If this censorship takes effect, it would apply to everyone using Google Blogger, Google Orkut, Google+, Yahoo, Facebook, YouTube, and the other sites mentioned, whether residing in India or not.

‘Clean up your website’: Indian court orders Facebook and Google to remove ‘anti-religious’ content

(h/t: Nilk via GoV)

Social websites including Google and Facebook have been ordered by an Indian court to remove all ‘anti-religious’ and ‘anti-social’ content within six weeks.

On Saturday a Delhi Court ordered 22 social networking sites, including Yahoo and Microsoft, to wipe the objectionable and defamatory contents and file compliance reports by February 6, 2012.

The order will raise serious questions about how users’ posts and opinions will be edited, censorship and freedom of expression.

On December 22 Judge Kumar had issued summonses to the social networking sites, demanding they remove photographs, videos or texts that might offend religious sentiments, the Hindustan Times website reported.

The order comes a day after a criminal court issued summonses to the sites for facing trial for allegedly webcasting objectionable contents.

Santosh Pandey, appearing for complainant Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi, told The Hindu Times after the court hearing that the websites have to submit a report to the court by February 6 describing the action they had taken to remove the contents from the websites.

Representatives of Yahoo India Pvt Ltd and Microsoft told the court that they had not got copies of the order and complaint against them, but Qasmi’s counsel told the court that he would supply the relevant documents to them, according to the Hindustan Times.

The order comes at a controversial time as IT minister Kapil Sibal had recently discussed with representatives of some of the companies ways to guarantee the offensive contents are not posted.

India Today quoted him as saying: ‘There were some demeaning, degrading, clearly pornographic depictions of gods and goddesses which no reasonable, sensible person anywhere in the world would accept, on any site.

The minister insisted he was not smothering free speech but was suggesting screening possible ‘incendiary’ material.

The Hindu Times reported Facebook India, Facebook, Google India Pvt Ltd, Google Orkut, Youtube, Blogspot, Microsoft India Pvt Ltd, Microsoft, Zombie Time, Exboii, Boardreader, IMC India, My Lot, Shyni Blog and Topix were all given the order.

A Google spokesperson told the website: ‘We comply with valid court orders wherever possible, consistent with our long standing policy.

‘We’re yet to receive the details of this order and can’t comment on this specific case.’

Additional Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar passed the order on a suit filed by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi seeking to restrain the websites from circulating objectionable and defamatory contents.

More comments/photos here.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by SDAMatt2a on Dec 15, 2011

Serial litigant and Stormfront member Richard Warman launched a blizzard of lawsuits today, against The National Post and the backbone of the northern blogosphere – Ezra Levant, Kate McMillan, Kathy Shaidle and Free Dominion. He’d laid low for a few weeks, contenting himself with empty threats against McGill students, but he has now made his move. Ezra Levant lays out the legal challenge very clearly, Glenn Reynolds offers some advice, and Jay Currie adds an important point:

“Warman is betting all the marbles here. His credibility and the credibility of the CHRC are now in play. Warman was the CHRC’s creature and, I suspect the evidence will show, the CHRC became his creature as he casually crossed the line between investigator and complainant.”

Precisely. It’s not possible to take a stand against the Canadian Human Rights Commission without also talking a stand against Richard Warman. He has been the plaintiff on half the Section 13 cases in its entire history and on all the Section 13 cases since 2002. There are 30 million Canadians yet only one of them uses this law, over and over and over again, which tells you how otherwise irrelevant it is to keeping the Queen’s peace. Section 13 is, in effect, Warman’s Law and the CHRC is Warman’s personal inquisition and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is Warman’s very own kangaroo court. Whether or not the motivations were pure and pristine when this racket got started, at some point his pals at the CHRC and the “judges” of the CHRT should have realized that the Warmanization of Section 13 doesn’t pass the smell test: Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, and when you see what’s done at the CHRC you understand it’s a cosy and self-perpetuating romance between a corrupt bureaucracy and its favoured son.

So taking on the CHRC means taking on Richard Warman. I believe my colleague Charlie Gillis will have a piece on Warman in this week’s Maclean’s, on sale tomorrow, so the spotlight isn’t going to be dimming anytime soon. In the meantime, I hope SteynOnline readers will support Ezra, Kate, Kathy and Mark and Connie at Free Dominion. They are private citizens like Richard Warman. Unlike him, they have not been enriched by tax-free awards of significant five-figure sums for entirely mythical “pain and suffering”. So please go on over to the various websites and make a donation, as my pal Michelle Malkin did earlier today. In Kathy’s case, you might also consider buying a copy of her book Acoustic Ladyland: it’s in a good cause, but you’ll get the better end of the bargain because it’s a great read.

- Mark Steyn

Ezra Levant with Marc Lemire: freedom of speech

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by SDAMatt2a on Dec 15, 2011

Marc Lemire, the target of Canada’s speech mandarins for 8 years, joins Ezra Levent to discuss, amongst other things, the activities of federal employee Richard Warman.

Then Ezra is joined by Chris Schafer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

Much as I want to see Section 13 and the CHRC go down in flames, I strongly advise against strengthening any “hate propaganda” or “hate speech” provisions in the criminal code. That could result in prison sentences, rather than merely civil fines and sanctions, imposed on counterjihad activists and anyone else who violates the standards of political correctness and multiculturalism.

