The Home Secretary was clearly right to exclude this man from Britain. His position is indistinguishable from that of the European far right.

He also, as you say, clearly makes no distinction between Islamism (a political ideology), Islam (a religion which manifests itself, like any religion, in a variety of forms) and Muslims.

People like Wilders give free speech a bad name.

“We need an article in our constitutions that lays down that we have a Jewish-Christian and humanism culture.”

Eh? The two are fairly mutually exclusive. In particular, the Jewish-Christian hallmark belief in a Big Man Upstairs is something shared with, er, Islam and definitely not with humanism.

Obviously he’s a fucking racist, he can’t even put a coherent argument together. He also activates the ECHR fascist-detecting tripwire on numerous occasions. That’ll be the ECHR championed by, er, Churchill. An ignorant fucking racist as well, then.

Humanism is a meaningless word; Geert Wilders can conceivably use it about the Renaissance humanists such as Thomas More or Erasmus – probably the latter, considering where Wilders hails from.

All the exclusion did was give him the platform to speak on a wider stage, and you say it was a good decision?

I didn’t agree with his exclusion because I would much rather that nasty idiots like him don’t get turned into free speech martyrs.

However, he is also backed up by people like Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips – who whitewash over that racism and fascist tendencies to pretend he’s just some misunderstood nice guy trying to save us all.

Just to clarify, my response was to David T

He should have been let in. He would have presented a ridiculous video to an empty house of lords and then left.

Life would have continued.

He does sound quite bonkers. But would we actually have heard of him if he hadn’t been banned from entering the UK?

I hadn’t heard of him until he was banned, or if I had, I’d forgotten about him.

I hadn’t bothered about him until he was banned. After that I watched his lousy film on YouTube. I’d say, only ban people who are likely to commit crimes in the UK.

David T – siince you’re here – what’s happened to Harry’s Place?

@ David T
” His position is indistiguishable from that of the European far right ”

Rather than ” far right ” I have other names for people like Wilders,Ayan Hirsi,Naser Khader,Salman Rushdie.Christopher Hitchens,Sam Harris.Robert Spencer.Lord Pearson, Douglas Murray ,Cohen,Wafa Sultan .

I call them ” Vacuum Fillers”
They are compensating for the space vacated by the “Left” because the left has once again ( as it has done with historic monotonous regularity) not only failed to recognise the ever growing encroachment of one more Totalitarian,anti-democratic.non-Muslim-ophobic, monster—-( as in Nazi-Germany / U.S.S.R / Mao / Castro: ) but also does everthing in its power to demean rational debate of this subject with dismissive simpilcities.
There is without doubt a psychology behind the >Lefts”abilitity to suspend reason,logic,wisdom and the instinct for self-preservation in the presence of an “enourmous Elephant in an extremely brightly lit room”.

People have written books about this “phenomena”.
Orwell,s Critical Essays with a scathing attack on the British,Left,Academic,Intelligencia for their ” placing democracy on the same moral plain as Nazism and Communism.”

Jamie Glasov; the son of a former Soviet dissident who just recently
wrote “United In Hate,-The Left Romance inTyranny and Terror “, because he was piss,sick and tired of hearing young American undergraduates telling him what a much-maligned paradise the U.S.S.R was and how evil Western civilization.

Jonah Goldberg “Liberal Fascism”
An American “self-confessed” conservative who thought it was about time to educate undergraducate misconceptions about which political part of the spectrum Fascism has traditionally sprung from,and it aint ” the Right”.

Nick Cohen; ” Whats Left “,I am sure you are all familiar with.

And the list is growing.
Is it a conspiracy concockted by a bunch of individuals who woke up one morning and though ” Hey, just for fun and out of sheer,racistic,ignorant,misinformed,riight wing,fascistic,Imperialistic,white supreamacist,American,Neo-con pleasure –lets go on a hate fest against Muslims just for the sheer enjoyment of it.
How would you like round the clock bodyguards and death threats. Nice carrier-huh ?

And where do the Apostate Muslim activists ,in your estimate , come into this,who agree with Wilders and are part of the counter-stealth jihad movement .and are constantly in danger.?
Or shall we betray them as well,and dismiss them as “conservative stooges”.

