The killings and bombings in Norway

The killings in Norway – insane, and heinous and entirely evil would be wrong no matter who did them and no matter which political ideology they represented. There can be no doubt of that, and certainly no debate.

However, I would agree with Bruce Bawer when he states that this (hopefully) singular and evil act should not be construed as an excuse to avert our attention from the very real threat that Radical Islam poses to Europe, the entirety of western civilization, and indeed to the whole world. Bawer lives in Norway as an American expatriate and a gay man. He is in many respects, like myself, an unlikely convert to the values of classic liberalism. Indeed, he claims to still be a Democrat, but in any case, many would consider him a conservative. Labels aside (and I am not one to eschew labels as being entirely useless), Bawer knows of what he speaks and so I am linking to his article here. First, I quote:

“Those of us who thought, in the first hours after the blasts in downtown Oslo, that we were witnessing yet another act of jihad can be forgiven. In a way, it made sense. 9/11, London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Mumbai — why not Oslo? Then again…Norway, although a member of NATO with troops in Afghanistan and Libya, was not exactly in the forefront of the struggle to defeat jihad. On the contrary. Norway calls itself “the peace country.” For years, the Norwegian government and cultural establishment have striven to communicate to even the most extreme elements of international Islam that they want to be friends. They’ve shown their good faith in a number of ways:

They’ve made a great show of treating Jews very shabbily. Jostein Gaarder, author of the international bestseller Sophie’s World, published an op-ed a few years back declaring his contempt for Israel and the Jewish people. When Gaarder came in for some criticism, many high-profile members of the Norwegian cultural elite rushed to stand shoulder to shoulder with him. If the cultural elite in Norway is more anti-Semitic than its counterparts in any other country in Europe, it has a great deal to do with the recognition that the more you like the Jews, the more you’ll antagonize the Muslims.

They’ve been extremely gentle with Mullah Krekar, Norway’s resident terrorist. While some government officials have (admirably) labored to get the founder of Ansar al-Islam returned to his native Iraq, the system has repeatedly protected him, allowing him to stay in a very nice flat in Oslo, where he is supported by the state. Over the years the Norwegian media have churned out countless profiles of this murderous, child-torturing monster, invariably depicting him as a charming, grandfatherly type and allowing him plenty of space to bash the United States.

They’ve squelched criticism of Islam. In January 2006, Vebjørn Selbekk, editor of a small evangelical publication called Magazinet, reprinted the Danish Muhammed cartoons — and sent the Norwegian establishment into a tailspin. Politicians at the very highest level pressured Selbekk to apologize for his offense. He withstood admirably — for a while — but eventually buckled, and on February 10, 2006, appeared before a gathering of Norwegian imams and begged their forgiveness for having exercised his freedom of speech. Top government officials looked on in satisfaction, and a delegation led by a bishop of the Church of Norway traveled to Yemen to deliver the happy tidings of this capitulation to the theologian widely viewed as the closest thing to a Muslim pope, Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

They’ve dropped displays of Islamic totalitarianism down the memory hole. Two years ago, on two separate nights, a small army of Norwegian Muslim youths rioted in the heart of Oslo, turning a usually placid quarter into something reminiscent of Sarajevo or Beirut at their worst. The alleged motive for this explosion of violence was displeasure over the situation in Gaza; the real intention was to mount a display of power — to intimidate, and to communicate to Norway that their time had come, and that they had better be listened to with respect, or else. And in February of last year, another small army of Muslims, this time not rioting boys but sullen-looking men in long coats and full beards, gathered in downtown Oslo, in the same square where Vidkun Quisling once held his Nazi rallies, and listened with apparent pleasure while a young speaker named Mohyeldeen Mohammed threatened Norway with its own 9/11. Both of these events came and went, and the people who make decisions about this sort of thing plainly decided that it would be best to pretend that they had never happened.
They’ve openly supported terrorist groups. In the last few days, one of the major stories out of Norway has been the declaration by Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of his country’s support for the effort by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to seek United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state. This stance scarcely came as a surprise, given the Norwegian government’s longstanding effort to “build bridges” to Hamas. It was Støre, after all, who — when a couple of dozen Western diplomats walked out on a rabid anti-Israeli speech by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at the 2009 UN conference on racism — was the only Westerner who chose to stay and hear him out.