Also see:

• Freedomsite
• @marc_lemire on Twitter
• Canadian Constitution Foundation

The next video shows that the efforts to censor any honest discussion of immigration, multiculturalism, and the threat of Islam are not paying off. Note the silly reference to Muslims as an “ethnic group.”

Canadians take a dim view of islam: poll

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by SDAMatt2a on Dec 15, 2011

G** dammit Babs Hall! The peasants are expressing their opinion, AND IT’S THE WRONG ONE! Get in there and imprison them until they hold correct views.

Why We Blog – And How You Can Help

This is one reason why we cover so much Canadian material on the US-based 1389 Blog. One of the missions of our blog, from the get-go, was to fight for free speech for the Counterjihad. Any Canadian counterjihadists who want to make themselves heard should feel free to contact us. All we need is your knowledge and expertise. You need not use your real name!

EthicalOil.org has the story:

Saudi Arabia moves to censor Canadian TV ad

TORONTO, CANADA – The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an oil rich dictatorship, has moved to censor a Canadian television ad that educates Canadian consumers about the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia and the role played by Saudi oil exports in enabling this oppression. The ad can be viewed here.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“This is a brazen act of domestic political interference by a foreign dictatorship that neither understands nor respects the rights of women or freedom of speech,” said Alykhan Velshi, executive director of EthicalOil.org, a grassroots advocacy organization that educates consumers about their choice between ethical oil from Canada’s oil sands and conflict oil from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. “Each time we buy Saudi conflict oil we are funding their oppression – and now their attempts at Saudi-style censorship of Canadian TV. This is the ad Saudi Arabia doesn’t want Canadians to see.”

On September 6, 2011, Telecaster Services from the Television Bureau of Canada, the advertising review and clearance service funded by Canada’s private broadcasters, notified EthicalOil.org that it had received a cease and desist letter from lawyers for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia demanding that approval for EthicalOil.org’s ad be withdrawn. Telecaster Services had approved the ethical oil spot on August 18, 2011 and the ad subsequently ran and completed its run of schedule on the Oprah Winfrey Network (Canada).

The cease and desist letter was sent by Norton Rose, a global law firm with Canadian offices. Norton Rose attorney Rahool Agarwal has confirmed his representation of Saudi Arabia to EthicalOil.org’s legal counsel. Despite repeated requests Norton Rose has refused to provide ethicaloil.org’s legal counsel with the material sent to the Telecaster on behalf of the Saudi dictatorship.

In response to the Saudi dictatorship’s move, EthicalOil.org is taking the following actions:

1. The ad has been put back on the air. Starting today the Sun News Network is airing the spot.
2. Velshi has written to His Excellency Osamah A. Al Sanosi Ahmad, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador in Canada, informing him the ad has been put back on the air and challenging him to a televised debate about the ad and its contents.
3. Velshi has alerted Foreign Minister John Baird and Dean Allison, Chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade about the incident in writing, calling on the government and the parliamentary committee to investigate a foreign dictatorship trying to censor what Canadians can and cannot see on their televisions.

For more information, contact:
Alykhan Velshi
EthicalOil.org
Alykhan@ethicaloil.org

Commenter Shobhna Kapoor requests:

Please express your outrage at this Saudi bullying to Stephen Harper at pm@pm.gc.ca.

More here:

• Ezra Levant: Extremists’ oil protest puzzling
• Book by Ezra Levant: Ethical Oil: The case for Canada’s oilsands
• Sun News: Pipeline protest a big bust
• Blazing Cat Fur: Ezra Levant Mocks CBC’s Beloved Pipeline Protest
• Blazing Cat Fur: Saudi Threats a SLAPP in the Face

Bonus questions for perspicacious viewers:

• What finally happens when ‘gay rights’ and ‘Muslim rights’ come into conflict?
• Who’s the Brigitte Bardot of Canada – and who’s the Brigitte Bardot of Melbourne?
• Should Mark Steyn become a disco singer?

Mark Steyn on Free Speech

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by MuggedVideos2 on Jun 25, 2011

Appallingly, that fine and prominent Australian journalist Andrew Bolt is being prosecuted in an Australian court for racial discrimination. Nine people are suing Bolt and the Herald-Sun over Bolt’s suggestion that some people choose to assert Aboriginal ancestry in order to advance their careers.

Prosecuted for racial discrimination. Over saying that. Just think about that for a moment. Mark Steyn, who himself went through a similar experience in Canada, delivered this priceless presentation in support of Bolt at an event the other day. The event was attended by nearly 600 people deeply concerned — as well they might be — by this most sinister threat to western freedom. Truly the light is going out in the west.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/the-steady-eclipse-of-the-western-mind

Mark Steyn’s specially recorded video message for the Institute of Public Affairs’ Free Speech event, with guest of honour Andrew Bolt. Melbourne, 20 June 2011
http://vimeo.com/25438650

Also see:

Mark Steyn: Free Speech in Australia

We have already warned that Christians are becoming less and less free to express their beliefs in many historically Christian countries, including the US.

Man Found Guilty For Passing Out Bibles

(h/t: Noisy Room)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by specguests on Sep 1, 2011

Video Transcript:

This is not your grandparent’s America with headlines like the following exclusive WorldNetDaily story about a man who was found guilty of…passing out books of the bible!