@Sunny Hundal
( ” Wilders attacks Islam not Muslims ” which is now of course shown to be rubbish “. )

This accusation has been raised before,ad.infinitum,not only at Wilders but at anyone critisizing the Islamic ideological juggernaut.
It is a standard “leftist”,potentially fatal assumption that “radical Islamism”exists in some kind of islolated vacuum.,divorced from your everyday,Imam,mosque,campus,factory worker.school.ect, ect.
To the contrary and most unfortunatley, that underlying layer-cake population of different shades of grey–is an ever present potential recruting resovouir,and as this picture the Left constantly harps on about,of a Koranic text,misunderstood by a “few fanatics”is untrue.
This Koranic text is not “misinterpreted”-misused-or misunderstood or perverted”.
That would be “heresy”.
The most respected and official scholar spoken for Islamic jurisprudence,who are eminently responsible for its “interpretation.-meaning”are publicly validating on a daily bases,for the entire Islamic world, an unquestionable,unalterable text, not perverted by “radical Islamist”, but followed-as written to the very letter and officiially sanctioned..
Yes there are “moderate Muslims ” but the Koran and Islam are not moderate.
Lets put it like this.
As long as Westen society remains complicit, in allowing,in its very midst, the existence of a religious text,which inspires and attempts constantly by the very nature of its unevolving belief structure,to “de-moderate”the moderate and proclaim its total opposition to our hard one, easily lost humanistic values, we risk being almost imperceptivly, being hollowed out from within.
We have a misplaced confidence in the omnipotence and endless resilience of western society to ward of,accomodate, absorb, modernise,resist or neutralize Islam.
The reason Wilders asks” why should we ban “Mein Kampf”and not the Koran is because he percieves that both ideologies have much in common.
What “leftist “would condone such tyrannical ,repressive and non-Muslim-ophobic.medieval rantings.
The Koran is Islams D.N.A. It cannot be anything other than it is,unless a considerable amount of the edicts in its Holy Book are allowed to be rejected.
There is no such thing as moderate Islam. Just “activated or non-activated.

Another factor which avoids any mention Is the demographic one.
Things take place in space and time.
The time factor is the most important.That which is not conceivable today,may be more within the realm of the possible 15 years down the road.
Do you really believe that Islam is not fully aware of demographic future trends and is there not a correlation between % percentage of population and assertion of an ethnic groups indentity.
I believe we have given a “belief system” of 1.6 billion adherence.,the “human right”to
preach,practice and profiligate anti-democratic human right in our midst.
With every day that passes the ” Left “and Isalm appear to have more in common.
Both believe unrestricted free-speech (article 19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights ) should be eliminated in respect for religious minorities.
Both are Internationalist.
Both are anti-Western.
Both looked on at 9/11 with a illdisgiused glee of validation and well deserved retibution.
And both have the ultimate,utopian, borderless, one big shade of grey,solution to all of mankinds problems.
In its relationship to Islam ,the Left practises some kind of inverted “racism of lower expectations”. ” you have to accept they are not like us, they haven,t attained the intellectual heights of the white European Left ,but given time they will be gently coerced into abandoning their foolish beliefs.”
God forbid we upset anybodies quaint, rustical sensitivities on the way.

Where to start in response to the above?

Firstly, you start off with some fairly wild generalisations- I doubt whether Christopher Hitchens would thank you for listing him alongside Wilders, not least because his fervent atheism stands in total opposition to the sort of Christian revival Wilders seems to want.

In fact many on the left are disgusted by the embrace of Islam by some- I refuse to acknowledge anyone who supports the Taliban, etc. as left-wing. We have long been aware of the homophobia & misogyny within Islam- & accordingly would support the women & apostates you refer to. They should be protected by a secular state which is unafraid to punish, for example, “honour” killings- it is our contention that by strengthening the feminists & liberals we can start a civil war within Islam & defeat the jihadists- rather than vilifying billions of people en masse.

(A secular state would also, of course, no longer provide taxpayers’ money to “faith” schools or privilige the assertions made by various religious figures & let them go unchallenged).

I would be delighted if people abandoned Islam- & Christinaty too, as I am an atheist & a secularist who has no time for any myths. Now- no one denies that much of the Koran is objectionable, but Bible is hardly pretty, & this applies to the New Testament too, unless you want to tell me all about the delights of Jude or Revelation.

I understand that if you spent your entire life listening to the utterances of fuckwits like Galloway, you’d think badly of the left. But in my view those who support theocracy are right-wing, not left-wing.