And the way they’ve talked to Norwegian Muslims about Islamist terrorism has been — well, consider this. A couple of years ago, when Jørn Holme, head of security services for the Norwegian police, showed up at a meeting sponsored by the Muslim Students Association, supposedly to discuss terrorism, surveillance, and the Muslim community, his main goal seemed to be to bond with the Muslims in attendance by putting down ethnic Norwegians (who, he said, were “too stupid to understand that there is no connection” between Islam and terrorism) as well as white American Christians (“In the United States in the sixties,” he told the audience, “blacks were raped by whites who went to church the next day”). Holme called the United State “human-rights-violation-country number one” and said that his greatest fear, when he contemplated a possible terrorist act in Norway, was that such an act would inflame anti-Muslim prejudice.”

Bawer goes on to state in his article that he fears that legitimate criticism of Islam may be squelched by this act of barbaric and delusional political violence. I wonder, reading his points above, what criticism there is in any case? However, his point is a good one. As hate speech laws proliferate in intensity in other places in the EU and in Canada (the circus of Section 13), these murders can only add to the anti-free speech project of the left. Bruce makes a good deal of other points and of course, has noticed that Anders Behring Breivik has mentioned his name, although with a certain amount of uncertainty as to his credibility as Bawer is gay. Of course, many of the people that I often read and admire for their uncompromising anti-Jihad stances are named in the pages of Breivik’s exhaustingly long “manifesto” which was apparently, often copied from the loony screed of the Unibomber with a few key changes to make it relevant to his own purposes. In any case, Bawer continues here…

“During those hours when we all thought this was a jihadist attack, one thought that crossed my mind was that this would change the political map of Norway. For years, the Progress Party, which is the second largest of Norway’s seven or eight major parties, has led the way in calling for more responsible policies on the immigration and integration of people from Muslim countries — and has been demonized as a bunch of right-wing extremist xenophobes who hate Muslims. I assumed that after this attack, Norwegians would vote in a Progress Party-led government in the next elections. Now it appears that the man who committed all these murders is a former member of the Progress Party and is, indeed, a right-wing extremist xenophobe who harbors (according to Dagbladet) a “violent hatred for Muslims” and multiculturalism, and who targeted the Labor Party youth camp because he blames the ruling Labor Party for the Islamization of Norway. Norway’s political future looks very different now, in short, than it did 24 hours ago.

It gets worse. Anders Behring Breivik, it turns out, was a frequent commenter at a website, document.no, that is run by a friend of mine in Norway, Hans Rustad, and that is concerned largely with the Islamization of Norway. Hans’s website is down right now — I don’t know why — except for a page on which he has posted a collection of all of Breivik’s postings on the site, going back to 2009. On September 14, 2009, he wrote: “Bawer is probably not the right person to work as a bridge-builder. He is a liberal anti-jihadist and not a cultural conservative in many areas. I have my suspicions that he is TOO paranoid (I am thinking of his homosexual orientation). It can seem that he fears that ‘cultural conservatives’ will become a threat to homosexuals in the future. He refuses therefore to take the opportunity to influence this in a positive direction. This seems entirely irrational.”

On October 31, 2009, he wrote that several things needed to be done in the next twenty years in order to prevent the Islamization of Norway, among them: “Initiate a collaboration with the conservative forces in the Norwegian church. I know that the libertarian forces in the European anti-jihad movement (Bruce Bawer among others, and some other libertarians) will have a problem with this, but conservative forces in the church are in fact one of our best allies. Our main opponents must not be jihadists but the jihadists’ facilitators — namely the multiculturalists.” And on November 6, 2009, he wrote: “It is tragicomic that an important NGO like Human-Etisk Forbund [the Norwegian Humanist Association] has been taken over by a cultural Marxist when it should be run by a liberal anti-jihadist like Bruce Bawer.”

It is chilling to read my own name in postings by this mass murderer. And it is deeply depressing to see this evil, twisted creature become the face of Islam criticism in Norway. Norwegian television journalists who in the first hours of the crisis were palpably uncomfortable about the prospect of having to talk about Islamic terrorism are now eagerly discussing the dangers of “Islamophobia” and “conservative ideology” and are drawing connections between the madness and fanaticism of Breivik and the platform of the Progress Party. Yesterday’s events, then, represent a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But I fear that legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited, in the eyes of many Norwegians, by association with this murderous lunatic.”