WorldNetDaily reported that the pastor was arrested for ‘handing out bibles’ from a public sidewalk. The so-called ‘crime’ of giving away the books of John and Romans occurred near an Islamic center in Wichita, Kansas. Pastor Mark Holick was found guilty and sentenced to a $300 fine, a year of probation and ordered not to be within 1,000 feet of the Islamic center in the future.

In court, Pastor Holick of Spirit One Christian Center, declared, “Wichita you are confused, I am not your enemy, Islam is. Thou shalt have no other gods’ before me.”

So, if you thought it was safe to exercise your First Amendment right to freedom of speech and religion in the New America, …you may have thought wrong.

Kansas City Star: Wichita pastor told to stay away from Islam center

Posted on Fri, Sep. 02, 2011 10:08 AM

WICHITA | A Wichita pastor who preaches against Islam has been ordered to stay 1,000 feet away from the Islamic Society of Wichita after he was arrested while distributing Bibles in front of the center.

Mark Holick, pastor of Spirit One Christian Ministry, was also ordered Thursday to serve a year of unsupervised probation and pay a $300 fine for loitering and disrupting a business.

Holick was arrested in front of the society in August 2010 while he and a dozen followers handed out Bibles, The Wichita Eagle reported. Police said they arrested Holick after he ignored a request to move to a public sidewalk.

“The only reason you were the one arrested is because you were the only one who disobeyed the police orders,” Sedgwick County District Judge Phil Journey told Holick.

Holick was found guilty last month in Wichita Municipal Court on two counts of loitering and disrupting a local business. The case moved to county court after he appealed that conviction.

During Thursday’s hearing, Holick quoted Bible verses and accused the city of violating his First Amendment rights.

“Wichita is confused,” Holick said. “I am not your enemy. Islam is. The Lord said there will be no other gods before me.”

Journey told Holick that the First Amendment protected his right to express his religious beliefs but also allowed laws to regulate how he practices his faith.

“I want you to think about this,” Journey said. “What if the shoe had been on the other foot and someone from the Islamic Center had come to your place and tried to convert your members and had blocked your driveway?”

Spirit One has been a street and online ministry since a month after his arrest, Holick said, when he sold his building in south Wichita to another church.

The judge also reminded Holick that the Constitution protects people of all faiths, not just Holick’s.

“There’s nothing wrong with proselytizing or holding your beliefs. It’s the manner of how you carry them out, that’s the problem,” Journey said.

Holick could be sentenced to six months in jail if he doesn’t follow the conditions of his probation.

The pastor’s activities are not optional. The Bible requires us to make the effort to introduce “all nations” to the Gospel message. That includes Muslims along with everyone else.

OrthodoxWiki: The Great Commission

After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples and spoke to them saying,

“…All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20 KJV, also see Mark 16:14-20, Acts 2:38)

More information:

• The uploader of this video, Special Guests, may be contacted at 630-848-0750. They also have a mobile site.
• Spirit One Christian Ministry can be contacted here.

What would have to change if it turns out that all of those comforting assurances about Islam are completely wrong? What will we have to do differently?

Shariah – The Threat to America is a project of the Center for Security Policy. Here is a definitive analysis, which is in the public domain.

• About the Book
• View or download the book here (PDF).

Only 6 days left to vote for ‘Best Canadian Political Book of the Last 25 Years’ — list includes Ezra Levant’s ‘Shakedown’

(h/t: Five Feet of Fury and Blazing Cat Fur)

Blazing Cat Fur has the links! Click HERE!

To the tune of ten million dollars, no less. The suit is frivolous, but it still must be defended, at considerable expense.

The story is on Republican Riot, Julia Gorin’s blog.

“There Are Only Muslims and Communists”

Originally posted on Gates of Vienna. Reprinted with permission.

Below is Gemini’s introduction:

Islam is the enemy, the Czech presidential candidate reminded the world

In recent days the Czech mainstream media have brought to light statements from Miloš Zeman, a prominent leftist politician, regarding Islam. This former prime minister of the Czech Republic (1998 – 2002), also at one time a presidential candidate, is well-known for his open statements and uncompromising humour. Most of these statements were taken from his report presented at the international conference entitled “Europe united and free?”, held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic and country’s Defence Ministry. The rest come from a subsequent press release. These statements have already led to charges against the aforementioned politician.

The original sources, including a few more short commentaries, may be found here and here, while this article concentrates mostly on Zeman’s statements.

His condensed translation:

“NATO has declared itself as a defensive alliance without questioning what is it defending against. But it all begins with defining the enemy,” Zeman stated. He then continued: “The enemy is the anti-civilization spreading from northern Africa all the way to Indonesia. Inhabited by two billions of people and financed partly by gasoline sales, partly by drug sales,” speaking about the world of Muslims.

With his mention of drugs, he was mostly referring to Afghanistan and Kosovo. With the former NATO became mired in an endless war, while the latter got help from the alliance to secede from Serbia. This involvement he regards as a failure.

“I don’t believe there are Muslims and radical Muslims. Just as I don’t believe there are moderate and radical communists. There are only Muslims and communists,” Zeman addressed the conference participants.

He believes that one of the mistakes the West has been making is its willingness to negotiate and its responsiveness towards Muslim countries.

“Just remember the appeasement politics during the ‘30s. The victims were thrown directly into enemy’s guts, and (see) where it ended. The 21st century is not going to be Fukuyama’s ‘End of History’, but Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’,” predicted the retired Zeman.

If NATO should expand in the future, it must be Israel that is adopted, according to Zeman. “Not the state whose president regards Stalin and Beria his main heroes,” he declared, referring to Georgia as governed by Mikhail Saakashvili. However, this could not be so easily done without changing the political climate in the NATO countries. And this is exactly what the politicians are afraid of, Zeman believes.

Nor was the EU spared. “The EU reminds me of an overweight kid who is starting to throw up,” summed up Zeman about the union of states, some of which have already asked for huge financial support.

“Even if one might agree that women should not be allowed to drive a car, in every other aspect the Islamic anti-civilisation makes women into a subjugated and second-class minority,” he added in a separate press release.

“There is no doubt that Islam’s ideological basis is the Koran. A Muslim can be identified as an adherent of Koran, just as Nazi is an adherent of racial supremacy and anti-Semitism, or a Communist an adherent of class struggle and proletarian dictatorship,” he further elaborated in his press release.

“Islam is incomparably more aggressive and intolerant that today’s Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism and other world religions,” added the former presidential candidate, referring to Koran.

Prague Daily Monitor: Former Czech PM sued over statements on Islam

8 July 2011

Prague, July 7 (ČTK) – Retired politician Milos Zeman, Czech prime minister in 1998-2002, faces a criminal complaint over the statements on Islam he made in June at an international conference on Europe.

“The enemy is the anti-civilisation spreading from North Africa to Indonesia. Two billion people live in it and it is financed partly from oil sales and partly from drug sales,” Czech news servers quoted Zeman as saying about Islam at the recent conference.

Zeman said Thursday Muslims believe in the Koran like Nazis believed in racial supremacy and anti-semitism and communists in class struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat.

He said Islam is far more aggressive and intolerant than present Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism and other world religions.

He added that the Koran includes passages calling for the subjugation, enslavement and even elimination of non-believers.
[…]
Read it all.

Gates of Vienna: Lawfare in Italy

Some years before 2001 she began to notice problems with immigrants, particularly Muslims, and began to investigate. This led to the decision to found O.D.D.I.I., to use legal means to defend the Constitution and Italian law.

In addition to supporting human rights and freedom, she opposes those who have totalitarian plans and are against democracy, and attempt to deprive Italians of their freedom of expression by means of both physical threats and legislation which has lost its western and democratic authority. Because of her activism she has been accused of instigating attacks on mosques in Milan mosques, and other multiculti “hate crimes”.

The latest charges against Adriana Bolchini were instigated by a Muslim, who is suing because of an article published by her five years ago. Below is a brief summary of the case, translated from the Italian:

Adriana Bolchini was denounced by Nour Dachan, the former president of UCOII (Islamic Association in Italy) with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. She will go on trial July 5, 2011 in Ancona (Marche — Italy).

The complaint falls within the context of complaints that Muslims regularly make against those who dare to highlight the incongruencies of Islamic doctrine. In the case involving Nour Dachan, however, the situation is slightly different. Adriana Bolchini is being sued because she highlighted the fact that Mr. Dachan was taking advantage of a kidnapping in Afghanistan (of convert Gabriele Torsello) by the Taliban who were demanding a ransom to free him.

Nour Dachan benefited from the situation by standing as an intermediary between the family and the kidnappers, with an appeal to the Taliban in Italian and Arabic, forgetting that Afghans are descended from various ethnic groups as reflected in the languages they speak. The most important group are the Pashtun, from the area close to Pakistan, who speak Pashto; another group speaks Persian (also known as Farsi) in the Dari dialect. Both languages do not have Arabic origins, but Iranian. Then there is another language used in Afghanistan which is Urdu, the legacy of the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal empire.

Obviously the charge against Adriana Bolchini is related to defamation, as attached.

We invite you to support Adriana Bolchini in her struggle for freedom of thought, speech and opposition to Islam that seeks to impose Islamic Sharia law everywhere they live.

The article referred to in the indictment

By Gramfan

Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions (BDS) against Israel is, indeed, fascism.

Max Brenner is a Jewish-owned business:

I’m sorry, but the fascist analogy must now be drawn

Violent arrests at ‘peaceful’ pro-Palestine protest in Melbourne

Click here to view the embedded video.

Andrew Bolt – Monday, July 04, 2011 at 12:04pm

I never dreamed I’d live in a country in which Jewish businesses were boycotted and blockaded.

The shame. The utter shame.

But then I’d never dreamed, either, that I’d be taken to court for expressing my opinion. Or that a news organisation would be denied a government contact for being politically unsympathetic. Or that news outlets would be banned by government ministers for asking basic questions. Or that academics could protest against free speech.

UPDATE

And that a letter such as this could appear in the Sydney Morning Herald:

The wise and timely essay by Samantha Selinger-Morris (’’Old hatreds in a new medium’’, July 2-3) raises an issue that should make Jewish community leaders in Australia rethink their attitudes to the growth of anti-Semitism.

