The Bigsibling Blog

This week’s award goes to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The UNHRC has taken a 180 degree change in charter from being the watchdog of governments and protecting the human rights of individuals, to limiting the free speech and becoming what Orwell called the "Ministry of Thought".

Egypt and Pakistan proposed a measure to the 47 nation member council (heavily populated - need I add? - by Arab and Muslim countries) that directs the councils expert on free speech to investigate individuals and new organizations for negative comments on Islam.

Western countries have criticized the reversal for the expert - Ambeyi Ligabo of Kenya - who used to make reports to the UNHRC on what governments and tyrants did to curtail and otherwise restrict free speech. His job now, is to report to the UNHRC when regular folks (like you and I) and the media (like CNN and FOXNews) make disparaging remarks about the beloved "Religion of Peace".

The measure passed 32-0 because the wussie western countries on the UNHRC abstained instead of voting against it - the US is not on the UNHRC - but those freedom of speech hating loving Canadians are. I’ve discussed what a dire state free speech is in for our beloved friends up north, so their abstaining doesn’t really surprise me. They couldn’t vote for it and still pretend to be true believers in free speech, but they couldn’t vote against it, since they are trying to do the same damn thing back home. The UNHRC has also adopted a separate resolution urging countries to enact laws that would specifically protect Muslims and Islam from criticism. I guess Jews are still fair game with their lot though.

It looks like the only folks who actually like this crappy measure are those freedom loving, woman hating, child raping, beheading, peacenicks from the "Religion of Peace." I have to say, I have seen more hatred and filth and vilification spew from the mouths of Muslims, than I have every heard from any other group of people. I wonder if the UNHRC will sanction the "president" of Iran for his remarks against the Jews? Nah, because the Jews are fair game. The only religion that cannot be criticized is Islam.

I have never thought the UN was anything but bad. I have never felt they could do anything at all. Their peacekeepers don’t, their humanitarian workers are corrupt criminals, they were neck need in the Iraqi oil thieving scandal, all the way up to the frakcing top! And yet nothing happens. They have no teeth. They have no jurisdiction anywhere really. It’s a giant farce and humongous waste of money.

Frakcing UN.

source

###

Stumble it!

Geert Wilders’ movie FITNA, which is critical of Islamic Supremacists, was being streamed at LiveLeak.com. It seemed there was at least one last bastion of freedom on the Internet. But they have pulled the movie due to threats of a "very serious nature."

Unfortunately, I didn’t get the change to view it last night, so when I went to look at it to day, this is what is playing:

It is indeed a sad day when the followers of the "Religion of Peace" are so kind and peace loving they will threaten bodily injury and death to anyone who speaks against them.

UPDATE: I found a version of the movie on the YouTube. I don’t know how long it will last. I’ll try to keep the video link below current, but you just never know.

UPDATE UPDATE: If there are problems with the below vids from the YouTube, FITNA can viewed at "1389Blog - Antijihadist Tech" - where they are hosting it themselves. And I’m pretty damned certain the team at 1389Blog won’t be caving into the Islamic Supremacists and their murdering cohorts any time soon. Oh, and BTW, one my also see the film that got Theo Van Gogh murdered by those "religion of peace" followers.

Part One:

Part Two:

###

Stumble it!

I don’t know exactly where it is yet. But I’m looking for it. I’ll post a link when I find it. Probably will be on the YouTube by this evening. If anyone out there has a link to it, please let us know.

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands: Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders released a film criticizing Islam and its holy book the Quran on Thursday, posting it on a Web site.

The film took the form of a book, citing verses of the Quran interspersed with images of violence from terrorist attacks in the United States and Spain, and the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands.

The Dutch government had warned Wilders that a film offensive to Muslims could spark violent protests in Islamic countries, like those two years ago after the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Wilders’ film began and ended with one of the cartoons portraying Mohammed. Then it gave the sound effect of a page being torn.

But subtitles assured the viewer that it was a page from a telephone book, because "it’s not up to me, but the Muslims to tear the hate-sowing pages out of the Quran."

After the release, Wilders told reporters he made the film because "Islam and the Quran are dangers to the preservation of freedom in the Netherlands in the long term, and I have to warn people of that."

"It’s not a provocation, but…it’s five minutes before midnight and this is the last warning as far as I’m concerned."

A Dutch judge was due on Friday to hear the petition of a Muslim group seeking an independent review of the film to see whether it violates hate speech laws.

Film purporting to be by Dutch lawmaker on web site - International Herald Tribune

###

Stumble it!

Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan has an excellent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about Islam and Free Speech. Something I have been trying to say for a while, but he says it so much better than I could ever hope to. Please give it a read, it is well worth the time.

Islam and Free Speech - WSJ.com

###

Stumble it!

Linda S. Heard wrote in the Gulf News web-site - which I believe when they say "gulf" they mean Persian Gulf, not down Mississippi way because when one clicks "Nation" for national news, they get news about the UAE - in which she calls freedom of speech an "Admirable Concept" and explains how the West doesn’t really have free speech.

The main point of her misguided, but very well written rant, is that while we may think we have free speech, we really don’t. She cites some hate-speech examples in Europe. She believes that some US states have laws against blasphemy which, I have to see to believe. The whole wall between church and state that the left is just so nuts about would seem to impede any laws regarding blasphemy. I could be wrong (but I’m not).

She spends a bit of her time with Geert Wilders’ movie "FITNA" which is causing quite a ruckus with those peace loving followers of Mohamed. So peace loving in fact, that Wilders is under state protection in the Netherlands, and the Dutch are preparing for the worst when the film is finally released.

She states if the Dutch government really wanted to stop the film from being shown, they could. Which is completely false. All Wilders has to do is release the film in the USA, from US servers. See, as much as Heard wants to believe that our first amendment is an "Admiral Concept", what she doesn’t, and probably will never understand, is that it is so much more than that. It is sacred. Freedom of speech…religion…to peaceably assemble…these are not concepts. These are not some high ideals that we only strive for. These are not the edicts of ayatollahs and imams that will get us into heaven, but which are nigh impossible to attain.

Jesus said that if we only had the faith to fill a mustard seed, we could command a mountain to move, and it would move. But in reality, that kind of faith is simply unattainable in the human realm, with our limited mind and inability to fully comprehend God in all his glory. Something similar to Heard I think. She simply cannot (or more probably will not) comprehend 1) what this freedom is; and 2) what it actually and truly means to us, as Americans.

There is a reason the framers of our country placed that amendment first. It is the most important of all the freedoms they have guaranteed for us. That document was drafted with copious debate, and nothing is in there, or placed, by accident. Every letter, every piece of punctuation, is intentional. It is where it is supposed to be.

She claims that Wilders’ film will serve as a recruiting tool for extremist groups:

Furthermore, it will serve as a recruiting tool for extremist groups calling for a jihad against the new Crusaders.

Shame on him and shame on those who would prioritise the so-called rights of this imbecile over the heartfelt pleas of Muslims in the Netherlands and around the world!

Shame on us? Shame on the freedom loving people? What about the please of the non-Muslims in the Spain and England who didn’t want their trains bombed? What about the please of the Israelis in settlements constantly being bombed by the Muslims. Are the bombs they send in heartfelt? Probably not.

Heard will never understand what it means to be free. She will never understand what freedom of speech is really about.

As for Wilders’s film, given his known detestation of Islam, one can only wonder about his motives for making it. Rather than exemplifying his freedom to express his views, it is likely to be 15 minutes of pure, unadulterated hate probably designed to cause an even greater rift between Muslims and non-Muslims than already exists.

The question which Heard does not ask. And will never explore, is why does that right exists in the here and now? Why is there such a great divide between Muslim and non-Muslim? Could it be that the non-Muslim is horrified at the Muslim treatment of women? That non-Muslims can’t understand why converting from Islam to a different religion is punishable by death? Could it be that the non-Muslim simply can’t fathom that the victim of a gang-rape is punished, then pardoned by the Muslim government? I’m certain Heard will discount any of these things for helping to create, and keep the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. I’m certain Heard has some other far-reaching reason, and all fault will be placed squarely on the shoulders of us Westerners. Oh and the Israelis, can’t forget them, it’s their fault too.

Let’s not forget, the reason for the riots last year, the burnings of buildings, and the deaths were not the Muslims. Sure, they perpetrated the atrocities, but who could blame them? Newspapers in the Netherlands and Denmark published the Mo’ Toons. I mean seriously, if that isn’t a reason for wholesale lawlessness, what is?

###

Stumble it!

Some people seem to completely miss the point. Or they are in such a state of mal-education they can’t tell the difference between "Parochial" schools and "Public" schools.

Over at Human Events.com, Jihad Watcher and author Robert Spencer writes about a public school in Minnesota which was started by two imams, and is located in a Mosque. This is, mind you, a public school, funded by tax-payer money. Yeah.

Into all of this, the Internet’s resident cry-baby emeritus, fake priest, Stolen Valor offender and all-around Islamic Supremacist apologist and enabler has this to say about Spencer’s article:

The obvious answer would be: "Yes, and they’re called parochial schools, with tens of thousands of them across the USA and even more worldwide." Of course, the obvious often eludes Spencer, in his obsessive-compulsive (but very well funded) racist rants against all things Muslim.

Ummm….should we really talk about the elusive obviousness? Seriously? Parochial schools don’t get any tax money. Parochial schools are not public schools, they are what we in the civilized world call "private school". Or has that obvious bit of fact eluded our good phony reverend? Probably not, but I’m certain he truly believes that the folks that read his diatribe, and believe it, are just stupid enough to not know the difference between PRIVATE schools and PUBLIC schools. Perhaps I should see about advertising on his site - I have some beachfront property just outside Wichita with an exceptional view of the mountains.

Stumble it!

This, I wasn’t expecting. Sure, Google removes from their news-feeds nearly anything critical of the ‘do no evil’ company, and sure they remove from their news-feeds most things that are overtly, and blatantly critical of Islam and/or Muslims in general, but I didn’t expect the company that is, for many, the de-facto registrar of domains in the world to begin a political correctness campaign.

For those that have been in and around the Internet business for more than 6 or 7 years, they’ll remember ‘way back when’ domain names cost upwards of $70 a year, and there was only one place to get them. That place was Network Solutions. Now, in a bold move of appeasement and a grandiose gesture of dhimmitudeness, the great NetSol has suspended the web-site for Geert Wilder’s 15 minute movie. They claim it may violate their terms of service (I am assuming regarding hate speech or incitement to violence or some other such nonsense). Seems many people have complained about the site. I can’t really figure out why. The site consisted of the following:

The site formerly showed the film’s title, "Fitna" ("Coming Soon"), and an image of a gilded Koran.

Now, I fail to see how a site with a movie title and a picture of a Koran could, by any sane and marginally reasonable person, possibly violate the NetSol TOS. Perhaps it does. Perhaps NetSol has a clause in there about not showing a picture of the Koran, or not using foreign language to depict the words "Coming Soon". More realistically, I think, is that the NetSol blue-suits are scared, scared for their lives, and the reactions from the "Religion of Peace" followers if they left it up. It was these self-same, diversity spouting peaceful Muslims after all, that caused so much chaos and mayhem last year with the publishing of the now infamous Mo’ Toons.

It is a sad day when an old (by Internet standards anyway), well established and nearly house-hold name company like Network Solutions sells out in this way. If they were looking to not offend people, they have failed. I know I, or one, am greatly offended at this action. I am hoping and praying that Wilder finds another host for his site, and that 1) his movie does get distributed, and 2) it is translated into English (or at least sub-titled) so I can view it and understand it.

For their kow-towing and obvious subservience to the Islamic Supremacists, I am awarding Network Solutions the honorable "Dhimmi Of The Week" award. Congrats guys! May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your groin, and you’re business go down the tubes faster than Spitzer’s career.

sources:
Daily Tech
International Herald Tribune

###

Stumble it!

In a dissapointing 180 degree turn of sensibilities, the Vatican came out and publically sided with Islam regarding the re-printing of Kurt Westegaard’s cartoon depicting Muhammed with a bomb in his turban.

While I certainly understand the Vatican’s position that calls for respect of all faiths and the like. They have, in the past, issued similar statements when so-called ‘artists’ create their art by putting a crucifix in a jar of urine. Or by creating a portrait of Mother Mary made from fecal matter. However, when was the last time the Church put a bounty on someone’s head for offending Christ?

How much respect can you give a religion, where they stone a rape victim? Where a woman can be killed to maintain family honor? Where simply reading the Holy Bible can get one killed? And where converting to Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, is a certain death sentence?

Sorry, Il Papa, but I cannot, nor will I ever, respect a religion with those ideologies. Those kinds of actions are the antithesis to what God means to me, and what I have been taught, about Him by the Catholic Church.

At least Il Papa could have also issued a statement regarding how wrong it is for Westegaard to have a death sentance hanging over his head for publishing the cartoon. Has the Vatican said anything about that? Not that I’ve heard.

You can see all of the cartoons that stirred the ‘Religion of Peace’ to such a fury here.

source

Technorati Tags: Kurt Westegaard, Muhammed, Islam, Religion of Peace, Danish Cartoons, Vatican

Stumble it!

The death murder honor killing of 16 year-old Aqsa Parvez seems to have brought out the apologists in droves. In looking at the news coverage of this horrible crime, especially the editorials in the media. I’m not including bloggers here, most of the blogs I have seen have been on the correct side of this whole thing. The side that displays disgust for a father who would rather see his daughter dead than running around in public with her head exposed.

No, these people, the columnists of news papers and the like, present this as something that is bad to be sure, but not really a Muslim thing. They point out that western parents have strife and disagreements with their kids about dress and mannerisms. But of course, when was the last time anyone read about a western father killing his daughter because she wanted to wear what he thought might be clothes too revealing? We haven’t read about that, because it doesn’t happen.

No, this idea of women as expendable - this is not a western idea. The thought that women are to be subjugated and considered as second class, less worthy of anything than a man - these are not western values. Lorne Gunter in the Edmonton Journal posits the question "Was the killing of Aqsa a Muslim act?" Gunter goes to great lengths to point out that parents and their kids have had clashes over changing cultures for generations. In his attempts to apologize for the Islamic Supremacists, he points out that the guy who walked into a church in Colorado last week does not mean all Christians are gun-crazy murderers (I hadn’t even read that the guy was Christian?). He also points out that all teens are not homicidal, even though one shot up a mall in Omaha recently. He portrays the honor killing of Aqsa Parvez as a random, isolated incident. Maybe he thinks of it as something like a car-jacking, I don’t know. He wonders at the folks who are outraged that an honor killing has occurred in Canada, that they seem very quick to jump on the bandwagon that Muslims engage in honor killings just because of this one event. What he misses is that it is not this one event. That the stories of honor killings have been reaching the citizens of the west for decades. That in places like Iran women are not allowed to leave their house without a male family member with them. He does point out that Hindus and Sikhs and other religions also engage in this horrific practice of honor killings. As if that somehow makes it not so bad, almost acceptable, sort of kind of. What Gunter refuses to admit in his column, however, is when the last time an honor killing occurred in a Hindu or Sikh or other community besides the Muslim community in any western nation. Maybe it happened yesterday, or last week or two years ago for all I know. But somehow, I believe if there had been an honor killing in one of these communities, Gunter would have mentioned such in his apologist column.

I’ll present that Aqsa died because she did not want to wear the hijab. Her death murder honor killing, by reason of not wearing the hijab, makes this a Muslim issue. To be certain, there are Muslims who decry this type of violence. But let us face the facts, there are more and more Islamic Supremacists arriving in the western countries, wanting the westerners to kow-tow to their ways of thinking. Wanting the westerners to change their lifestyle and habits based on the Muslim view of the world. This is what has people in an uproar.

Stumble it!

Yeah, right, some choice: Wear it or die!

What kind of people are these? What kind of person would rather see his daughter dead, then dress the way he wants her to dress? The answer is Muhammad Parvez. Parvez and his family live in Toronto. He wanted his daughter Aqsa to wear the traditional Muslim hijab (that’s the head scarf for those not in the know). But she didn’t want to. She wanted to blend in with society. She wanted the freedom that Canada is supposed to give people. She wanted to look and act like the other kids at school.

But that just wasn’t enough for daddy (and her brother, he was in on the whole thing too). So daddy beat his daughter to death. Beat her so badly that he killed her. This, this is from a strict practitioner of the so-called “Religion of Peace”. This isn’t the first time fathers and brothers have beat a woman to death to uphold their family honor. Of course not in the world, but particularly not in what I would call the civilized world.

Back in July I posted about Banaz Mahmod. She was a 20 year old Muslim woman living in England who brought the terrible shame upon her family of falling in love with a man her father didn’t approve of. In response to this terrible shame, he and other relatives put her through a two and a half hour ordeal where she was brutally beaten and raped before finally being allowed to die.

I don’t know that 16 year old Aqsa was put through such torture; although, it would certainly not surprise me in the bit as these ‘religion of peace’ practitioners seem to be very adept at non-peaceful ways. What I do know is that this girl will not see her 17th birthday. She died, was murdered, because she didn’t like to wear the clothes her father wanted her to wear. To her father, it was more important that his daughter wear that fucking hijab, then to be alive.

Tell me again about that whole “Religion of Peace” thing?

source

Stumble it!

« Previous entries