From A Double Tragedy for Norway – Bruce Bawer

Mark Steyn weighs in with wit (even under these circumstances) and characteristic aplomb, pointing out that in fact, no Muslims were killed so this particular form of Islamaphobia had some odd consequences:

“The mass murderer Breivik published a 1,500-page “manifesto.” It quotes me, as well as several friends of NR — Theodore Dalrymple, Daniel Pipes, Roger Scruton, Melanie Phillips, Daniel Hannan (plus various pieces from NR by Rod Dreher and others) — and many other people, including Churchill, Gandhi, Orwell, Jefferson, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, not to mention the U.S. Declaration of Independence.* Those new “hate speech” codes the Left is already clamoring for might find it easier just to list the authors Europeans will still be allowed to read.

It is unclear how seriously this “manifesto” should be taken. Parts of it simply cut and paste chunks of the last big killer “manifesto” by Ted Kaczynski, with the occasional [insert-your-cause-here] word substitute replacing the Unabomber’s obsessions with Breivik’s. This would seem an odd technique to use for a sincerely meant political statement. The entire document is strangely anglocentric – in among the citations of NR and The Washington Times, there’s not a lot about Norway.

Nevertheless, Breivik’s manifesto seems to be determining the narrative in the anglophone media. The opening sentence from USA Today:

Islamophobia has reached a mass murder level in Norway as the confessed killer claims he sought to combat encroachment by Muslims into his country and Europe.

So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an “Islamophobic” mass murder? As far as we know, not a single Muslim was among the victims. Islamophobia seems an eccentric perspective to apply to this atrocity, and comes close to making the actual dead mere bit players in their own murder. Yet the Associated Press is on board:

Security Beefed Up At UK Mosques After Norway Massacre.

But again: No mosque was targeted in Norway. A member of the country’s second political party gunned down members of its first. But, in the merest evolution of post-9/11 syndrome, Muslims are now the preferred victims even in a story in which they are entirely absent. “

From here: Islamophobia and Mass Murder by Mark Steyn

And, with that I send my condolences out to Norway and to all of those people whose loved ones were killed or hurt. There is no redeeming value to this act, and I would hope that the narratives that it generates are not exploitative of those deaths, but that they instead shed light.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In other news, on a more personal note, in case you wondered where I went I just moved, and am searching for a new place to live, and am “transitioning” again! This time possibly even, eventually to a new city, though time will tell. Everything is a bit chaotic for me, but it won’t be forever. So, I’ll not be able to post quite as much as I’d like I think, but I’m still around and will check in from time to time with new observations. Thanks to all who stop by to read!

Advertisements

The Lights are going out…

Geert Wilders has the voice of a prophet and he should not be ignored, especially as his own government attempts to silence him. He is on trial for hate speech in the Netherlands, and here, the text of his speech as his trial opens again, as translated by Vlaamse Leeuwin. From, Gates of Vienna, here: The Lights are going out all over Europe
:
The lights are going out all over Europe. All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization. The foundation of the West is under attack everywhere.

All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us for fourteen centuries. An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom. The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve [a Dutch author], the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity. The ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and can only produce societies that are backward and impoverished. Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology.

My trial is not an isolated incident. Only fools believe it is. All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe — a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Anyone who thinks or speaks individually is at risk. Freedom-loving citizens who criticize Islam, or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honour killing, must suffer, and are threatened or criminalized. Those who speak the truth are in danger.

The lights are going out allover Europe. Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think.

This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. It is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. For centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology.

Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said here last year:

It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of free people — and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament — to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. Hence it is a right and a duty to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called Islam. I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphant from this trial. I hope not only that I shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe.”

While Wilders is on trial for hate speech in Amsterdam, while in the UK British salafi Abu Mounisa at The Islamic Awakening Conference lays radical Islamic intentions out in plain speech. The west ‘worships freedom, democracy and capitalism’ as well as allowing women to walk in the street wearing what they wish, without being slapped — and he goes on in vivid detail.

From Gates of Vienna once again here: Replacing the system with Islam

Denigrating Religious teachings — the trial

I’m watching this with interest… Sounds like the Middle Ages, but this trial is occurring now, in Europe.

From Gates of Vienna :

“The trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for “denigrating religious teachings” begins today in Vienna.

Update 12:40 (5:40am EST): The lawyer continues to ask Elisabeth to explain various statements:

Lawyer: What is meant by “We are decadent”?
Elisabeth: That is the point of view of Islamic fundamentalists.
Lawyer: What is meant by “We do not want Sharia here, full stop”?
Elisabeth: Free, secular societies is what we want.
Lawyer: What is meant by “Islamic law is not compatible with free societies, we need to understand this.”?
Elisabeth: Islam is a whole, and this whole is not compatible with free societies like the Austrian.
Lawyer: Did you see any veiled Muslim men?
Elisabeth (laughing): No, this is an obligation only for women.
Lawyer: You were referring to Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam. What is the meaning of that?
Elisabeth: This is a reference to the no-go zones, where Sharia is effectively the law. There immigrant youths torch cars, throw stones at the police, etc.
Prosecutor: Are each and every one of these persons Muslims?
Elisabeth: The majority are.
Lawyer: What is meant when you say: “How many times have we been told that Islam is a Religion of Peace?” Is this an incitement to hate or violence?
Elisabeth: I do not mean to incite hatred or violence. We need to be informed, make people aware, inform our politicians and write letters to the newspapers.
Lawyer: What is meant by “We do not want gender apartheid, polygamy”?

Elisabeth explains polygamy in Islam, and the fact that this is a reality in Europe, today.

Elisabeth finally tells about the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the absolute right to express ones’ opinions, as a fundamental prerequisite for a sound democracy.”

from here
Gates of Vienna – the trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Pat Condell on Free Speech and Europe –

Pat Condell, that irrepressible UK atheist, on the growing issue with free speech in Europe as more people are being put on trial and threatened with jail time simply for speaking out against what they see as Islamic extremism, or even, simply — criticizing Islam. Condell attests that multiculturalism is dead in Europe. He conveys with his usual direct and biting style how the far left in Europe now functions as the enforcer for Islamic radicalism. Taking sides with Islamic fascism while claiming to be against “fascists”. But, that has almost always been the case, has it not? Mussolini was a communist before he was a fascist, and Hitler was anti-capitalist and a man at home with universal healthcare and — jackboots. His concentration camps were echoed by Stalin.

In my observation the far left was never anything but totalitarian, so again, its true colors are made apparent by its creation of these odd alliances with fascist Islam and the enemies of free speech. Who are the real “fascists” here? Condell has an answer. The YouTube is behind the link!

http://www.youtube.com/v/bWw7H4m389o?fs=1&hl=en_US

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Hate Speech charges in Austria for speaking out against Sharia and FGM

In Austria, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is being charged with “hate speech” and could spend three years in prison. Having spent much of her adult life in Muslim countries, she is critical of many aspects of Islam, particularly the treatment of women in many of those countries and of sharia. She is adamantly opposed to sharia being implemented in Europe and is a knowledgeable and courageous speaker – now, facing jail time for her well reasoned and articulate speeches and seminars on the subject of Islam.

Here, an excerpt from an article by A. Millar from Hudson New York:

Although the trial of Dutch MP and critic of Islam, Geert Wilders, and its serious implications for free speech in Europe, is once again creating a furor in the press, another high-profile trial of a critic of Islam — Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, in Austria — is being overlooked.

Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff now faces up to a three-year prison sentence if convicted of “inciting hatred against a religious group” and “defamation of religion” in a lecture in 2009 on the “Islamization of Europe.”

As allegedly criminal statements fill the indictments of “hate speech” prosecutions, as in the case with Mr. Wilders, the Dutch MP says that he spoken the truth, and the truth cannot be illegal.

And, a very recent interview of Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff at a celebration of German re-unification day in Berlin in two parts:

http://www.youtube.com/v/6SZgX8fS2YA?fs=1&hl=en_US

http://www.youtube.com/v/LhbeGdLkFTA?fs=1&hl=en_US

Hard to believe that these hate speech charges are actually being, well, enforced, but apparently they are. Watching Europe these days is increasingly strange and — terrifying.

Mark Steyn Wins Sappho Prize in Copenhagen, “You’ll Have to Kill Us All”

Mark Steyn, Canadian humorist and polemicist and free speech crusader, has won the Sappho Prize in Copenhagen. Here, some photos from the awards ceremony and a recording of Mark’s speech with an introduction (that includes the inevitable cheesy lesbian jokes, all in good humor however) by Eva Agnete Selsing. Her introduction is bracing and fearless, and Mark’s speech is funny and as he builds, intense and fiery. Well, worth a listen… He states that his sense of humor is “not subject to state regulation.”

You’ll Have to Kill Us All!

And, from a report on Steyn’s speech by the International Free Speech Society:

That is Mark Steyn’s diagnosis of Western Civilisation anno 2010. And that the man knows what he is talking about became clear to everyone on this anniversary of the murderous attack in New York and elsewhere on 9/11 nine years ago. The same might be said of the other participants in this international conference –the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, the Norwegian-Pakistani comedienne Shabana Rehman, the Danish-Iranian actor, comedian and commentator Farshad Kholghi and the Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekshot.

Every one of these artists, comedians and critics had played the role of the little boy in Andersen’s tale. And they had all paid the price. Had anyone been in doubt, it sufficed to look around in the hall, where several officers from the Danish Security Police were posted.
America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It is the title of the book that gave Mark Steyn his international breakthrough. It describes a Europe that in the absolute autumn of its life can neither maintain itself demographically nor culturally and is therefore threatened by rapid Islamization.

Based as it is on dry facts and thorough research, the book has had a major influence on the discourse on Islam and multicultural society…

Steyn’s message in Copenhagen was far from uplifting.

Paraphrasing the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Grey’s comment on the outbreak of World War 1, Steyn remarked: ”One by one the lights go out in Europe because those who have created the multicultural societies will not defend them.”
He went on to say that authors, comedians and everyone else that does not believe in a multicultural utopia are being persecuted and witch-hunted into silence. The Canadian authorities have even tried –in the best totalitarian tradition – to criminalize Mark Steyn’s jokes. Even his “tone” has been subjected to legal scrutiny…

Though the title of Steyn’s book refers to an America that finds itself increasingly isolated in its defence of Western values, things are far from ideal on the other side of the Atlantic.

Steyn noted that Obama has never criticized honour killings or other outrages taking place in the Muslim world. But if Westerners commit the slightest transgression – as is now the case with the mad priest in Florida who wanted to burn the Koran – he immediately feels called upon to issue an official condemnation. That is a disgrace, said Steyn, who could only express his contempt for Western governments that think Islam should be exempted from criticism.

Among the governments that in Steyn’s words compete to be “Islam’s most obedient ‘prison-bitch’” is the one in Sweden. That blue-yellow nation was horrified when one of its own sons drew the Muslim prophet as a dog. ”

From the article here: Humour Conference: It Takes Children, Drunkards and Death-defying Artists to Get the Truth.

Your last best hope is you! Kathy Shaidle on speaking out and speaking freely

OK, she said, “Your last best hope should be you” and I take it that this is advice for timid Canadians who are very, very close to changing the hate speech laws in their otherwise, wonderful country — but it is good advice for all of us, no matter where we reside. When speaking truth becomes “hate speech” well, it is time to — speak the truth! And, I know many of you out there reading me may protest that the truth is relative, and while there is relatively some truth to that notion, there is also truth, with a T, and we know it and feel it when we do. And, once we have recognized it, truth with a big T, does have that way of wanting to be known, spoken, and acknowledged.

Kathy Shaidle is a Canadian, a self-described “old punk rocker” and an ex-leftist (sounds like someone I saw in the mirror except I am not a Canadian though I have a lot of relatives up there from one side of the family) AND, I am not five feet tall! I have also not been arrested for hate speech, which is another reason why, I have not applied for my dual Canadian citizenship, I want to keep it that way! I know I’ve talked about Kathy Shaidle before. Yes, she’s been charged with hate speech in Canada, and blogs at Five Feet of Fury — (being all of five feet tall) and here she’s speaking at a support for Geert Wilders Rally in Toronto.

In other words, don’t let the so-called Human Rights Commissions shut you up, shut you down or get you down. Here in the USA our HRCs don’t have this power, but in Canada, they can actually swoop in and confiscate your computer – without a warrant! They’d be looking for “hate speech” if you can believe it.