CounterJihad Europa

Building Networks and Coalitions Against the Islamisation of Europe

Working Papers for Review at Mission Europea Karl Martell

Posted by counterjihadeuropa on May 11, 2008

A number of draft papers under preparation for an upcoming publication on “Defending Civil Liberties in Europe: Free Expression in 2008″ (working title) are here for review:

http://missioneuropakmartell.wordpress.com/ressourcen/

Posted in Legislation | Comments Off

Pourquoi j’ai déposé une plainte à la Commission canadienne des droits contre un imam salafiste de Montréal pour “propagande haineuse”

Posted by counterjihadeuropa on April 18, 2008

From Point de BASCULE, Tuesday 15 April 2008

http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/spip.php?article364

Pourquoi j’ai déposé une plainte à la Commission canadienne des droits contre un imam salafiste de Montréal pour “propagande haineuse”

Mardi 15 avril 2008, par Mark Lebuis

À première vue, ça peut paraître paradoxal, moi qui suis un fervent défenseur de la liberté d’expression, que je dépose une plainte en vue d’empêcher un imam salafiste de s’exprimer. J’en conviens. En fait, mon objectif est de provoquer un débat sur la liberté d’expression et d’amener le public et les médias à dénoncer le nouveau rôle de « censeurs de blasphème » que se donnent les commissions des droits de la personne.

Cette tendance inquiétante, tant au niveau international que national, doit être renversée dès maintenant avant qu’il ne soit trop tard. C’est la survie de la démocratie et de la liberté qui est en jeu. Rien de moins !

Je vise aussi à attirer l’attention sur l’idéologie salafiste. Ce n’est pas un discours religieux inoffensif. Loin de là. En fait, c’est une idéologie dangereuse qui devrait être interdite.

Le nouveau délit de blasphème

Pour l’islam, il n’y a pas de distinction entre le discours religieux et le discours politique. Les deux sont imbriqués depuis 14 siècles. Le concept occidental d’une société civile et d’une presse libre qui peuvent critiquer les politiques du gouvernement, les religions ou toute idée, n’existe pas. Toute critique est vue comme une attaque contre l’islam, un blasphème, un discours haineux visant plus d’un milliard de personnes.

Au niveau international

Cette notion que la critique de l’islam comme religion, idéologie et programme politique est une attaque, un blasphème, une provocation, de la diffamation, bref un délit quand ce n’est pas un crime, chemine en droit international et en droit canadien. On l’a vu récemment avec les résolutions adoptées par le Conseil des droits de l’Homme à l’initiative des pays membres de l’Organisation de la conférence islamique. Reporters sans frontières a qualifié ce développement de « dramatique ».

Au Canada

Récemment, nous avons eu la stupéfiante déclaration de la Commission ontarienne des droits de la personne accusant publiquement Mark Steyn et le magazine Maclean d’être des « racistes islamophobes », le tout sans même les avoir entendus. Et pourtant, les écrits de Mark Steyn publiés par Macleans portent sur l’impact culturel et politique à long terme de l’islamisation grandissante de l’Europe liée à la dénatalité des Européens de souche et à l’immigration massive de musulmans qui ont davantage d’enfants. La CCDP est actuellement saisie d’une plainte pour « propagande haineuse » contre Maclean et Steyn, et a ouvert une enquête.

On peut être en désaccord avec les théories de Steyn. Mais censurer, ou même tenter de censurer tout débat sous prétexte que certains musulmans sont « offensés » est une véritable trahison des principes d’une saine démocratie. Cette vision des droits et libertés représente, en fait, une menace pour la démocratie et la liberté.

Suivant la logique de la commission ontarienne, il faudrait dénoncer le Pape Benoît XVI comme un « raciste islamophobe » puisque des leaders musulmans sont profondément offensés qu’il ait baptisé l’ex-musulman Cristiano Magdi Allam. Des dignitaires religieux musulmans influents y ont vu rien de moins qu’une déclaration de guerre contre l’islam, une attaque contre un milliard de musulmans.

Toujours selon cette logique, il faudrait aussi interdire la diffusion au Canada des écrits de Salman Rushdie et de Taslima Nasreen, qui sont vus comme profondément offensants par de nombreux musulmans.