Tragically this upsurge of racism is attributable directly to the perceived suffering the Israeli government has imposed on the Palestinian people. The current Israeli government is more responsible for the spread of anti-Semitism worldwide than any ratbag racist groups waving symbols of Germany in the 1930s…

Vincent Matthews Forestville

(Via RWDB.)

Andrew Bolt has a lot of good points in this piece:

Things I never thought I’d see here

And this:

Marrickville council has been condemned by the Senate for advocating a boycott of Israel

Frankly, I think it is a bit of window dressing.

The greens are evil. No other word for it. They want global government…where have we heard that before? Oh yes, Soros!

When I wrote that article about Green + Green there was a major fault that I now have come to realise. I left out “Red”. My husband is reading Dupes by Paul Kengor. The whole democratic party (and many others) have been infiltrated by Communists! And now the US and Europe are talking to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is unbelievable!

So we have Islam and Communism working together. That is why they have to destroy our Judeo-Christian culture, that is why they have to destroy Israel first.

I think I have mentioned that blog Gulag Bound. Today, they have a piece on Agenda 21 which is rather scary:

Agenda 21: Ending Liberty in America

My friends have it up already. None of what is happening is an accident.

When I said I wanted to go to another planet I wasn’t joking. I don’t care about myself. I care about my kids and grand kids.

I cannot remember a time like this in my whole life. Every western leader is at war with their own people. Identity politics, minorities, affirmative action rules.

I will say it again: Glenn Beck was right about almost everything. I probably learned more from his two year show that I did in the last 15 years.

Wearing a burqa in any society where face masks and voluminous robes are not customarily worn is, indeed, a form of reverse exhibitionism.

It has nothing to do with modesty; it’s all about confrontation. The burqa draws a tremendous amount of attention and scrutiny regarding who, or what, is under that burqa. (“Who” being jihadis or other criminals, male or female. “What” being BOMBS or other deadly weapons.) Political correctness forbids the authorities from conducting proper security checks. The burqa grabs our attention; even if we try not to stare, we are compelled to WORRY. And that’s the whole point.

The burqa is a security risk even in Muslim countries:

Pakistan Taliban Use Husband, Wife Suicide Bombers

Says lobo91:

This can’t be true. Our own DHS secretary says that women in burquas are less of a threat than nuns and toddlers…

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (AP) — The Pakistani Taliban said Sunday the group had sent a husband and wife suicide squad to carry out an attack on a police station in northwestern Pakistan that killed 10 people, a rare instance of militants using a woman as a bomber.

The pair entered the police station in Kolachi on Saturday and said they were there to lodge a complaint, said Imtiaz Shah, a senior police official. Once inside, the two attacked with grenades and machine guns, triggering a five-hour standoff with police.

Both attackers, including the woman wearing an all-covering robe known as a burqa, eventually blew themselves up. They killed eight police officers and two civilians, said Mohammad Hussain, another police official.

“This shows how much we hate Pakistani security institutions,” Pakistani Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location.

Ahsan claimed it was the first time the militant group had used a female suicide bomber.

However, Pakistani officials said a female suicide bomber wearing a burqa attacked a World Food Program food distribution center in northwestern Pakistan late last year, killing 45 people.

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for that attack in Khar, the main city in the Bajur tribal area, but never claimed it was carried out by a female bomber. Still, that was believed to be the group’s first attack by a female suicide bomber.

Male suicide bombers often don the burqa as a disguise. [emphasis added] In 2007, officials initially claimed Pakistan’s first female suicide bomber had killed 14 people in the northwest town of Bannu. But the attacker was later identified as a man.

Islamic militants in Iraq have used female suicide bombers several times because women in their all-covering robes are seen as able to pass more easily through security. Male security officers are often hesitant to search women.

Also Sunday, a bomb planted in a motorcycle exploded near a police station in the central city of Multan, said Zahid Zaman, a senior government official.

The blast wounded eight people, including four police officials, said Wasim Hashmi, chief of the rescue squad in Multan. No group claimed responsibility.

More here.

The burqa is also a useful tool for attention-whoring in the service of expansionist Islam, as the Carnita Matthews case shows us:

Lift the burqa on cowardly extremism

Miranda Devine – The Daily Telegraph – June 23, 2011 12:00AM

THE preposterous excuses and Pythonesque theatrics of Carnita Matthews and her thuggish supporters outside the Downing Centre Courts this week would be comic, if they weren’t so threatening.

The 46-year-old mother of seven, wearing a full black niqab showing just her eyes, has successfully tied the justice system up in knots for the past year, simply to avoid paying a $197 traffic fine.

Described as being “deliberately malicious and … ruthless” by the magistrate who convicted her last November of falsely claiming a “racist” police officer tried to tear off her veil during a random breath test, Matthews escaped her six-month jail sentence on appeal before the District Court.

Ironically, appeal Judge Clive Jeffreys could not be certain beyond reasonable doubt it was Matthews who had lodged the complaint against Senior Constable Paul Fogarty, because (drum roll) she was wearing the niqab when she arrived at Campbelltown police station last June.

“All we know is that a person with a black burqa came in with a man in a brown suit with an envelope and that’s it,” he said.

But somebody lied about Sen-Constable Fogarty, whose innocence and restraint in the face of Matthews’ screeching provocation were evident on the 20-minute in-car police video, without which his career would have been in jeopardy.

The prosecution was unable to satisfy Judge Jeffreys that the liar was Matthews, despite the fact her friend, former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib, alleged to radio 2GB’s Chris Smith on Tuesday that he had accompanied her to the police station to lodge the complaint. As well, Channel 7 has footage of Matthews allegedly signing a statutory declaration and driving to the police station.

Maybe the case was too hot to handle. It grew from a simple traffic fine for a woman with a string of driving offences, to a core test of political Islam: Whether a veiled Muslim woman has the right to refuse a police officer’s lawful request that she identify herself.

The answer is no.

That right does not exist under our law.

But that doesn’t stop Islamist activists pushing for it, as if it is their due.

Regardless of who signed the false complaint against Sen-Constable Fogarty, it was the intimidating behaviour of Matthews’ male supporters outside court this week which was most offensive.

The bearded men who chanted “Allah Akbar” (God is Great) as they marched roughshod on cameramen weren’t behaving normally.

Their theatrics were a declaration of war on Australia, on the media, on police.

Linking arms and striding down the street chanting the phrase we have heard again and again – often in the wake of other appalling crimes – was a show of power by people who put the authority of their God above the law of the land.

It is a direct challenge to Australian law and order.

We increasingly see the same challenge issued whenever a hardline Islamist appears in court, as the call goes out for “brothers” to run “protection” for the accused.
[…]
The burqa or niqab, as several Muslims have pointed out this week, is not a requirement of the Koran, which advises women only to dress modestly. But it has become a potent symbol of political Islam.

Gallacher has flagged a law change to allow Muslim women to use fingerprints to verify their identity as an alternative to lifting their veils, but he needs to avoid creating special laws for any particular group.

Australia is one of the most successful immigrant nations on Earth. It would therefore be a pity to follow the European path of banning Islamic face coverings, because the result would simply be more repression of women.

In order to safeguard freedoms – not least of Muslim women to wear the veil – then every challenge to this nation’s authority must be countered whenever it arises.

Giving an inch to the intimidation of political Islam is a mistake.

More here.

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with Devine’s conclusion that Muslim women, or anybody else, should have the right to disguise themselves with facial masks in public. Nor do I believe in allowing any Muslim immigration whatsoever to non-Muslim countries.

Andrew Bolt: Who was that masked woman?

VIDEO LINK: Burqa battle to continue

Andrew Bolt says:

I can’t be bothered with the legal tip-toe, so no comments. But Mamdouh Habib says it was indeed Carnita Matthews inside that burqa.

The involvement of former Gitmo inmate Mamdouh Habib is a dead giveaway that the Carnita Matthews contretemps has nothing to do with modesty, and everything to do with Muslim expansionism.

According to the article below, Mamdouh Habib’s wife, Maha, works as a private detective in Sydney. She wears a hijab, but not a niqab (face veil) or burqa. Mamdouh himself is a real piece of work:

Introducing Mrs Mamdouh Habib Female Private Eye, Her Husband Who Owned a Security Company Was Accused of Training 9/11 Hi-Jackers

[…]
JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
APO AE 09360
Full Name: Mamdouh Habib his photo above with American flag upside down.
Citizenship: Egyptian
Nationality: Australian

Date of Birth: 06/03/1955..AGE 55
Family status: Married with four children

Occupation: Businessman – Cleaning company and Security Company.

Information: Mamdouh Habib immigrated to Australia in 1980. He married Lebanese born Maha Habib, and the couple have four children, Ahmed (19), Mustafa (16), Maryam (11) and Hager (4). The family lived in Sydney where Mamdouh set up and ran a contract cleaning firm and a security company.

On the 29 July 2001 he left to go to Pakistan on a three month visa. According to Maha Habib he “went searching for opportunities to set up a business to support the family and a suitable school to teach our children” , yeah sure he did.

In reality Mamdouh Habib, his photo above, went to two Al-Qaeda terror training camps in Afghanistan see http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/04/25/1226044/528311-mamdouh-habib-file.pdf

o In September 2001 Mamdouh Habib traveled to a military training base run by Abu Hafs aka Mohammed Atef. He was there only 3 or 4 days thent raveled to a Al-Qaeda guest house in Kabul and also to the Malik guest house. Upon returning to Kandahar he was told to leave because the US had began its bombing campaign in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

o October 5th, 2001, Pakistani authorities captured Mamdouh Habib as he traveled by bus from Quetta to Karachi, Pakistan (PK), with two Germans, Ibrahim Diab and Bekim Ademi, who were suspected Al-Qaeda members from Hamburg, Germany.

Mamdouh Habib was linked to or connected to;

o He trained six of the 9/11 hi-jackers in the use of martial arts

o He also taught them how to use a knife disguised as a cigarette lighter

o He was en route to hi-jack a Qantas flight with his friend Jamal (LNU)

o His friend Rakim (LNU) was going to conduct a simultaneous operation from Thailand

o He had information on his home computer to be used to poison an unidentified river (Hudson NY) in the United States

o He fought in Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan with Muslim terrorists.

Mamdouh Habib was arrested in Pakistan on 5 October 2001 in the town of Khuzdar, while on a bus to Karachi. Arrested alongside Mamdouh were two Germans from Hamburg, Ibrahim Diab and Bekim Ademi, with whom he had eaten the previous evening. The day before his arrest, Mamdouh Habib, was in Quetta PK where he met Ibrahim Diab and Bekim Ademi and had dinner with them. They agreed to travel together and they were arrested along with him the next day.
[…]
More here.

Also see:

• Crusader Rabbit: News Flash for Burqua Wearers!
• Gates of Vienna: Carnita’s Law
• Bare Naked Islam: New Zealand: Muslim baghead kicked off bus
• Muslim Carnita Matthews’ cash call on burqa legal bill
  Carnita Matthews’ lawyer now wants the taxpayers to pay for her lies, and the fact that she almost ruined the reputation and livelihood of a policeman!
  Chutzpah and lawfare Downunder.

Gates of Vienna – Wilders to Ezra Levant: Hate Speech Laws Should Go

YouTube: Ezra Levant on Geert Wilders’ acquittal

The video is a conversation between Wilders and Ezra Levant following the former’s acquittal. In sum, Mr. Wilders says hate speech laws have to go. To which I will add, “Amen”, though not nearly as fervently as does the battle-tried Mr. Levant.

The following quote is excerpted from the Youtube notes put up by user sdamatt, who posted the video:

…in his closing statement, Wilders said that his controversial statements against Islam were protected by the right to free speech. Wilders said he believed the process of Islamization presents a threat to Europe and that it is his right and duty to warn the public about it.

If he had been convicted, Wilders could have faced up to one year in jail or a fine of up to €7,600 ($10,865). At the peak of the controversy over his statements, Wilders was once even banned from entering the United Kingdom.
[…]
Wilders’ comments sparked a massive debate on the integration of Muslims in Europe that has helped fuel other populist movements around the continent. In Germany , politician Thilo Sarrazin wrote a bestselling book warning that Muslim immigrants were dumbing down the country.

Meanwhile, don’t forget the OIC is certain that the phenomenon known as Geert Wilders is due solely to those naughty Swiss who voted to ban minarets (no I don’t have the link anymore. Look for their 2009 summary. It’s a pdf and a real slog). [see footnote below]

OIC officials continue to harass the Swiss government. They are sure the Swiss could simply void that referendum if they wanted. It appears that the OIC is not ready for prime time when it comes to a full grasp of the elements of democracy. We may have a chasm here that no amount of explaining will bridge.

Mr. Levant’s “Victory Conversation” with Wilders is above. Notice the tone of both voices. Very happy warriors indeed.

Hat Tip: Steen

Footnote:

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law: Panacea or Pathetic Fallacy? The Swiss Ban on Minarets, by Lorenz Langer, Volume 43, Number 10, October 2010

Gates of Vienna: Geert Wilders Walks

Reprinted with permission.

[And according to new reports, he's gonna keep on walking, right into a candystore]

A few readers have emailed with further stories, plus a reminder or two:

Mark Steyn, on NRO, says in part:

“On the edge of legal acceptability,” eh? As for the latter part – “the broad context of a political and social debate” – the genius “jurists” are effectively conceding what I said when this racket got going – that the Dutch state was attempting to criminalize the political platform of a popular opposition party. That’s the sort of thing free societies should leave to Mubarak & Co, and even then, you can only get away with it for a while before people draw the obvious conclusion.

Nevertheless, as in all these cases, the process is the punishment. The intent is to make it more and more difficult for apostates of the multiculti state to broaden the terms of political discourse. Very few Europeans would have had the stomach to go through what Wilders did – and the British Government’s refusal to permit a Dutch Member of Parliament to land at Heathrow testifies to how easily the craven squishes of the broader political culture fall into line.

And at the end the awkward fact remains: Geert Wilders lives under 24-hour armed guard because of explicit death threats made against him by the killer of Theo van Gogh and by other Muslims. Yet he’s the one who gets puts on trial.

That’s the Netherlands, 2011.

The Netherlands has been like that centuries before 2011. Our favorite Dutch historian, Arthur Legger, has been outing the Dutch elites for years. He has suggested repeatedly that we return to the truth of what the Dutch really did — or tried to do – to Spinoza. They might have succeeded but Spinoza had the last laugh: he died before they could kill him.

Legger says (in 2008) that his friends from other countries were asking what was going on:

How is it possible that so many Dutch politicians favour censorship and lawsuits, and that leading men of opinion openly and repeatedly compare Wilders to Goebbels and Hitler? How is this possible with your tradition of Spinoza?”

“How” indeed. As Mr. Legger has said reiterated to those willing to listen [my emphasis below - D], Dutch freedoms are limited to those the state considers ‘safe’:

The public comparison of a well known individual with Hitler, Mussolini or Mussert (leading Dutch Nazi collaborator) and the removing of the social safety net belongs to an ingrained Dutch tradition, well known to the Dutch. If you’re judged too harmful to the Dutch State, Culture and/or its Business (and these three are highly intertwined), the ruthless reflex sets in and it’s game over – including, sometimes, death. Recently the world was able to witness this flaw in our character: Pim Fortuyn, “fascist” adversary of the Left and winner of the elections, was murdered in 2002; Theo van Gogh, “racist” mocker of muslims, jews and the Left, was murdered in 2004; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “heretic” critic of the Left and of islam, was effectively banished in 2006.

As I remember the story, she realized that her university studies in the Netherlands hadn’t included any knowledge of Dutch history, of what the state authorities do to people like her. That is, they simply leave the miscreants alone and unprotected and ignorant of Dutch history:

Tellingly, all four of them, if you include Wilders, used ‘Spinoza’ as their buzz word – it was his Enlightenment ideals against those of the attackers of western freedom. Fortuyn, Hirsi Ali and Wilders mainly opposed orthodox islam, Van Gogh mainly wrote against the naive fool who hands his freedom over out of laziness and decadence.

[…]

…state terrorism [is] sanctioned by Dutch mentality: ‘if you stick out your head too often, we’ll chop it off’. Also, the Dutch Constitution’s Article 7 on the Freedom of Expression was not written with John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in mind. Mill preached total freedom of speech because “even a raving madman might say something sound”. In Holland this position is only defended by some philosophers of the University of Amsterdam. Philosophy professor Pieter Pekelharing (University of Amsterdam) is a bit of a loner when he states that: “Geert Wilders is an intolerant fool who nevertheless has every right to say stupid things. Also, we cannot rule out the remote possibility that he is right on the dangers of Islam” (The Volkskrant, 15 March 2008).

Indeed. The “remote possibility” that Wilders may be right is surely staring this man in the face every time he visits a Moroccan enclave after dark. Oops. You mean he doesn’t do that? If Mr. Wilders says “stupid things” then surely the tolerant wise man, Professor Pieter Pekelharing, is brave enough to visit a no-go zone and prove Wilders’ assessments of the dangers of Islam-in-your-face is just talk?

Back to the politically incorrect and inconvenient truth about Dutch history from Mr. Legger:

Mill’s ideas on liberty were never fully incorporated into the Dutch rule of law because the reshuffling of power that took place in 1848, and which in the following decades led to our present parliamentary system, was mainly intended to check and balance a despotic and incompetent king – and had very little to do with a democratic revolution. The constitution handed power exclusively to a very small group of high-brow, male ‘haves’, who were allowed to vote and sit in Parliament because they paid a high amount of taxes (and where of good social standing).

The “solution of 1848” decidedly did two things: the King’s power was curbed and the growing unrest of the elite (“we pay taxes, but we have no say”) was eased. Whatever happened later on – the first political parties after the 1880s, men’s general vote in 1917, women’s vote in 1919, and so on- was never the intention. On the contrary the constitution was intended to curb freedom, and we are now stuck with it, mentally and legally.

The will could be found to free ourselves if the faculties of Reason and Discernment hadn’t atrophied over the years. In the West we have come to love these “curbs” on freedom. Kiss your shackles.

One has only to look at the treatment of poor Gregorius Nekshot to know the Dutch fear of those who stick their necks out…so to speak. In fact, this man’s nom de plume is brilliant:

…With “Gregorius” he refers to Pope Gregory IX, who instituted the Papal Inquisition, and “Nekschot” means literally “shot in the neck,” a method used, according to the cartoonist, by “fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents.”

By coincidence Nekshot appeared with Mark Steyn when they both received the Sappho Prize in Denmark. The former wore a burka to the event since he is still at risk from the Islamothugs in Europe.

But never mind. Mr. Nekshot is so obviously dangerous that it took ten policemen to haul him away for hours and hours of “questioning”. Maybe they thought his cartoonist’s pen was loaded? Maybe they’ve watched too many SWAT-team movies?

[…]

A short while [after his acquittal], Mr Wilders emerged to speak to a throng of more than 50 journalists, many from foreign news organisations. Mr Wilders was visibly relieved. He is a tall man, but he stood even taller as he spoke of his victory.

“I am very pleased and happy. Its not just a victory for me, but for freedom of expression in Holland …. A great burden has been lifted off me.

He concluded his remarks with the Dutch equivalent of “I’m as happy as a kid in a candy store.”

This report also includes some plans his enemies – known as “the injured parties” – have to drag this through the EU. They’ve gone as far as they can in the Netherlands, but we’ll have to see what the Euroweenies can create out of these spurious charges. They have lots of money and too much time on their hands.

Mr. Wilders will continue to need support in this ongoing lawfare war. Given the deep pockets of those determined to destroy him, that means practical support like funding from those of us who stand behind him.

But meanwhile, back in Holland, even as Mr. Wilders savors his victory Arthur Legger nudges us about the reality of Dutch democracy:

…our heritage is not Spinoza and his professed freedom. Our heritage is Providence, propaganda and social control: the one who deviates will not go unpunished.

Acquittal for Wilders

The court of Amsterdam has Geert Wilders acquitted on all charges.

The court acquitted Wilders of group-insults. According to the court it was sufficiently shown that Wilders statements were addressing islam as a religion, not to individual muslims nor as a group.

The court also acquitted Wilders of inciting hatred or discrimination.He made his statements as politician. Some of his statements were,according to the court, course and on the edge of what is legally allowed, but not punishable.

The court specifically talked about the movie Fitna. The movie has,according to the court, offensive, shocking passages, but the PVV leader remained within the boundaries of the law. Therefore, also full acquittal also on this charge. [my emphasis - D]

Is everybody happy or what??

As the prosecutor himself said back in May, Geert Wilders did not incite hatred.

So the judges, perhaps, had no choice? I wonder what scared them off?