Re: Mein Kampf. Why not simply legalise Mein Kampf? Wilders actually does have a point that it is hypocrisy to ban one & not the other but reaches the wrong conclusion.

Looks like you’re determined to cast us all as one hive mind, all agreeing that one monolithic group should be allowed to ride roughshod over us all- which is not really borne out by anything.

https://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/03/27/individuals-have-rights-not-religions/ deals with your specific assertions re: proposals to make criticising religion illegal.

Also- current birthrates count for little as there is a proven track record of fertility falling with prosperity, also applicable in Muslim countries, most notably Iran, & communities such as the Turks in Germany.

PS-
Might I ask what sort of foreign policy you support, out of interest?

Lest you get the wrong idea- I am for Wilders’ freedom of speech. I would actually like to hear from him. I opposed the ban imposed on him. But I would not find myself in accord with his views.

Plus- many recent immigrants to this country, from countries such as Iran, are fleeing from theocracies & would be among the first to condemn such utter shite as sharia law. They want to live in a free country & I think they should have that right.

A lot of people who, if asked, would say they were “Muslims” are basically secular & atheist- just like “Catholics” & “Anglicans” in this country generally are.

@asquith Thanks for you answer;

Concerning the views of Hitchens and Wilders.
People like Wilders , and others of that movement ,use the term Judaeo-Christian-Greco-Roman as a means to emphazise and explain the historical differences and evolution of our culture.(he who has not sinned cast the first stone )
The type of Christianity promoted is usually a civilizational appreciation for our roots.
Repeated often enough it may give the impression that Wilders is advocating a return to traditional Christianity.
if I were to make a profile of your average ( for want of a better word ) those in the Wilders camp, I would say a vast majority are atheists; were left-wing when younger,
right of centre politically, oppose intervention of any description in Middle-Eastern affairs, including Afghanistan and Iraq, and are intent on not gambling with an inheritance which we are the guardians of but not the owners.

You are absolute right ,that I should not tar the entire left wing movement with one large brush,as every ideology has many shades of grey across it,s spectrum.
But perhaps thats not what I intended.
My argument is a kind of protest at that which appears as an alarming “tendency”
and repedative mind-set of the left.which i percieve to be main stream.
There seems to be this impression among the Left that people like me are, out of ignorance,confusing Galloway types with the mainstream-left .
I beg to differ here and as an example,In the 91,miniute video www, viddler where Nick Cohen is interviewed,it was not Nick Cohen who argued the case with success,as it was a young woman in the audience who as a student at Manchester University, and member of some Labour organisation,put things in their correct perspective.
Not that it was telling me anything I did not know already.(Islam on campus)
The reasonable left is practising a moral luxury it can ill afford. It is reacting after the event and not preventing,Accomodating not challenging.
The sources I base my opinions on are not, the rantings of ´right-wing,christian,revivalists.
With the simple aid of a computer,world wide newspaper reports,24/ 7 will enlighten
those usually preoccupied with other things and give a moving picture of events.
And in all honesty,taking everything into account,the future for Europe ,appears socially regressive.
I get no pleasure from this proccupation with Islam and would much rather pay sombody 20 Quid to convince me I am over reacting,so I could devote my time to more rewarding past-times and thats maybe one more the rest of the anti-stealth-jihad mob.

in answer to your other question
British former 68 social democratic leftist
Non-Jewish
Rabid Atheist ( childhood Catholic ) Secular
Member and supporter of no party,group, club whatsoever.
Foreign policy.Nationalist, Western Isolationist. Non-,Interventionist.
Régards.

“many recent immigrants to this country, from countries such as Iran, are fleeing from theocracies & would be among the first to condemn such utter shite as sharia law. They want to live in a free country & I think they should have that right.”

Indeed – assuming that people *fleeing* unpleasant regimes magically want to recreate them on finding themselves in a country more to their taste in terms of social, cultural and economic freedom is as absurd as thinking that 20th century Irish immigrants wanted to recreate a poor, priest-ridden, agricultural society or (sticking me neck out, but this is my ancestry I’m describing) Jewish refugees from Germany would suddenly decide that Britain was OK as far as it went, but they missed the essential totalitarian police state touch that would make them feel at home.

@asquith 14,15,
Your assumtions about Iran I agree with,but only a few day ago I came across an article by an Iranian who after finally managing to immigrate to Europe,was amazed to find a left intelligencia that was anti-western and percived Iranian foreign and domestic foreign policy as some kind of neccessary grievance-victimhood reaction to western-Imperialism,with scant disregard for and ignorance of the realities and the gulf between the regime and the general population.