Où va s’arrêter cette nouvelle forme d’Inquisition, cette chasse aux sorcières ? Le quotidien La Presse n’a même pas osé publier une caricature de l’ombre de Mahomet. Imaginez ! La Presse a peur de l’ombre de Mahomet… Le caricaturiste Chapleau en a parlé sur la télévision de Radio-Canada, avec fierté et sans aucun regard critique. Il se plie au Code d’éthique de La Presse qui est revêtu du sceau « soumis à la charia ». C’est dire à quel point la presse trahit lâchement nos valeurs et, sans s’en rendre compte, compromet mes droits comme citoyen, vos droits, la démocratie et la Liberté.

Censure à sens unique

L’islam comme religion, idéologie, code juridique, programme politique et économique devrait pouvoir être discuté librement. Il faut libérer la parole et ouvrir le débat. Il faut informer les citoyens sans crainte d’être poursuivis devant une commission des droits de la personne ou traînés dans la boue comme « raciste d’extrême droite ».

Imaginez si, à l’époque de la guerre froide, toute critique du stalinisme et du communisme avait été censurée comme « raciste » ou « russophobe » par les commissions des droits de la personne. Et qu’on aurait permis aux promoteurs du totalitarisme de cracher leur haine de la démocratie en toute liberté et de chercher à gagner des adeptes à leur vision du monde au Canada. Stupide et suicidaire, n’est-ce pas ?

Le délit de « propagande haineuse »

L’article 13 de la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne réprime la « propagande haineuse » diffusée par un moyen de communication électronique, comme le téléphone, la radio, la télévision, ou Internet.

Lorsque cette propagande vise l’un ou l’autre des groupes vulnérables énumérés dans la Loi, elle est considérée comme constituant de la « discrimination ». Les écrits de l’imam salafiste contre lequel j’ai porté plainte sont diffusés sur Internet. Pour maximiser mes chances auprès de la CCDP, j’ai formulé ma plainte en identifiant trois groupes énumérés, soit les Canadiens français du Québec comme minorité ethnique et linguistique vulnérable, les femmes et les non musulmans.

J’ai joué la carte de la « minorité ethnique » à cause de l’avantage stratégique que je peux en tirer, rien de plus. Les lois sur les droits de la personne protègent les individus appartenant à des groupes vulnérables. Les Canadiens français sont une minorité ethnique, linguistique et nationale. Nous sommes probablement les seuls blancs en Amérique du Nord à pouvoir invoquer le droit d’être « protégés » contre la propagande haineuse visant un groupe ethnique identifiable. La CCDP sera confrontée à une plainte par un membre d’une minorité contre un membre d’une autre minorité. N’est-ce pas intéressant ?

Le livre qui fait l’objet de ma plainte

Ma plainte concerne le livre L’islam ou l’intégrisme – À la lumière du Qor’an et de la Sounnah par l’imam salafiste Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti qui officie dans une mosquée de Montréal.

L’imam enseigne une version des plus rigoriste de l’islam et son livre, que vous pouvez télécharger en cliquant sur l’icône plus bas, est remarquablement suprématiste, machiste et misogyne. Pour l’imam, ses compatriotes non musulmans sont des « kouffars » (mécréants, impies, infidèles), les femmes du Québec sont de vraies perverses, et le peuple est « bête et ignorant ». Il prône la destruction des « idoles » de l’Occident, soit la démocratie, la modernité, la laïcité et la liberté (surtout celle des québécoises). Il pourfend aussi les « innovations » (bidah), la mixité, le théâtre, la musique et à peu près toutes les autres écoles de pensée musulmanes.

[ARTICLE HAS PDF FILE AT THIS POINT]

Impact de ma plainte

La CCDP peut refuser de recevoir ma plainte, ou accepter d’ouvrir une enquête.

1. Si elle refuse de recevoir ma plainte, on pourra conclure que la commission, qui enquête actuellement sur Maclean et Mark Steyn, se considère mandatée pour traquer ce qu’un musulman considère subjectivement comme une attaque ou un blasphème, tout en protégeant le discours salafiste qui menace les libertés de tous. La CCDP pourra légitimement être dénoncée comme étant une institution qui trahit son mandat et représente, en fait, une menace pour la liberté et la démocratie.

2. Si elle accepte d’ouvrir une enquête (et quelle qu’en soit l’issue), j’aurai braqué les spots sur le discours de l’imam et l’idéologie salafiste. Les médias et le public pourront librement évaluer la dangerosité de cette idéologie et la discréditer.

Si les musulmans dits « modérés » refusent de dénoncer ce discours subversif, suprématiste et haineux, on pourra là aussi tirer des conclusions. Les groupes de pression musulmans se plaindront-ils que la CCDP persécute l’imam salafiste ?

Conclusion

Quelle que soit l’issue de ma plainte, j’aurai démontré quelque chose. Mon seul objectif est de susciter un débat public et de renforcer la liberté d’expression. Ce n’est pas raciste ni islamophobe que de critiquer l’idéologie salafiste. En fait, c’est salutaire de le faire. C’est de l’« islamolucidité ».

Si la presse du Québec défendait la liberté d’expression au lieu de se soumettre à la charia et de s’auto-censurer, je n’aurais pas eu besoin de déposer une plainte à la CCDP.

Les islamistes utilisent le langage des droits humains pour faire taire toute critique. C’est une arme à double tranchant. Eux aussi devraient subir l’examen critique de leur propagande qui, elle, est réellement haineuse.

Il est temps que les musulmans se responsabilisent et qu’ils fassent le ménage dans leurs communautés. Faute de le faire, c’est l’ensemble des musulmans qu’on pourra soupçonner de cautionner, par leur silence, la propagation d’une idéologie extrémiste qui devrait être interdite… contribuant à perpétuer le phénomène d’islamophobie dont ils se disent victimes.

 

ENGLISH VERSION:

Why I have lodged a complaint with the Canadian Human rights Commission in Montreal for “hate propaganda”

Tuesday April 15, 2008,
by Marc Lebuis

Last Friday, I announced my intention to lodge a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CCDP) against a saladfist Imam from Montreal, under the terms of the provisions of the Canadian Law on the rights of the person prohibiting “hate propaganda” diffused via Internet. My complaint was lodged.

I inform you of my objectives. At first sight, it could appear paradoxical that !, an enthusiastic defender of freedom of expression, should lodge a complaint in order to prevent the views of a salafist Imam from being expressed. I agree. In fact, my objective is to bring about a debate regarding freedom of expression and to bring the public and the media to denounce the new powers to investigate “critics of blasphemy” that the human rights commission are given. This worrying tendency, at both national and internation level, must be reversed as of now before it is too late. This concerns the survival of democracy and freedom. Nothing less!

I also aim to draw attention to the salafist ideology. It is not inoffensive religious speech. Far from it. In fact, it is a dangerous ideology which should be prohibited. For Islam, there is no distinction between religious speech and political speech. Both have been overlapping for 14 centuries. The Western concept of a civil company and a free press which can criticize the policies of the government, religions or any idea, does not exist. Criticism is seen as an attack against Islam, a blasphemy, a hate speech aimed at more than one billion people at the international level.

This concept that any criticism of Islam as a religion, ideology and political program is an attack, a blasphemy, a provocation, a slander, in short an offence when it is not a crime. This tramples on International law and Canadian Law. One recently saw it with the resolutions adopted by the Council of Humans Rights on the initiative of the Member States of the Organization of the Islamic conference. Reporters without borders qualified this development as “dramatic”.

In Canada recently, we had the amazing declaration of the Ontarian Commission of Human rights showing Mark Steyn publicly and the Maclean magazine to be “racists islamophobes”, without even having heard them. And yet, the writings of Mark Steyn published by Macleans relate to the cultural impact and long-term policy of the growing Islamization of Europe related to the fall in the birth rate of indigenous Europeans and the massive immigration of Moslems who have more children. The CCDP is currently dealing with a complaint of “hate propaganda” against Maclean and Steyn, and has opened an investigation. One can disagree with the theories of Steyn. But to censure, or to even try to censure any debate under pretext that certain Moslems “are offended” is a true treason of the principles of a healthy democracy.

This vision of rights and freedoms represents, in fact, represents a threat to democracy and freedom. According to the logic of the Ontarian commission, it would be necessary to denounce Pope Benedict XVI as a “racist islamophobe” since Moslem leaders are deeply offended that he baptized ex-Moslem Christian Magdi Allam. Influential Moslem religious dignitaries saw nothing less there than one declaration of war against Islam, an attack against a billion Moslems. Always according to this logic, it would also be necessary to prohibit the diffusion in Canada of the writings of Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen, which are seen like deeply offensive by many Moslems. Where will stop this new form of Enquiry, this witch hunt?

The daily newspaper the Press did not even dare to publish a caricature of the shadow of Mohammed. Imagine! The Press is afraid of the shadow of Mohammed… The Chapleau caricaturist spoke on television about Radio-Canada, with pride and without any critical glance. He yields to the Code of ethics of the Press which is “subjected to Sharia”. THUS the press betrays our values and, without realizing it, compromises my rights as a citizen, your rights, democracy and Freedom. Islam as a religion, ideology, legal code, political and economic program should be discussed freely. It is necessary to speak out and to begin the debate. It is necessary to inform the citizens without fear of being hauled in front of the Human Rights Commission or to be sullied with labels like “extreme right-wing racist”.

Imagine if, at the time of the cold war, those critical of Stalinism and Communism had been censured like “racist” or “russophobe” by the human rights commissions. And that one would have allowed promoters of totalitarianism complete freedom to spit their hatred of democracy and to seek to gain followers with their vision of the world in Canada. Stupid and suicidal, isn’t this?

The offence of “hate propaganda” Article 13 of the Canadian Law on the rights of man represses the “hate propaganda” diffused by an electronic mean of communication, like the telephone, the radio, television, or Internet. When this propaganda aims one or the other of the vulnerable groups enumerated in the Law, it is regarded as component of “discrimination”.

The writings of the salafist Imam against which I complained are diffused on the Internet. To maximize my chances at the CCDP, I formulated my complaint by identifying three enumerated groups, that is to say the French Canadians of Quebec as a vulnerable ethnic and linguistic minority, women and non-Moslems. I played the card of the “ethnic minority” because of the strategic advantage which I can draw, nothing more. The laws on the rights of the person protect the individuals belonging to vulnerable groups. The French Canadians are an ethnic, linguistic and national minority. We are probably the only whites in North America who are able to call upon the right “to be protected” from heinous propaganda aiming at an identifiable ethnic group.

The CCDP will be presented with a complaint by a member of one minority against a member of another minority. Isn’t this interesting? The book which is the subject of my complaint relates to the book L’islam ou ’intégrisme – À la lumière du Qor’an et de la Sounnah by the salafist Imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti who officiates in a mosque of Montreal. The Imam teaches a most rigorous version of Islam and his book, which you can download while clicking on the lower icon, is remarkably a suprematist, machist and misogynist. For the Imam, his non-Moslem compatriots are “kuffars” (non-believers, irreligious people, inaccurate), the women of Quebec are the true perverse ones, and its people are “stupid and ignoramus”. He preaches the destruction of the “idols” of the Occident, that is to say democracy, modernity, secularity and freedom (especially that of Québécois). It also decrys “innovations” (bidah), co-education, the theatre, music and about all other Moslem schools of thought.

Posted in Legislation | Comments Off

Lisbon Treaty: End of Nations Rise of Statism

Posted by counterjihadeuropa on April 14, 2008

From Atlas Shrugs – Sunday, April 13, 2008

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/04/lisbon-treaty-e.html

LISBON TREATY: END OF NATIONS RISE OF STATISM

End of Nations – EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty. For anyone interested in the differences between the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty, Richard Corbet now has a consolidated version of the treaties on his website, which has been annotated by Peadar ó Broin at the Irish Institute of International and European Affairs.

Media ignores Lords report on treaty

The Lisbon Treaty proposes the following, for the first time:

The EU will be a state
You will be a real citizen of the state
EU will decide your rights
EU criminal law will overrule Irish criminal law.
EU policing will overrule Irish policing
Many other area of legislation will be handed over to the unelected eurocrats in Brussels… More here

[VIDEO EMBEDDED AT ATLAS SHURUGS]

End of Nations – EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty 

We set out to make a video about the pros and cons of the Lisbon Treaty and found out to our horror the lies, manipulations and deceit … all » behind the EU. From MEPs, legal experts and EU researches the true nature of the EU unfolded, how it really operates from behind closed doors and away from prying eyes. We discovered the massive power grab away from citizens and nations to the elites that is being proposed in this treaty. Most shocking of all was how our elected representatives are willingly handing us over to this emerging Totalitarian Superstate by deception , propaganda and outright lies.

This video details how the structures of the EU really operate, what the full significance of the Lisbon Treaty is and how it is the end of Nations within in the EU. MEPs describe their experience in Brussels and how they are undermined by the real power of the unelected and unaccountable Eurocrats who run the organization. How the politicians are working together for their own selfish needs while being used for a bigger agenda.

These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You

… Today the European Union leaders signed the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty gives the EU the constitutional form of a state. These are the ten most important things the Lisbon Treaty does:.

1. It establishes a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State.

The Treaty gives this new Union a State Constitution which is identical in its legal effects to the EU Constitution that French and Dutch voters rejected in their 2005 referendums.

2. It empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-a-vis other States and its own citizens.

To understand the change introduced by the Lisbon Treaty one needs to understand that what we call the European Union today is not a State. It is not even a legal or corporate entity in its own right, for it does not have legal personality. The name “European Union” at present is a descriptive term for all the relations between its 27 Member States.

At present these relations cover both the “European Community” area where supranational European law is operative, and the “intergovernmental” areas of foreign policy and justice and home affairs where Member States cooperate with one another on the basis of keeping their sovereignty and where European laws do not apply.

The Lisbon Treaty changes this situation by creating a constitutionally and legally quite new EU, while retaining the same name, the “Union”. Unlike the present European Union, this legally new EU will be separate from and superior to its Member States, just as the USA is separate from and superior to California or New York, or Federal Germany to Bavaria or Brandenburg.

This new European Union can sign treaties with other States in all areas of its competence and conduct itself as a State in the international community of States. It can speak at the United Nations on agreed foreign policy positions of its Member States, just as in the days of the Soviet Union the USSR had a UN seat while Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia had UN seats also.

The Lisbon Treaty also gives the EU a political President, a Foreign Minister – to be called a High Representative – a diplomatic corps and a Public Prosecutor. The new EU will accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, as all other European States have already done, including those outside the EU.

3. It makes us all citizens of this new European Union.

A State must have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a State.

Citizenship of the European Union at present is stated to “complement” national citizenship, the latter being clearly primary, not least because the present EU is not a State. It is not even a corporate entity that can have individuals as members, not to mind citizens.

By transforming the legal character of the Union, the Lisbon Treaty transforms the meaning of Union citizenship. Article.17b.1 TEC/TFU replace the word “complement” in the sentence “Citizenship of the Union shall complement national citizenship“, so that the new sentence reads: “Citizenship of the Union shall be in addition to national citizenship.” This gives the 500 million inhabitants of the present EU Member States a real separate citizenship from citizenship of their national States for the first time. It gives a treble citizenship to citizens of Bavaria and Brandenburg within a Federal State like Germany. The rights and duties attaching to this citizenship of the new Union are be superior to those attaching to citizenship of one’s own national State in any case of conflict between the two, because of the superiority of EU law over national law and constitutions.

4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name – European Union – will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union.

The change in the constitutional nature of both the Union and its Member States will be made in three legal steps that are set out in the Treaty:

(a) It establishes a European Union with an entire legal personality and independent corporate existence in all Union areas for the first time, so that it can function as a State vis-a-vis other States and in relation to its own citizens (Art.32, amended TEU);

(b) This new European Union replaces the existing European Community and takes over all of its powers and institutions. It takes over as well the “intergovernmental” powers over foreign policy and crime, justice and home affairs which at present are outside the scope of European law, leaving only the Common Foreign and Security Policy outside the scope of its supranational power (Art.11.1, amended TEU).

It thereby gives a unified constitutional structure to the new Union which it will constitute or establish. The European Community disappears and all spheres of public policy will come within the scope of supranational EU law-making either actually or potentially, as in any constitutionally unified State.

5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union’s new citizens.

The Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution makes Members of the European Parliament, who at present are “representatives of the peoples of the Member States“, into “representatives of the Union’s citizens” (Art.9a, amended TEU). This illustrates the constitutional shift the Treaty makes from the present European Union of national States and peoples to the new Federal Union of European citizens and their national states – the latter henceforth reduced constitutionally and politically to provincial or regional status.

6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union.

he Treaty turns the European Council, the quarterly “summit” meetings of Member State Heads of State or Government, into an institution of the new Union, so that its acts and failures to act will, like all other Union institutions, be subject to legal review by the EU Court of Justice.

7. It creates a new Union political President.

The federalist character of the European Council “summit” meetings in the proposed new Union structure is further underlined by the provision which gives the European Council a permanent political President for up to five years (two and a half years renewable once) (Art.9b).

There is no gathering of Heads of State or Government in any other international context which maintains the same chairman or president for several years while individual national prime ministers and prime ministers come and go.

8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union’s citizens.

All States have codes setting out the rights of their citizens. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will be that. It will be made legally binding by the new Treaty and will be an essential part of the new Union’s constitutional structure (Art.6, amended TEU).

The Charter is stated to be binding on the Union’s own institutions and on Member States in implementing Union law. This limitation to EU law and to the EU institutions is unrealistic however, because

(a) the principles of primacy and uniformity of Union law mean that Member States will not only be bound by the Fundamental Rights Charter when implementing EU law, but also through the “interpretation and application of their national laws in conformity with Union laws” (v. ECJ judgements in the Factortame, Simmenthal and other law cases); and because

(b) the Charter sets out fundamental rights in areas in which the Union has currently no competence, e.g. outlawing the death penalty, asserting citizens’ rights in criminal proceedings and various other areas.

9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union.

The Treaty underlines the subordinate role of National Parliaments in the constitutional structure of the new Union by stating that “National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union” by various means set out in Article 8c, amended TEU. The imperative “shall” implies an obligation on National Parliaments to further the interests of the new Union.

National Parliaments have in any case already lost most of their law-making powers to the EC/EU. The citizens who elect them have lost their powers to decide these laws too.

10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers.

In conclusion:

If there were to be a European Federation that is democratic and acceptable, the minimum constitutional requirement for it would be that its laws would be initiated and approved by the directly elected representatives of the people either in the European Parliament or the National Parliaments. Unfortunately, neither the Lisbon Treaty nor the EU Constitution it establishes contain any such proposal.

By giving a Constitution indirectly rather than directly to the new European Union which it will establish, the Lisbon Treaty sets in place what Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has called the “capstone of a European Federal State“. For the Euro-federalist political elites who have been driving this process over decades this is the culmination of what started nearly 60 years ago when the 1950 Schuman Declaration, which is commemorated annually on 9 May, Europe Day, proclaimed the European Coal and Steel Community to be the “first step in the federation of Europe“.

The peoples of Europe do not want this kind of highly centralized Federal European Union whose most striking feature is that it is run virtually entirely by committees of politicians, bureaucrats and judges, none of whom are directly elected by the people. The Constitutional Treaty setting it up has already been rejected by the French and the Dutch in 2005. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy has admitted, the Prime Ministers and Presidents have agreed among themselves on no account to have referendums on the Renamed Constitutional Treaty, for that would be rejected everywhere again.

Only the Irish are enabled to have their say on it because of the constitutional case taken before the Supreme Court by the late Raymond Crotty. That action by that great Irishman stopped the State’s politicians of that time from ratifying a previous European Treaty, the Single European Act, in an unconstitutional manner.

 
This document has been drafted in consultation with authorities on European and constitutional law by Anthony Coughlan, Secretary of the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, 24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9, Ireland; Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792; E-mail: nationalplatformeuric@eircom.net

MORE FRPOM EUROPE NEWS NEWS:

MEPs debate the Lisbon Treaty and European Council

… Parliament December 12 2007 MEPs debated the Lisbon Treaty and the forthcoming European Council, just one day before the … for the European Council which will focus on the Lisbon strategy, the fight against terrorism, the Schengen extension, migration …

EU leaders converge on Lisbon to sign landmark reform treaty

Turkish Press December 13 2007 Lisbon: EU leaders converge on Lisbon Thursday to sign a landmark treaty which they hope will revitalise the …

10,000 demanding referendum on Lisbon Treaty

… of Vienna to demonstrate against the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the Austrian Parliament on April 9, 2008, without holding a … and others – spoke about the implications of the Lisbon Treaty and the absolute constitutional necessity for a referendum

Posted in Legislation | Comments Off

Judge supports Wilders

Posted by counterjihadeuropa on April 8, 2008

From the Dutch News:

Wilders does not incite hatred, says judge

Monday 07 April 2008

Anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders’ comments about the Koran and the prophet Mohammed do not incite hatred or violence against Muslims, a court in Rotterdam ruled on Monday.

The judge rejected a case brought the Islamic federation (NIF) saying that Wilders’ comments were provocative but did not break the law.

‘A member of parliament must be able to express his standpoint, if necessary in sharp terms,’ the judge is quoted as saying by ANP news service. ‘Wilders’ right to freedom of expression is the deciding factor here’.

The NIF wanted to know if Wilders had broken the law with his public declaration in August last year that the Koran is a fascist book and comments that Mohammed was a barbarian.

According to the judge, the term fascism must be seen in a broader context. The NIF associated it with the Holocaust and ‘other evil practices from Nazi Germany’. But fascism should, said the judge, be seen as ‘a collective term for ideologies which fundamentally embrace a totalitarian political system which leaves no room for people with other ideas’.

When it came to Mohammed, the NIF was unable during the hearing to deny that he was a barbarian, reports ANP. Furthermore, the organisation was not able to disprove the fact that Islam consists of beliefs that are in contradiction to democratic principles, the judge said.

Wilders, who is leader of the anti-immigration PVV party (which has nine of the 150 seats in parliament) said he is pleased with the ruling.

‘I have always been of the opinion that I must be free to point out the dangers of the ongoing Islamisation of the west and the Netherlands in the political debate. I have never felt that I have gone over the top. You must be able to make sharp comments in the political debate, ’ ANP quotes him as saying

Posted in Legislation | Comments Off

Death Threats Against Writers Don’t Work.

Posted by counterjihadeuropa on April 6, 2008

The Unsubmitting

by Baron Bodissey

The following editorial was translated from the print edition of today’s Jyllands-Posten by Henrik of Europe News.

The Unsubmitting
by Anders Raahauge

An increasing number of persons, who have received death threats from Islamists, are starting to behave in a completely inappropriate manner. They spread courage, not fear.

At first sight, ruling by fear is completely feasible. If you truly frighten people, you will, for a while, get things the way you want. But this method is primitive and outmoded. The faults of this method are particularly exposed when applied in a modern society. This happens when radical Islamists use force to back their demands for a change in European policies and for a gradual spiritual revolution in Western Europe, where they obviously desire progress for the Umma, the world-wide Islamic community.

The intention, obviously, is for fear to spread like ripples in the water and influence all those not directly implicated. Those who actually induce fear have a limited range. The Islamists have no armies to match the Western arsenal, which is why they have to resort to terrorism. By singling out the individual, their aim is the control of many. …..more…..

Posted in Books, Cartoons, Censorship, Counter-Jihad Europa, European Union, France, Freedom of Expression, Legislation, Litigation, Movies, Netherlands, Speeches, U.S., United Nations | Comments Off

Freedom of Expression Legal Cases

Posted by counterjihadeuropa on April 6, 2008

View litigation and prosecutions limiting freedom of expression in Europe here.

Posted in Art Exhibits, Austria, Belgium, Books, Cartoons, Censorship, Counter-Jihad Europa, France, Freedom of Expression, Legislation, Litigation, Movies, Netherlands, Speeches, U.S. | Comments Off

UN Vote Against Human Rights

Posted by counterjihadeuropa on April 5, 2008

Caroline Glick on the UN vote against human rights:

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2008/04/fear_of_democracy.asp

The West stands by idly as its foundations are rent asunder.

Last Friday the UN’s Human Rights Council took a direct swipe at freedom of expression. In a 32-0 vote, the council instructed its “expert on freedom of expression” to report to the council on all instances in which individuals “abuse” their freedom of speech by giving expression to racial or religious bias.

The measure was proposed by paragons of freedom Egypt and Pakistan. It was supported by all Arab, Muslim and African countries – founts of liberty one and all. European states abstained.

The US, which is not a member of the Human Rights Council, tried to oppose the measure. In a speech before the council, US Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Warren Tichenor warned that the resolution’s purpose is to undermine freedom of expression because it imposes “restrictions on individuals rather than emphasiz[ing] the duty and responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect human rights.”

By seeking to criminalize free speech, the resolution stands in breach of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of that document states explicitly: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”  —-more—-

Posted in 1427343, European Union, Freedom of Expression, Legislation, Netherlands, Speeches, U.S., United Nations | Comments Off

Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Posted by counterjihadeuropa on April 3, 2008

From Roy W. Brown, Geneva, March 28, 2008 – at the highly informative International Humanist and Ethical Union website:

For the past eleven years the organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing the 57 Islamic States, has been tightening its grip on the throat of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yesterday, 28 March 2008, they finally killed it.

With the support of their allies including China, Russia and Cuba (none well-known for their defence of human rights) the Islamic States succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression that has turned the entire concept on its head. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression will now be required to report on the “abuse” of this most cherished freedom by anyone who, for example, dares speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran…..more

Posted in Legislation | Comments Off

CounterJihad Brussels 2007 Presentations

Posted by counterjihadeuropa on October 28, 2007

CounterJihad Brussels 2007 Conference, October 18 – 19

Press Release

Speaker Biographies

Agenda and Presentations Below
October 18, 2007

1. Keynote speech

Eurabia – How Far has it gone?
Bat Ye’or

Creeping Dhimmitude at the United Nations
David Littman
15 minute break

2. Country reports -

10 minute problem statements/current and planned activity summaries

a. Belgium (Belien/Dewinter)

b. Germany (Stefan Herre)

c. France (Nidra Poller)

d. UK (Gerard Batten)

e. Sweden (Ted Ekeroth/Reinhard – FOMI)

f. Denmark (Lars Hedegaard)

g. Norway (Jens Anfindsen)

h. Finland (KS)

i. Netherlands (Johannes Jansen)

j. Italy (Adriana Bolchini Gaigher)

k. Switzerland (Arnaud Dotezac)

l. Romania (Traian Ungureanu)

m. Austria (Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff)

3. Working Lunch/

Country reports – Cont’d as above

4. What can we learn from Israel’s on-going fight with terrorism? (video, H/T Atlas Shrugs)
Dr Arieh Eldad, member of Israeli Knesset

Break/Networking

5. From Dawa to Jihad (presentation is not public, but here is a video interview, H/T Atlas Shrugs)
Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, Director, Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity and of the Barnabas Fund

6. Opposing Jihadism
Dr. Marc Cogen, professor of International Law, Ghent University

7. The War Against Jihad : Understanding the adversary (presentation not public)
Sam Solomon, ex-Muslim and shariah law expert, author of the Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

1 hour break – move to dinner Locale (TBD)

8. Reception (Drinks) and Dinner

Islam – Is it the real problem (video, H/T Atlas Shrugs)
Robert Spencer

The First and Last Enemy-Jew-Hatred in Islam
Andrew Bostom

October 19:

Working Groups (Notes distributed to participants only)

Matyas Zmo: Czech Republic country report

Laurent Artur du Plessis: Shariah Finance

Posted in Legislation | Comments Off

Counterjihad Brussels 2007 Conference

Posted by counterjihadeuropa on October 23, 2007

Vigilant Freedom Europa
PO Box 580
Wakefield WF1 9FR
United Kingdom

http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog

http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910forum

October 19, 2007

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Vigilant Freedom Europa at gaia2600@hotmail.com

On October 18 and 19, over 70 organizations and individuals joined together in the European and Flemish Parliaments to create a European network of activists from 14 nations to resist the increasing Islamisation of their countries. Keynote speakers included Bat Ye’or, author of Eurabia and Dhimmitude and Robert Spencer, author of Religion of Peace, Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t. Additional speakers included David Littman, Dr. Arieh Eldad, member of the Israeli Knesset, Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, Director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, Sam Solomon, Director of Fellowship of Faith for Muslims and author of the Charter of Muslim Understanding, Dr. Marc Cogen, Ghent University, Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, and Laurent Artur du Plessis, author of a forthcoming book on shariah finance. Many participants worldwide also attended the first day of presentations online through webex conferencing.Armando Manocchio of the Italian organization Una Via per Oriana (“A Way For Oriana”) presented an award to Bat Ye’or in honor of Oriana Fallaci, including a 5,000 Euro scholarship for young journalists.

Additional anti-islamisation experts and activists from the fourteen European countries presented reports on the current state of Islamisation and jihadism in their nations, and citizen efforts to mount a defense of constitutional liberties and national sovereignty, including:

Austria: Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Belgium: Filip Dewinter and Paul Belien

Czech Republic: Matyas Zmo

Denmark: Lars Hedegaard

Finland: Not disclosed publicly

France: Nidra Poller

Germany: Stefan Herre

Italy: Adriana Bolchini Gaigher

Netherlands: Dr. Johannes J.G. Jansen

Norway: Jens Anfindsen

Romania: Traian Ungureanu

Sweden: Ted Ekeroth and Reinhard

Switzerland: Dr. Arnaud Dotezac

United Kingdom: Gerard Batten

Other countries represented included Canada, Israel and the United States.

The first day of the Counterjihad Brussels 2007 conference was held in the European Parliament, and the second day of working groups was held in the Flemish Parliament. Selected texts, videos and supplementary documents including charters, existing laws and draft legislation as well as country and issue updates will be posted in the coming week at the conference website at CounterJihad Europa.

Assistance was provided by many organizations and individuals over the last six months including David Littman, Bart Debie, Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna and Philip Claeys.

Posted in Legislation | Comments Off

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.