malheur, l'ONU devait consacrer l'imposition
de tels critères, si le blasphème devait être assimilé
à du racisme, si le droit à la critique de la religion
devait être mis hors la loi, si la loi religieuse devait
s'inscrire dans les normes internationales, ce serait une régression aux conséquences désastreuses, et une perversion radicale de toute notre tradition de lutte contre le racisme,
qui n'a pu et ne peut se développer que dans la liberté de conscience la plus absolue.
L'Assemblée générale de décembre 2007 a déjà entériné
des textes condamnant des formes d'expression considérées
comme diffamatoires de l'islam. L'enjeu est clair, il est mondial : c'est de la défense des libertés de l'individu qu'il est question.
Soit les démocraties se ressaisissent, à l'exemple du Canada,
qui vient d'annoncer son refus de participer à la conférence
de Durban 2, estimant qu'elle risquait d'être "marquée par
des expressions d'intolérance et d'antisémitisme", et cessent
de s'abstenir ou de voter des résolutions contraires à l'idéal universel de 1948, soit l'obscurantisme religieux et son cortège
de crimes politiques triompheront, sous les bons auspices des Nations unies. Et lorsque les paroles de haine seront transformées en actes, nul ne pourra dire : "Nous ne savions pas."
Signatures de soutien à ce texte par e-mail à email@example.com.
Liste complète des signataires sur www.licra.org.
From aei for pub. policy; A Craven Canterbury Tale
by Anne Applebaum, Feb 12, 2008 The archbishop's language is mild-mannered, legalistic, jargon-riddled; the sentiments behind them are profoundly dangerous.
What one British writer called the "jurisprudential kernel"
of his thoughts is as follows: In the modern world, we must avoid the "inflexible or over-restrictive applications of traditional law" and must be wary of our "universalist Enlightenment system," which risks "ghettoizing" a minority. Instead, we must embrace
the notion of "plural jurisdiction." This, in other words, was no pleasant fluff about tolerance for foreigners: This was a call for the evisceration of the British legal system as we know it.
One Daily Telegraph columnist called the archbishop's statement a "disgraceful act of appeasement;" another called it a "craven counsel of despair." An Observer columnist eruditely wondered whether the archbishop's comment might count as a miracle, according to David Hume's definition of a miracle as a "violation of the laws of nature," while the notoriously sensationalistic Sun launched a campaign to remove the archbishop from office.
when Rowan Williams _the archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the Church of England, symbolic leader of the international Anglican Communion_ called for "constructive accommodation" with some aspects of shar'ia law, and declared the incorporation of Muslim religious laws into the British legal system "unavoidable," practically no insult has been left unsaid.
from The awful squeal of fundamentalism
Nick Cohen - The Observer, Sunday March 2 2008
In language filled with the optimism of the struggles against 20th-century totalitarianism, Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'
But faced with a conflict between high principle and a reactionary stunt, the UN Secretary General chose the side of the hysterics. A spokeswoman for Ban Ki-moon said that he thought that the new cartoon controversy showed that 'freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs'.
All religious beliefs, that is. Even if they do not respect each other. Even if by the normal standards of intellectual life, they make no sense. Even if the behaviour of their followers does not inspire respect, but fear.
If the UN were to order us to 'respect all political beliefs', conservatives would say they weren't prepared to respect communists, leftists would say they weren't prepared to respect fascists and everyone else would burst out laughing. Yet the UN Human Rights Council is proposing in all seriousness to protect religion by doctoring its universal defence of freedom of expression.
The OIC is pushing it to approve a super-blasphemy law that would make it an offence to 'defame' any religion. Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society said attending the discussions was an Orwellian experience, with speakers using the language of liberalism to justify oppression. 'Anyone seeking to draw attention to the capital offence of apostasy in Islamic countries will be lucky to be heard,' he reported. 'Anything deemed the slightest bit critical of Islam is immediately jumped upon.'
To the bafflement of outsiders, communist China and Cuba have joined the states of the Islamic conference. Both are officially atheist and China persecutes its Muslim minority. But what unites dictatorships is more important than what divides them and no one should be surprised that communist elites will use any weapon available to assault principles which threaten their power.
Sitting in Britain, it is easy to feel superior. We can dismiss the UN as a club without rules that negates its own standards by granting membership to countries that break every article in the declaration of human rights.
You need only look around to realise that complacency is unwarranted. Last week, Channel 4 launched a libel action against West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which had accused its film-makers of inventing all-too-real scenes of clerics preaching misogyny, anti-semitism and homophobia. They must have found accurate investigative reporting disrespectful. The government seeks to deny us the very language we need to describe religious terror and insists civil servants don't call Islamic extremists Islamic extremists but 'anti-Islamic extremists'.
He isn't alone in succumbing to obfuscation and appeasement. The past five years have been among the most shameful in BBC history. It presents tiny groups of extreme right wingers as the authentic voice of Islam while shunning liberal-minded Muslims or asking hard questions of those who would oppress them.
Meanwhile, it is not only authoritarian states at the UN which want a universal blasphemy law. The Archbishop of Canterbury is as keen on criminalising criticism.
from Speech delivered by Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy, an expert on Islamic terrorism, an internationally recognized critic of Political Islam and an author of the book, “The Art of War on Terror: Triumphing Over Political Islam and the Axis of Jihad”, at the Symposium organized by America’s Truth Forum, at Dallas, Texas, on Feb. 2, 2008
I am afraid scientific analysis tells us that fundamental level Islam is dominated by politics of its founder and is designed for conquest of unbelievers. How can one reform an ideology designed for conquest? It makes little sense, does it not? How could about 1.5 billion Muslims and so many others be thought to believe that Islam is a religion? In the similar manner billions thought that earth was flat – ignorance and intimidation (in the case of Islam, heads cut-off if you question Mohammed or the Koran) – not questioning Islam's founder's intent and actions! If Mosques and other Muslim religious institutions are not closed, jihad does not stop. In fact, mosque is the fountain head of terror.
If a mosque appears moderate it just means that it is in the beginning stages of building up jihad in the local Muslim community. So, don't get duped by the so-called moderate mosques in America. What do we do now? As part of preemption, work toward legislation that shuts down mosques and other Muslim religious institutions within American jurisdiction. With its power so concentrated, mosques are also Islam's greatest weakness. This is a natural direction to go, the moment we identify Islam as an ideology designed for conquest and annihilation of non-Muslims. This proposal doesn't violate the liberty of individual Muslims, but instead provides them with a future by breaking the back of the ideology of conquest (a civic responsibility and ensuring religious freedom of Muslims).
If mosques are neutralized Muslim populations should be swayed by ever-prevalent modernism and move on to alternate faiths or way of life. Still, additional measures are needed to help liberate Muslims for this predatory ideology of conquest. Hirsi Ali, best-selling author and a former Muslim, says in a recent review quote The problem is not too much reason, but too little unquote and further says quote I see [western leaders] squandering a great and vital opportunity to compete with radical Muslims for the minds of Muslims, especially those within their borders unquote. This theme of confronting murderous ideologies with the science of Einstein is the theme of my recently published book. Due to physical threats, the Islamic trilogy couldn't be put under microscope in Islamic nations.
Confronting Islamic ideology with science is a no-lose proposition and has the most potential for driving a wedge between mosques/clerics and educated Muslims. Educated Muslims form the backbone of terrorism, because it takes modern education to operate effectively in modern world. If this is done, effective Muslim recruitment for terror is over. The Koran was the first book of the trilogy to be put together, and that was done several decades after the death of Mohammed. In a Hadith it is said that Koranic verses were collected from bits of bone, stone, parchment, date palm leaves, and also from the memories of those who had memorized it.
But these are not reliable forms of note-taking or information storage. This is common sense. For something as profound as God's "revelations," in the Koran there shouldn't be an iota of doubt about their authenticity. We can make a powerful assertion that available evidence makes the claim of associating these revelations of God in the Koran as not scientifically credible. What about Muslim majority nation that are fountainheads of terror? America couldn't shut down mosques in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran! A rapidly unraveling nuclear-armed Pakistan has shown that political solution to the Islamic terror is not possible.
We are now left with mostly externally-inspired ideological and military means to deal with this existential threat. America is stretched militarily. Who will do the fighting and who will deliver the decisive blows to the nations and populations that jihad sponsorship is unbearably expensive? Who will help liberate these populations?
In terms of population, location and size, 850 million non-Muslim India matches the extended global network of Muslim populations that are influenced by Islamic forces. India is already under an Islamic siege and in about 5 years time, at this rate, will likely be destabilized beyond repair by Islamic forces. America needs to act fast. If America could help deliver a fatal blow to the former Soviet Union by backing Muslim nations against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, why not help mobilize (America is good at that) Hindu majority in India to take the war to Islamic entities.
Tens if not hundreds of millions of "infidel" Indian children are going hungry and malnourished because of the high economic cost of jihad imposed on the Indian state by many middle eastern nations and Pakistan. This is a form of genocide, ladies and gentlemen. Indians may be well-justified in responding devastatingly to this terror war imposed on them.
from jp.dk : a global battle for the right to free speech
by Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllans-Posten ;
The cases are different, and you can't compare the legal systems in Egypt and Norway, but the justifications for censorship and self-censorship are similar in different parts of the world: Religious feelings and taboos need to be treated with a kind of sensibility and respect that other feelings and ideas cannot command.
This position boils down to a simple rule: If you respect my taboo, I'll respect yours. That was the rule of the game during the Cold War until people like Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Andrei Sakharov and other dissenting voices behind the Iron Curtain insisted on another rule: It is not cultures, religions or political systems that enjoy rights. Human beings enjoy rights, and certain principles like the ones embedded in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights are universal.
Unfortunately, misplaced sensitivity is being used by tyrants and fanatics to justify murder and silence criticism. Right now, the Organization of Islamic Countries is conducting a successful campaign at the United Nations to rewrite international human-rights standards to curtail the right to free speech. Last year the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a resolution against "defamation of religion," calling on governments around the world to clamp down on cartoonists, writers, journalists, artists and dissidents who dare to speak up.
In the West there is a lack of clarity on these issues. People suggest that Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen and Kurt Westergaard bear a certain amount of responsibility for their fate. They don't understand that by doing so they tacitly endorse attacks on dissenting voices in parts of the world where no one can protect them.
We need a global movement to fight blasphemy and other insult laws, and the European Union should lead the way by removing them. Europe should make it clear that democracies will protect their citizens if they say something that triggers threats and intimidation.
From: Muslim Media Channel
In Great Britain and the United States, Muslims are only 3 percent and 2.7 percent of the population, respectively. Yet British Muslims have successfully launched their own TV channel, called Islam Channel, which unites all — or most — British Muslims under one representative media body. In the USA such a step is yet to come. There are several media outlets, including bought air time on non-Muslim TV and Bridges TV. Yet US Muslim media outlets reflect division rather than cohesion. Al-Shinqiti was asked whether the eight million Muslims in America will at any time in the near future be able to set up their own media channel, where they can speak freely and explain to their fellow citizens who they are and what they stand for.
In his answer, Al-Shinqiti did not give a time frame but rather emphasized the need for such a channel. Pointing to the two types of power, the soft and the hard, he noted that the soft power of persuasion has been neglected for too long by contemporary Muslims. The sheikh noted that this condition caused Muslims to be exploited by others without being able to answer back. He also stressed that the only solution to this problem is through "a powerful, credible media funded by Muslims." Moreover, he said that "Western Muslims are the most qualified for running this endeavor because of their familiarity with Western societies and languages and their high level of education."
Still mosque exploiting and shari'ah courts promoting propaganda apparaat CAIR sets up a 75.000.000 USD bastion so AP alters CAIR quote in story about Ayaan Hirsi Ali in 8 houres;
the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) now
housed in Washington DC, Dubai deed-owned location,
has a $75 million dollars buget endorsed by the UAE
Min. of Fin. and Ind. also Deputy Ruler of Dubai " to build
a property in the United States to serve as an endowment
for the Council". United Arab Emirates website May 21, 2006
Now this paper bullet bureau has used the H-word "HATE"
so communications director Ibrahim Hooper - CAIR had his
origial statement on Hirsi removed from an AP interview.
With the Malcom X spin-off they would not like to be accused
of naming a black woman hatefull, slanderlous bigotica.
"It is unfortunate that she had to bring that kind of hate from
Europe to the United States."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations thinks
Hirsi Ali's campaign amounts to slander and bigotry.
"We believe that contributes to a growing level
of Muslim hatred in America," said the council's
communications director, Ibrahim Hooper.
Has been changed to:
"We believe that she will bring an increase to the level
of anti-Muslim bias in this country that we saw her bring
to the situation in Europe," the council's communications
director, Ibrahim Hooper, said in an interview Saturday.
"Unfortunately her message is one of bigotry,
not one of mutual understanding."
While they hang on to;
"The Council on American-Islamic Relations thinks
Hirsi Ali's campaign amounts to slander and bigotry."
The first quote from an AP article written by William C. Mann
“Critic of Islam finds new home in U.S.” on the wire at 2:05 a.m.
The second is from AP article same author, same title 10:14 a.m.
critic first version 140+ on Google, 40+ on Yahoo and 1 hit on MSN
"she will bring an increase to the level" ali
|Ask - 27||Google - 12||MSN - 16||Yahoo - 48|
"that she had to bring that kind of hate" ali