Update:
Ever since Griffins BBC appearance the far left slime bombers go apeshit. Quite obviously, its them who fail in the marketplace of ideas. Its his critics who fail to debate. Even more so, these smear merchants fail to see that vilifying Griffin and the BNP is a discredit to themselves.
Nick Griffin
Andrew Bolt:
It’s the Hanson phenomenon, only far more serious, and shows the danger of attempts to ban the BNP leader from speaking on the BBC:
One statistic above all stands out from the YouGov opinion poll commissioned by the Telegraph. And it’s not that 22 per cent of respondents would consider voting for the BNP, amazing though that is. It’s that a majority of voters, while they may despise the BNP, think it “has a point”:
More than half of those questioned said they agreed with the BNP, or thought that it “had a point” in wishing to “speak up for the interests of the indigenous, white British people … which successive governments have done far too little to protect.” This included 43 per cent who said that, while they shared some of its concerns, they had “no sympathy for the party itself”.
I have some sympathy with the “but would you give a platform to Adolf Hitler” argument. But the BNP politicians, although unpleasant, are not the Nazis, and if half the voters think that at least this one party raises an important issue, then banning it from debates can only entrench doubt in democracy, or at least cyncism towards the existing political and media establishment.
If the BNP are as dumb and wicked as claimed, then open debates will eventually destroy it. Using violence, abuse, censorship and even the law to instead bully it into silence will only make more people determined to defend it – if only to defend their own right to be heard. That was the lesson of Hansonism.
Here’s how BNP leader Nick Griffin actually went on the BBC: Video here
Matthew Engel complains that the gang-up was exactly not what was needed. I agree, especially given what these polls say. Argument, not abuse, is the most effective antidote. I’m with Rod Liddle: don’t panic or rage, just talk.
Sheik Yer’mami noticed that “Baroness Warsi” managed to slime Griffin with some imaginary Nazi associations. But truth was never part of the Mohammedan agenda… Traditionally, the Mohammedans sided with the Nazis then and glorify Hitler even now. Its a pity that Griffin himself took the bait of “racism” instead of attacking Mohammedanism as such.
Yea, i’d have slung that shit right back in her smug gob- after all it was muslims that donned the SS uniform while Nicks dad was in the RAF…….The Mufti of Palestine was 100% involved in the final solution the BNP WERE NOT!!
The government and BBC work happily with the Nazi MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD- Track record recorded- Google BANNA NAZI…..
QUIT WITH THE SHIT!
US: Another Muslim “Outreach” Mob Teaches Hateby sheikyermami on October 24, 2009The Why Islam religious outreach program is not outreach based on any set of virtues. In truth, WI is nothing more than a vehicle to spread radical Islam, dubiously masquerading as a public service. It is part of a dangerous global movement that has zero respect for others who do not hold the same beliefs.
British Muslim ‘Outreach’ efforts…
By Joe Kaufman/Pajamas Media
Since its creation, Why Islam (WI), a Muslim proselytizing project of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), has advocated a radical strain of Islam that stresses both hatred and violence. Today is no different. The group continues to verbally attack non-Muslims. And now the group is featuring a poll on its website asking if al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is innocent. The results of the poll are very disturbing.
Related:
- UK: Open death threats against Wilders
- Denmark Teacher Has Ear Bitten by Man for Shaking Hands with His Daughter…
- Australian Muslim Youth Jailed for Putting Sikh in Coma…
WI was launched in 2000 by ICNA, a Muslim Brotherhood organization, to provide dawah or Islamic outreach to American non-Muslims. The group purchases advertising via radio, public transportation, and billboards to publicize its name and entice the curious to contact its toll-free number. On its face, WI looks like a harmless religious organization, appearing to get along with others and saying things that everyone likes to hear. But just as with anything else, appearances can be deceiving. And with regard to WI, they are.
Upon visiting the homepage of WI’s website, one cannot help but notice a highlighted tab labeled “Terrorism.” Clicking on the accompanying link, one is brought to a page where WI attempts to lecture readers on how Islam is against terrorism [1]. Evidently, though, this is not the Islam that the group practices.
On numerous occasions, members of Why Islam’s website forum have stated their support for terrorist organizations [2] such as Hamas and Hezbollah. In September 2008, the following was posted on the WI forum in support of behavior which most Americans describe as terror:
[W]e use the word “terrorism” too loosely. … Your terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. … I agree with the act of resistance. … Whether it be through protest or violence.
In WI’s rant about how Islam is against terrorism, the group uses as examples of acts of violence “a bomb going off in a marketplace” and “the hijacking of an aircraft.” How ironic then it is to see that this same group broadcasting this information is currently running a poll on its site asking whether or not its members think Osama bin Laden, the head of an organization that consistently perpetrates such violence, is innocent.
This past August, a poll question was posted to WI’s forum titled “What do you think of Osama bin Laden? [3]” The three choices given were “innocent,” “guilty,” and “not sure.” As of this writing, over 68 percent voted innocent, 13 percent voted guilty, and 18 percent said they weren’t sure. So nearly 90 percent of those voting said the individual most responsible for the 9/11 attacks is either innocent or they aren’t sure — an ominous sign indeed.
Another subject that is brought up on the WI website is that of non-Muslims. If one goes by what is written on the Why Islam website’s FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions), then it would seem that the group entirely respects members of other religions. One reads: “A common misconception about Islam is that it espouses hostility with Jews and Christians.” However, whether or not this statement is true, offending and attacking members of other faiths has become commonplace within WI.
In July 2008, the following was posted in WI’s forum comparing Christians to Satan:
[T]he Christ that Christians believe will come before the Rapture is actually the anti-Christ who the Zionist-Jews will think to be their promised-Messiah. … Most Christians don’t know this. They live in their capsule of ignorance that is hardened by the western main-stream media. … [T]heir greed and covetousness for consumption is likened only with Satan in the Bible.
In September 2008, the following was posted branding Americans, Jews, and Christians as enemies:
[T]he Americans don’t care about their Allies. … Even though, speaking Islamically, they are our enemies and not allies … no Kaffir can be an Ally to a Muslim against a Muslim. … Like Allah says in the Quran, Baqarah 2, “Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you … till you follow their religion.”… [T]hey are not friends of anyone besides themselves … their friendship is an illusion.
And this was said in a post that was put up on WI just last month questioning if Jews are in fact Jews:
Don’t Come With That Old Anti-Jewish Carp. Because That’s An Old Trick. One Would Think The So-called Jews Are The Only One’s Who Had A (Holocaust). … If You Wish You Can Start A Post On The Jewish (Holocaust) Ok .
All of the above quotes [4] are still up on Why Islam’s site, including this one:
The American empire needs to be destroyed once and for all. … And Allah has promised us victory. … Islam is meant to rule the world.
One has to wonder why a group claiming to promote inclusiveness and peace would allow statements such as these or a poll questioning Osama bin Laden’s guilt to remain on its website. But then one would have to wonder why they were placed there to begin with.
The Why Islam religious outreach program is not outreach based on any set of virtues. In truth, WI is nothing more than a vehicle to spread radical Islam, dubiously masquerading as a public service. It is part of a dangerous global movement that has zero respect for others who do not hold the same beliefs.
Asshole of the monthby sheikyermami on October 24, 2009Martin Scheinin, UN Special Rapporteur
Interview with UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin, here from 2007
There is no such thing as a global war against terror, and Al Qaeda is but a metaphor. Martin Scheinin is a Finnish Law professor and was recently appointed as UN Special Rapporteur. Here is his job description.
What bothers this Un Special Rapporteur is the holding of detainees at the US naval base in Guantanamo among other things. Read it here
And this is what keeps this Special Rapporteur busy:
In case you weren’t sure, human gender is “changeable over time and contexts,” sex slaves must not be “stigmatized” for their work, and it’s important to recognize the role of “transgender and intersex individuals as stakeholders” in counterterrorism policy.
Do counter-terrorism measures targeting bombers who dress as women offend the rights of transexuals? This is one of the pressing questions addressed in a new United Nations report on “Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.”
H/T Vlad Tepes
The 23-page document is the ultimate politically correct guide to combating do nothing about Islamic terrorism. It is based on the work of U.N. special rapporteur Martin Scheinin, who notes that “immigration controls that focus attention on male bombers who may be dressing as females to avoid scrutiny make transgender persons susceptible to increased harassment and suspicion.” The impact on transvestites (cross-dressers) and “intersex” individuals (those in the midst of a sex change) is even more dramatic.
- UN Says Gender ‘Not Fixed,’ Is ‘Changeable’
- UN Report Says Counterterrorism Measures ‘Risk Unduly Penalizing …
- UN: Fighting terrorism is a gender issue – Sean Hannity Discussion
Security always involves trade-offs. Everyone is subject to the inconveniences necessary to keep our society safe, and the impact varies by personal circumstances. Those who travel put up with more than those who do not. People with metal medical implants set off detectors more often. Those who live in Washington encounter more security restrictions than those who live in Peoria. Traditional Muslim women cannot go into banks wearing face-covering veils, a fact that has nothing to do with religion but with the bank’s legitimate interest in not allowing masked people on the premises. This last conflict is a case of cultural insensitivity – namely the veiled woman’s insensitivity to the bank’s cultural norm of not wanting to be robbed.
The U.N. report condemns profiling as a form of stereotyping. But profiling in practice is not based on mindless bigotry but on observed patterns of behavior. Suicide terrorists have used “belly bombs” that make them look like pregnant women, since pregnant women were profiled as a lesser threat and could more easily get through checkpoints. Young, single white women traveling alone to and from West Africa may be subject to additional scrutiny when going through customs because drug smugglers began using them as mules precisely because they had previously not been subject to scrutiny. Terrorists and criminals thrive on exploiting these types of behavior patterns, but since, according to the U.N., they would exist in a politically correct world, we should ignore them.
Please go to the link above to read the rest of this scathing indictment of the UN and it’s relentless efforts to destroy the rights of all civilized people to live in security and enjoy the benifits of Western civilization by pretending to be concerned about the rights of everyone else, like terrorists.
The United Nations is a biotope for pond-scum, oxygen thieves, commie agit props for the most corrupt regimes on the globe. This harmless appearing Finnish kook may sound like a some kind of lunatic, but make no mistake: there are efforts by like minded fools to implement his mind-bending fantasies…
U.N. Report Demands Repeal of Counterterrorism Laws to Promote ‘Gender Equality’
In case you weren’t sure, human gender is “changeable over time and contexts,” sex slaves must not be “stigmatized” for their work, and it’s important to recognize the role of “transgender and intersex individuals as stakeholders” in counterterrorism policy.
Those are some of the conclusions of a United Nations report on counterterrorism that is intended to promote human rights — but that critics say is designed to redefine gender and hamstring actual counterterror efforts.
Martin Scheinin, a special rapporteur for the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, filed his report in August after six months of studying the “complex relationship between gender equality and countering terrorism.”
Scheinin recommends a radical reworking of counterterrorism policies, insisting that the U.N.’s member nations “abandon the ‘war paradigm’” and “enshrine the principles of gender-equality and non-discrimination in the design and implementation of all counter-terrorism measures.”
Among his proposals:
• “Repeal all counter-terrorism measures” that sanction the ill-treatment of women and children as a way to put pressure on terror suspects within their families.
• Loosen terror financing laws to ensure “safe and effective channels for funding … of organizations devoted to gender equality”
• “Repeal restrictive immigration controls” that violate human rights by “unduly penalizing transgender persons whose personal appearance and data are subject to change” as their “self-defined gender identity” changes.
Critics say the suggestions are part of an “absolutely insane” agenda at the U.N. that too often seems intent on undermining efforts to blot out terrorism across the globe.
“I would be surprised and disturbed if the U.S. took any of these recommendations seriously,” said Steven Groves, a fellow and international law expert at the Heritage Foundation.
“It seems an inescapable conclusion that their desire is to greatly weaken any effective counterterrorism measure that is made by the U.S. or its allies.”
The report criticized enhanced security checks “that focus attention on male bombers who may be dressing as females to avoid scrutiny [and] make transgender persons” — who might also be crossdressing — “susceptible to increased harassment and suspicion.”
“Once you put them into a form of an overall policy what you do is undermine the nature of counterterrorism,” said Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute. “You’re trying to thwart the ability of those to counter terrorist activity.”
Scheinin is set to present his findings Monday morning to the U.N.’s 3rd Committee, which helps set policy on social and cultural issues and oversees the Human Rights Council for the world body.
The Finnish law professor has been a special rapporteur since 2005. This year he visited Egypt as part of his mandate for the 47-member Council, and criticized countries like Somalia and Pakistan for selling out women’s rights to arrange a tenuous peace with Islamic militants.
Legal experts said it was important to consider the effects of security measures on human rights, including the question of gender.
“It does not strike me as ridiculous … to look at policies through the lens of gender,” said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Wittes noted that gender issues — including the Taliban’s vicious treatment of women — have made it virtually impossible for Western nations and Pakistan to have normal relations with the Taliban.
“That’s not an inconsiderable criticism — it’s a valid criticism,” he said. But Wittes added that to place “gender rights at the center of (counterterrorism policy) is kind of an absurd proposition” that he said made the report ridiculous.
Schienen did not return requests for comment.
Past reports from the special rapporteur have focused on many issues relating to women — including the challenges faced by pregnant Palestinians trying to cross border checkpoints and the effects of counterterror measures on Chechnyan women.
But U.N. watchers say the new report is a confused amalgamation of important issues like women’s rights and tangential ones that have very little real application, including Scheinin’s demand that invasions like the U.S.’s “war on terror” in Afghanistan be “actually responsive to the concerns of women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex individuals in local contexts.”
London, of the Hudson Institute, said that it was hopeless to look for moral guidance from a body composed of some of the world’s most brutal and repressive regimes, including Saudi Arabia and China.
“The Human Rights Council and the nations that are represented on it, they’re clearly involved in human rights violations,” London told Foxnews.com. “They’re going to be the arbiters of human rights?”
The Third Committee will hear reports from a number of its 36 special rapporteurs and pass on some of their recommendations to the General Assembly.
The committee hearings do not provide the force of law for Schienen’s proposals, but some critics of the report say it represents a “stealth effort” to change international law and the meaning of gender by fiat.
“There might have been value in a report that addressed how counterterrorism efforts interact with the rights of women,” said Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council.
“But by burdening this report with these extreme forms of social engineering, it makes the report kind of laughable.”