” a lot of people, who if asked, would say they were” Muslims”are basically secular and atheist just like Anglicans and Catholics in this country generally are.

A majority of Muslim immigrants to Europe seem to express relief at having moved to a less repressive society, yet many have stated suprise when encountering “radicals”
here,who through intimidation,suppress dissent and declare themselves self-appointed spokesmen for the community,and attempt with some success to re-radiclize the community.
Many have expressed dismay at having moved from a relatively moderate Islam in their home communities only to run smack bag into the very thing they were hoping to escape from when arriviing in the west.

Journeyman…

“Jonah Goldberg “Liberal Fascism”
An American “self-confessed” conservative who thought it was about time to educate undergraducate misconceptions about which political part of the spectrum Fascism has traditionally sprung from,and it aint ” the Right”.”

Liberal Fascism is refuted, in large part, here.

“Nick Cohen; ” Whats Left “,I am sure you are all familiar with.”

A terrible book, thoroughly trashed here, here and here.

“Do you really believe that Islam is not fully aware of demographic future trends and is there not a correlation between % percentage of population and assertion of an ethnic groups indentity.”

I really believe that “Islam” is not a conscious entity, in contrast with, say, a Muslim. There are lots of Muslims, yes; some of them have similar ideas and others disagree.

It’s entirely your responsibility to demonstrate that there’s a concerted, widespread attempt to impose Islamist ideology upon Britain, or, indeed, Europe. Fitna – and, for that matter, Obsession – don’t cut mustard.

“if I were to make a profile of your average ( for want of a better word ) those in the Wilders camp, I would say a vast majority are atheists; were left-wing when younger, right of centre politically, oppose intervention of any description in Middle-Eastern affairs, including Afghanistan and Iraq, and are intent on not gambling with an inheritance which we are the guardians of but not the owners.”

If by “Wilders camp” you mean his associates then you’re completely wrong, as my post (linked by Sunny in the OP) makes clear. There’s Frank Gaffney, who is “still delighted” with the decision to invade Iraq and remains “a member of Dick Cheney’s fan club“; Joe Kaufman who’s unapologetic about advocating nuclear strikes against Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan; Pamela Geller (author of the Atlas Shrugs blog) who promotes youth earth creationism (see her sidebar), compares the ADL to “kapo[s]“, has variously supported John Bolton and Allen West for President, is just, well Christ, look through her archive yourself, my eyes are already bleeding. I could, to my regret, go on, but that sentence was getting unwieldy.

Ben

Getting ´back to Geert Wilders i think there are several factors which many are not aware of when passing judgement,
And to explain this we will have to pay a visit to the Ghost of Christmas past, present and future.
There should be no need to describe The Netherlands 20-30 years ago,Just about anybody should get a picture of a place that was democratically socialist, progressive, good welfare system, tolerant, secular good standard of living,non-violent ,low crime level, safe to walk the streets. Very ” Dutch”.Took hundreds of years of the blood sweat and tears of previous generations to achieve.

At some point in the past a decision was made to allow immigration from ( among others) North-Africa and the former Dutch colonies.
This decision was not arrived at by some non-govermental humanitarian agency concerned with the poverty level of third world countries,who felt morally bound to share the societies wealth with the less fortunate.
The decision was made by a Dutch-European-Global cabal ,of right-wing corporation,Industrial capitalists,with mercenary disregard for anything,nation,culture or otherwise.
The late 1960,s European population was getting far to particular,uppity,unionized and expected to get too well paid for their work.
As we all know, people in western societies,became less keen on performing mundane tasks at the work place,so there was to some extent a double advantage here—pay less–work more.
The situation as it is now in the Netherlands is that ,if present demographic trends are allowed to continue,together with its corresponding crime rate of Muslim street gang violence.,self-segregated Muslim enclaves,white-flight from the cities and emigration,
sometime between 2025-2030.there is a possiblity,that Amsterdam,Rottredam,and some other cities may have a majority Muslim population,and that is before ´the E.U.s ambition to begin the gradual integration of North Africa into the E.U. come to fruition.

Quiet recently the penny must have suddenly dropped ,.because the Dutch liberal-left governing establishment who did so much to encourage diversity and multiculturalism found itself looking at an Immigrant population that with the aid of modern technology such as computers, mobile phones,satelitte dishes and cheap flights was able to develope as a seperate entity,re-enforcing it,s foreign Identity rather than assimilating.

There is a fear of a future scenerio of a Netherlands no longer Dutch,
To those who say this attitude is nationalistic, racistic, xenophobia, I say that “Tibetan” rules should apply in this case
Wilders is just a manifestation of a culture attempting self-preservation of its values and way of lfe.in the hope that future generations will not curse them.
Since when is it immoral to do so..

@BenSix 19
Thanks for your answer and the links.
I will diligently explore them
Naturally it will take a while,so I wont be answering any of your points tonight..
As you might notice I have posted one more comment before I read yours ( 20),but its time for a break until tomorrow.
Best Regards-Journeyman

Quite reasonable statements you’re making there- as you might have realised, people like me are finding ourselves squeezed between Islamists & various kinds of right-winger: both of whom we find objectionable for various reasons.

The problem with arguing against the likes of Wilders is that so much of what they/you say actually is rooted in valid responses to some quite disturbing shite: in particular those ill-informed types who will talk all day about “Zionism” & how it oppresses Muslims, without stopping to think of the oppressed Muslims of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. etc. who they don’t give a toss about because they’re not convenient as a stick to beat kikes with. But you say yourself that this isn’t the whole story- just a trend to be fought & which I hope can be defeated.

We are pinning pretty much all our hopes to change within the Muslim world: what with prosperity, natural declines in fertility, & hoping against hope for a secular movement to emerge in those societies. (This, hopefully, to happen in the West to: though I’d agree that government policies are certainly not encouraging this & should be changed accordingly).

I do actually agree that immigration should be restricted & various facets of “multiculturalism” opposed- but at the same time, I view myself as an internationalist & will always view the activities of the Taliban & that with horror, even if it only ever occurs in “their” countries, as I identify myself with the women & liberals who suffer under theocracy & am keen to protect their interests & such.

In my view the debate should be over how best to achieve these ends- many who think along the same lines as me actually supported invading Iraq on humanitarian grounds, while others thought that although Saddam Hussein is obviously vile, invasion might make matters even worse. Because there are millions of not billions of natural allies within Islam who are either voting with their feet against theocracy or would if they could.

Not so much into Nick Cohen- the utterances of C. Hitchens & J. Hari do it for me.

You liberals do make me laugh. Quite ok to invade two Muslims countries bringing death & hatred of the West onto the streets of London, but don’t allow someone with a profound understanding of Islam to tell us all about it. Smith is in even more hot water after banning Michael Savage and she will soon be gone, thankfully.

One day you will have to accept that there is an Islamic strategy for conquering Europe and I hope you enlighten yourself before Iranian & Pakistan nuclear bombs are unleashed upon us by the true racists of the world.

A quick case study of the barbaric nation Saudi Arabia would allow you a better understanding of what an Islamic state is like, why not consider relocation there?

“Quite ok to invade two Muslims countries bringing death & hatred of the West onto the streets of London”

Uh, which liberals have claimed this was ok?

Genuine quesiton (I’ve asked this before but wasn’t able to get an answer):

Would Britain have legal authority to arrest and imprison him if he commits a crime here that isn’t a crime in the US?

A quick case study of the barbaric nation Saudi Arabia would allow you a better understanding of what an Islamic state is like, why not consider relocation there?

LOL – in fact, given that you endorse the bullshit that Wilders is spewing, and his thought process comes straight from Saudi Arabia, why don’t YOU go live there? We like to live in a liberal society where people have freedom of association, thanks. It seems you’re the one who wants to live in the Christian version of Saudi Arabia.

Oh, Jesus wept.

* “Stop cultural relativism” – by imposing some sort of morally absolutist totalitarian ideology, hmm?
* “Stop pretending that Islam is a religion” – after we stop pretending that Wilders is a serious politician.
* “Expel criminal foreigners … and send them back to their Arab countries” – because clearly all “criminal foreigners” are Arabs?
* “expel all those who incite to a ‘violent jihad’.” – after we expel all those who incite racial or religious hatred. I’m sure we can find a nice place to put them all together.
* “We need an European First Amendment to strengthen free speech.” – as long as that right to free speech can not be used by Muslims, right?
* “legally binding contract of assimilation … binding pledge of allegiance” – this is cloudcuckooland
* “Stop the building of new mosques … in our western countries.” – An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind.
* “Get rid of the current weak leaders.” – yes, we clearly need a crop of strong leaders – ideally blond Dutch demagogues whose surnames begin with the letter “W” – who can impose their final solution of the Islam question in Europe. Ugh.

I can understand that the government might want to limit the odious utterances of people like Wilders, but I would rather let him speak so we can see just how ridiculous it all is.

One day you will have to accept that there is an Islamic strategy for conquering Europe

I will certainly accept it, once there’s a shred of evidence for it beyond the usual distorted statistics, unfettered paranoia and old racist memes about the darkies breeding awfully fast these days. Until then, I’ll file it alongside The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the New World Order and Bush blowing up the Twin Towers as another example of political thought for morons by morons.

I can see looking at several of the comments here that there are some ,as expected and right on cue, failing to enquire into the precise conditions in the Netherlands that have provoked even the governing Dutch anti-racist labour party to admit that their policy encouraging multi-culturalism has faied miserably.
And finally and bravely, decided for the first time to dump the unworkable ” blame the Dutch first policy ” which has produced no improvement.
Many commentators here are practising “selective outrage “which comes as no suprise “.
” Racism” can also be .being given the opportunity,many years age to move from some poverty stricken village, in Marroco , to a wealthy ,tolerant ,non-racist , liberal , country and abuse it by imposing your own socially regressive, reverse racist,hostile and openly seditious, medieval failed values in it,s midst.
To the point where the very security of that nation is faced with its security,culture,values and identity—being seriously undemined.
” Racism” can also be an indigenous European left-wing extremist , selectively denying the inalienable right , to the citizens of first world nations,to preserve and protect the fragile and besieged liberties ,that so many percieve as permenant.
It is the assumption that,no ” disriminatory judgement “,should ever be made,about any religion, culture,life-style, ideology,race or gender–unless targetted specfically towards an Anglo-Saxon, Hetero-Sexual, Male.,him being the cause of all the worlds evils.

We ban Wilders, but let run free dangerous guys like Izzadeen: as reported in the Telegraph:

”
Radical preacher Abu Izzadeen freed from jail early –
Abu Izzadeen, a radical Muslim preacher who was jailed after footage was uncovered of him calling for the beheading of any Muslim in the British army, has been freed early from jail.

IIzzadeen, 34, whose real name is Trevor Brooks, led a group of Islamic radicals who stormed the moderate Regents Park Mosque in central London and then forced back police who tried to evict them…

A second generation Jamaican, Izzadeen, walked out of jail on Saturday because of the amount of time he has already spent in prison. He had one year cut off his sentence by the Court of Appeal, reducing it from four-and-a-half to three-and-a-half years.

A number of his fellow activists could also immediately walk free.

Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said the men were a danger to society.

“Abu Izzadeen and his organisation publicly call for attacks against those whom they see as enemies of Islam,” he said.

“Their ideology not only glorifies violent jihad but teaches their followers that taking part in suicide bombings is their duty as Muslims.

“The early release of a hate preacher like Abu Izzadeen demonstrates that the British courts are still far away from understanding the very clear and present danger that this country is facing from militant Islamists.”

Supporters of Izzadeen have celebrated his release on extremist Islamic websites.

One supporter wrote: “This is absolutely wonderful news. May Allah reward you for sharing this with us.

“‘The man is a modern day Muslim hero! Just look at the wisdom and generosity of Allah – he really does relieve those who stand up and are firm in his cause.”

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice confirmed that Izzadeen and five others had all received lower tariffs from the Court of Appeal but insisted that they would all be closely monitored in the outside world.

Simon Wheeler, another high profile activist jailed at the same time, still has several months to serve.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5281881/Radical-preacher-Abu-Izzadeen-freed-from-jail-early.html

I recommend folks read Wilders full speech.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025884.php

It gives a wider perspective to what he’s saying what he’s saying.

Cultural relativism is the root of our problem. Too many westerners are not willing to face the reality that Islam is not principally a religion but an ideology.

As even this thread shows.

Just two examples of the nature of Islam:
i) – all Islamic mainstreams believe that apostasy deserves the death penalty. It is not ‘radical’s but mainstream, all mainstream islamic scholars agree.
ii) homosexuals are being targeted round thwe world by Islam- eg Iraq (
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/04/1921277.aspx)

…and that too is mainstream Islam:
The Sunan Abu Dawud, named after its editor, is a reliable collection of Hadith about Mohammed. Ibn Abbas reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . . “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done” (vol. 3, p. 145, no. 4447).

The next one from the same collection says that an unmarried man who commits sodomy should be stoned to death: “Ibn Abbas said: if a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death” (vol. 3, p. 1245, no. 4448).

1) “He also, as you say, clearly makes no distinction between Islamism (a political ideology), Islam (a religion which manifests itself, like any religion, in a variety of forms) and Muslims”

Incorrect, he said “The core of the problem with the Koran is twofold. First, the commands in the Koran are not limited by place or time, they apply for all time, to all Muslims. Second, the Koran is Allah’s personal word. That leaves no room for interpretation. Therefore, there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Of course, there are many moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. As the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan once put it, “There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam.”

Journey man
Jonah Goldberg “Liberal Fascism”
An American “self-confessed” conservative who thought it was about time to educate undergraducate misconceptions about which political part of the spectrum Fascism has traditionally sprung from,and it aint ” the Right”.

A little simplistic to think that facsism grew from the left.
Hitler was a great admirer of the British empire and the destruction of the native americans by the US capitalists, not exactly left wing organisations. In fact he used them as models for lebenstraum.
Nazis believed in neo darwinism, a survival of the fittest, this was in common with right wing free market capitalists such as Ford and Krupp. Both who admired Hitler greatly. Surely the basic tenent of the left is equality and the direct opposite to neo darwinism.

Yes- Hitler was also put in power through the agency of such noted Marxists as Franz von Papen and Paul von Hindeburg and was aided at all stages of his career by liberals like the judges who gave him a light sentence for his role in the Munich Putsch.

He was also allied to Bolsheviks like General Franco, who ran Spain into the ground with his liberal policies in alliance with those pesky lefties in the Catholic Church.

Also General Pinochet was left-wing.

Fuck me- fish in a barrel, isn’t it?

Always makes me laugh to see Repugs in America lauding how “scholarly” Goldberg is. Yes, with intellectual lions such as him and Mann Coulter on board, what could possibly stop Republicans going from strength to strength, apart from the stupidity of the American public, who are deluded enough to hate their fucking guts?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905070031

Really going to storm to victory with such fucking colossi as Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin, eh?

It is absurd to say that institutional racism is dead. It is still alive in the form of Islamophobia. . One of the deepest expressions of institutional racism affecting immigrant communities, and one that has been long documented is the unequal treatment of their children by the education system. They are motivated, but knocked back by their experiences of the school system. They are often treated more harshly and viewed with lower teacher expectation on the basis of teachers’ assumptions about their motivation and ability.

LAs are failing in their duty to combat racism in schools, according to OFSTED, Education system exhibits “aspects of racism”. A quarter of authorities are not doing enough to promote equal educational opportunities. A Brighton University study found that the Britain education system is institutionally racist, with pupils and teachers vulnerable to abuse by peers, teachers and management. I discovered the element of racism in early 70s. National Curriculum does not reflect cultural diversity and minority pupils are being held back by native teachers. London Borough of Newham was judged by OFSTED as unsatisfactory in tackling racism. There are big issues about racism in schools needed to be tackled but could not understand that Bilingual Muslim pupils need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. It is a crime against humanity to deprive a child of his mother tongue but in the name of integration every thing is fair. Independent schools are also racist in nature. The parents of a Pakistani boy who was racially abused by his classmates and teachers are suing St. Christopher School.

Education report by Birmingham Advisory Service recommends that school lessons should take into account cultural differences in order to improve pupils’ performance. It calls for teaching “the need for mutual respect and understanding”. Minority pupils are underachieving at school because the curriculum is racist. The study found lessons often failed to motivate or interest pupils because curriculum did not provide enough positive role models. The curriculum needs to be more balanced and less Eurocentric. Pupils grow up thinking there is no other playwright than Shakespeare. An ethnicity “Tsar” should be appointed to reform British schooling. Muslim schools performed best overall, although they constitute only a fraction of the country’s 7000 schools. Muslim schools do well because of their Islamic ethos and a focus on traditional discipline and teaching methods. They teach children what is right and what is wrong, because young children need structural guidance. Muslim school is responsible for the development of the whole child. Muslim schools give Muslim children “pride, identity and a sense of culture and languages.
Iftikhar Ahmad
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk