Doc's Talk: You Know You Are Living in an Islamic Country When ...

Sunday, January 24, 2010

You Know You Are Living in an Islamic Country When ...

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1231/You-Know-You-Are-Living-in-an-Islamic-Country-When.aspx
Jan 21, 2010

Written by: Diana West
Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:53 AM

Quote of the day (yesterday) comes from Gates of Vienna, which, hands down, features the most extensive English-language coverage of the Geert Wilders trial. There, translated from the Dutch, is an interview with Afshin Ellian (photo above) via Metronieuws. A little background info on Ellian.

Ellian, born 1966, fled Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution in Iran in 1983 and now resides in the Netherlands where he is a law professor, poet, columnist and professor of citizenship, social cohesion and multiculturalism at the University of Leiden.

OK. Now the quotation.

Ellian: "If you cannot say that the Islam is a backward religion and that Muhammad is a criminal, then you are living in an Islamic country, my friend, because there you also cannot say such things. I may say Christ was a fag and Mary was a whore, but apparently I should stay off of Muhammad.”

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/01/you-are-living-in-islamic-country-my.html
“You Are Living in an Islamic Country, My Friend”

by Baron Bodissey

Free Geert banner

Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated an interview with Afshin Ellian, who will be called as a witness in the Wilders trial by Bram Moszkovicz:

“If you cannot say that the Islam is a backward religion and that Muhammad is a criminal, then you are living in an Islamic country, my friend…”

Metro: Interview with Law Professor Afshin Ellian.

The trial against Geert Wilders has begun. The PVV leader will prosecuted for incitement to hatred, discrimination, and insulting Muslims. The trial makes Law Professor Afshin Ellian think of the judicial process in dictatorships like Iran, the country Ellian had to flee from on his seventeenth birthday because of his political views. “No matter what, Wilders will be the winner of this trial.”

Geert Wilders calls his prosecution a political process. Does he have a point here?

“This process has the appearance of a political process. I say: the appearance, because in reality the Public Prosecutor does not do politics.”

A political trial suggests influencing by politics. Where do you see that?

“This is a limited interpretation of the term. A political trial means that someone is persecuted for his political views. This is the case here. Moreover, the Public Prosecutor’s office is part of the Ministry of Justice. It receives instructions from the minister.”

But the judiciary is independent.

“That is a typical argument of a lawyer: Wilders may be acquitted. Now, going to court is daily matter for lawyers, but quite a load for a citizen: you must go there, you must inform yourself, in short: it takes time. For a parliamentarian this means that he cannot properly perform his normal duties.”

It is said of Wilders that he will only benefit from this trial. What do you think?

“I think Wilders will certainly benefit of this process. But we cannot blame him: he has not prosecuted himself.”

Who else will gain advantage from it?

- - - - - - - - -

“All Islamic countries who want Wilders to be prosecuted, from Saudi Arabia to Jordan. These countries really do talk with our minister of foreign affairs [Maxime Verhagen, CDA, Christian Democrat]. Why do you think it’s so quiet all of a sudden in Jordan?”

Wilders is not prosecuted for his opinions, but because his statements would be discriminatory to Muslims. Discrimination is not allowed, and that is in the law.

“That discrimination legislation itself leads to discrimination, because it makes a distinction between sacred opinions and ordinary opinions. With ordinary opinions you have a greater risk of being sentenced than over sacred opinions.

“Another consequence of the discrimination legislation is that we encourage fundamentalists in and outside of the Netherlands. This is very dangerous for our national security. The legislation also provides legal uncertainty: Gerrit Zalm [former Finance Minister, VVD] and Pim Fortuyn were not prosecuted when they say that the Netherlands is full, but Hans Janmaat [anti-multicultural party of the 80’s] and Geert Wilders have been. Whether or not something is or is not prosecuted depends on political forces and moods. Just look at Janmaat: he nowadays would not be prosecuted at all. One would find him to be but a softie.”

Exactly: politicians can say much more today than before. Apparently, the Prosecutor finds that the frankness is overshooting and seeks to put a brake on it.

“The public Prosecutor [OM, Openbaar Ministerie] does not want to put a brake on it. The Amsterdam Court wanted to do so. That court said: the OM should prosecute Wilders because he is polarizing. To my knowledge, polarizing is not a crime. That court should have delivered a short, businesslike instruction to provide reasons why the OM should prosecute Wilders. Instead, that court came up with a comprehensive, substantive elucidation. The court has long since sentenced Wilders. This is quite malicious.”

You said that the Wilders Trial reminds you of justice in your country of origin, Iran. Is that not somewhat exaggerated?

“The Netherlands, of course, is not comparable with Iran, it is but about the experience. If you cannot say that the Islam is a backward religion and that Muhammad is a criminal, then you are living in an Islamic country, my friend, because there you also cannot say such things. I may say Christ was a f** and Mary was a w****, but apparently I should stay off of Muhammad.”

Should we, according to you, abolish discrimination laws?

“We should at least severely review them. The limit to me is incitement to violence, for instance when someone says all Muslims should be driven into the sea. But even then still you should refer to criminal law as a last resort. It is still strange that a comedian can say all what a parliamentarian is not allowed to.”

A parliamentarian is supposed to have more responsibility.

“Nonsense. Whoever says that only seeks to silence someone. Wilders has only one single responsibility, and that is to act on behalf of the people who elected him. It might be different if there were riots in Amsterdam and Wilders were to make radical statements over the radio. Then you’re doing unwise things.”

Unwise, but also punishable?

“Only if you directly call for violence. That is called sedition, and is and remains punishable. Luckily so. But Wilders does not incite violence.”

Is this process any good?

“It will in any event not prevent people from insulting the Islam, even if Wilders is convicted on some points. Everyone now is challenged to seek the limits of freedom of expression. That’s going to be the next national sport. This is in any case an important trial, at present the most important trial in Europe. Everywhere the limits of freedom of speech are being questioned. Everywhere various Muslim interest groups are after writers [and cartoonists]. That a politician who is so high in the polls, a politician who is severely threatened and heavily protected and who is twice prosecuted — by al-Qaida and the Dutch state — something like that does attract attention. One thing is certain: Wilders will nevertheless be the winner of this trial.”

Afshin Ellian was born February 17, 1966 in Tehran, Iran. In 1983 he fled the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. He had studied medicine in Kabul an came to the Netherlands in 1989, where he studied criminal law, constitutional law, and philosophy. At present he is a professor of law, a poet, a columnist (Elsevier, NRC Handelsblad), and a professor of citizenship, social cohesion and multiculturalism at the University of Leiden.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk