Fra Wall Street Journal:

The jailing of two retired Turkish generals over the weekend has heightened tensions between the government in Ankara and its critics. The generals are among 21 people whom police have detained over the past week, including a senior industrialist and a prominent journalist, on suspicion of plotting a coup against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government. Interestingly, the interrogations occurred as the chief prosecutor appeared before the constitutional court to make his case that the AKP be shut down for violating the state's official secularism.
While this showdown immediately revived the cliché of the "real Turks" of the AKP fighting off the "secular elites," this is not a case of the pious, popular masses versus an irreligious intelligentsia. Both Turkeys in this power struggle are religious, both are wealthy, and both are equipped with powerful media and security assets. Still, the outcome will have a profound effect on Turkey's future direction.
The AKP has been ascendant since winning 47% of the vote in the July 2007 elections. That result was an improvement on its previous showing at the ballot box, and many viewed it as proof of the AKP's strength. But the other way to look at it is that 53% of the Turkish electorate did not vote for the party. If secular Turks have their sympathetic journalists and their cadre of wealthy businessmen, so does the AKP: Pro-AKP billionaires abound in Istanbul, and they own around 50% of Turkey's media outlets. What's more, even Turks who voted for secular parties are religious: Opinion polls show that over 90% of Turks, regardless of which side of the political fault line they fall on, practice Islam. Finally, well-connected Turks suggest that while secular Turks can rely on military intelligence, pro-AKP groups control police intelligence.

(BERIGTIGELSE: Information nævner også sagen, men er mest bekymret over, om konfliktretten lider skade - vi skulle jo gerne ud og svinge de røde og grønne faner en gang imellem, ikke sandt.)

I dag vedtager Folketinget Lissabontraktaten uden folkelig debat og mediebevågenhed. Hvordan kan det overhovedet lade sig gøre?

To sætninger. Så kort kan det gøres.

»I morgen – torsdag – vedtager Folketinget den ny EU-traktat – Lissabontraktaten. Nu er tiden så kommet til at tage fat på de danske undtagelser«.

Sådan skrev Venstre i går i sit nyhedsbrev og fik dermed sat et effektivt punktum for debatten om en af de største traktater i EU’s historie, som i dag bliver vedtaget under en tredjebehandling i Folketinget. Den kom aldrig til folkeafstemning, og et flertal af partierne er allerede blevet enige om at stemme ja til traktaten.

»Der er larmende tavst«
Så selv om den vil afføde en vis rituel debat fra Folketingets talerstol, er vi ifølge EU-eksperter langt fra tiden i 1980’erne, hvor danskerne højlydt diskuterede alt fra krumme agurker til EF-pakken og det indre marked over middagsbordene. Eller nogle år senere, hvor danskerne efter en ophedet folkeafstemning sagde nej ØMU’en – den fælles EU valuta.

I dag er der tavst, mener leder af Center for Europæisk Politik på Københavns Universitet, Marlene Wind:

»Og ikke bare det. Der er så larmende tavst, at man ville kunne høre en knappenål falde til gulvet i Folketinget«.

EU-eksperterne mener, at den manglende debat er et demokratisk problem. Historisk set har der nemlig været en tradition for EU-debatter i den brede befolkning i forbindelse med de store folkeafstemninger. Og når de ikke er der, så forstummer debatten:

»Derfor har politikerne på jasiden en ekstra forpligtelse til at tage EU-spørgsmål op. Det har de ikke gjort, og dermed har de forsømt at få EU på dagsordenen i en grad, så det nærmest ligner en skandale«, siger Marlene Wind, der er blevet inviteret til et hav af EU-debat arrangementer af blandt andet 3F, LO og Konservative Studerende. Men aldrig af de politiske partier på Christiansborg.

Et råddent æg
Hun bakkes op af professor i EU-ret på Københavns Universitet Hjalte Rasmussen, som beskylder politikerne for at trumfe EU-politikken igennem hen over hovedet på folk:

»Den europæiske elite har simpelthen knægtet den tradition, vi har for at engagere folk gennem folkeafstemninger«, siger han og fortsætter:

»For med EU er det som et råddent æg: Det er aldrig det rigtige tidspunkt at diskutere det på. Når folk vil snakke om det under valgkampen, siger statsminister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, at tiden ikke er inde. Og når de så vil have en folkeafstemning for at diskutere det, så er der også tavst. Hvornår i alverden skal folket så engagere sig«, spørger professoren.

Ifølge EU-eksperter er Venstres behandling af traktaten i nyhedsbrevet derfor meget symptomatisk for den måde, hvorpå de EU-venlige partier i modsætning til tidligere har begravet EU-debatten i tavshed. Og det er der en meget god grund til, siger Marlene Wind:

»Politikerne ønsker at fastholde et billede af, at det er dem, der bestemmer, og at det hele sker på Christiansborg. Men de bluffer. For i virkeligheden sker de helt store ting sker i Bruxelles. I EU. Vi tør bare ikke tale om det«.

Merkel satte det i gang
Historien om Lissabontraktatens skæbne startede for tre år siden, hvor hollænderne og franskmændene stemte nej til den såkaldte forfatningstraktat. Da Tyskland overtog formandskabet, kaldte den tyske forbundskansler Angela Merkel de forskellige EU-lande til sig.

»Hun ville ikke have mere slinger i valsen, fortalte hun de forskellige regeringsledere. Og herefter blev traktaten gjort spiselig. Men helt ærligt: De har fjernet en bums på en smuk kvinde. Hun er der endnu. I realiteten er det nemlig den samme traktat. Bare uden flag og nationalsang«, siger Hjalte Rasmussen.

Hos Venstre afviser partiets EU-ordfører, at politikerne har handlet hen over hovedet på folk:

»Vi snakkede i dag herinde (på Christiansborg red.) om, at det har været en af de mest diskuterede EU-traktater overhovedet. Vi har haft høringer, vi skriver blogs, vi debatterer via hjemmesider. Samtidig er der blevet stillet over 500 paragraf 20-spørgsmål til regeringen om traktaten, så præmissen om, at vi er tavse, køber jeg ikke«, siger Michael Aastrup Jensen.

Han understreger samtidig, at Venstre i et tidligere nyhedsbrev i detaljer har beskrevet Lissabontraktaten og dens fordele for Danmark.

Og så retter han skytset mod pressen:

»Jeg vil æde min gamle hat på, at pressen ikke får et ord ud om debatten i dag i Folketinget. Bare for at sige, at man også der har et ansvar«, siger Michael Aastrup Jensen.

Lige præcis her er Marlene Wind enig:

»Pressen har en tendens til at nedprioritere EU-stoffet. Tænk hvis medierne brugte lige så mange kræfter på EU-stoffet som på historier om Lars Løkkes bilagsrod. Det ville give EU en helt anderledes plads i danskernes bevidsthed«, siger hun.

Man er vel "stueren", ikke sandt, Anders Fogh?

Du burde skynde dig at læse Helle Merete Brix's nyudgivne bog "Mod Mørket", så ville du måske forstå en smule af, hvad vi er oppe imod, i stedet for at lefle for politisk korrekthed over for folk, som vil erobre Vesten, ødelægge den greco-romanske kultur og indføre islam og sharia-lov som herskende samfundssystem.

Anders - jeg mister en lille bid respekt for dig dag for dag. Det er bekymrende, at landets statsminister ved så lidt om islam, som tilfældet åbenbart er. Wilders bidrag til debatten er vigtig, ligesom for eksempel Hirsi Ali's, Pim Fortuyns, Rushdies, Theo van Gogh's og tegnernes, fordi de åbner folks øjne overfor vanviddet i islam og i politisk korrekthed, som bunder i kulturelt selvhad.

Iøvrigt aner ingen, om Wilder rent faktisk HAR lavet en film - selv om reaktionerne fra islamofascisterne kunne tyde på, at de allerede har set den...

Muhamedanerne ser sig jo allerede i rollen som diktatorer i Europa, som man uden omsvøb har indregnet i dar-ul-harb (områder, som skal islamiseres og leve under sharia). Og deres vanvid skal konfronteres igen og igen og igen.

Måske skyldes din politisk korrekte afstandtagen, at udsigterne til en lukrativ stilling i EU skal sikres? Man kan jo ikke tale sine nye chefer, som bl.a. med Euromediterran-projektet (= "Anna Lindh-fonden") har travlt med at få hele den vestlige kultur islamiseret hurtigst muligt, imod - vel Anders? Så får man ikke de fede kødben?

Statsminister Anders Fogh Rasmussen reagerede i går med en usædvanlig afstandtagen til den hollandske politiker Geert Wilders, da denne i et interview i TV-Avisen havde rost Fogh for at stå fast på ytringsfriheden, når den trues af muslimske ekstremister. Knap havde Wilders udtalt sin ros i TV-Avisen 18.30, før statsministeren udsendte en pressemeddelelse med en generel fordømmelse af Geert Wilders synspunkter om islam.

"Jeg tager skarpt afstand fra Geert Wilders' synspunkter og må klart afvise Wilders' forsøg på at tage regeringen til indtægt for disse. Regeringen står vagt om ytringsfriheden, men jeg ønsker igen at understrege, at vi ikke deler de værdier og synspunkter, som Wilders repræsenterer," udtalte Anders Fogh Rasmussen og fortsatte:

"Den danske regering respekterer alle trossamfund og alle menneskers religiøse følelser. Helt generelt fordømmer jeg enhver udtalelse, handling eller tilkendegivelse, som forsøger at dæmonisere grupper af mennesker på baggrund af deres religion eller etniske baggrund. Jeg tager skarpt afstand fra Geert Wilders' nedsættende udtalelser om muslimer. Jeg finder disse ytringer utroligt krænkende. De er så grove, at jeg ikke ønsker nogen gruppe i det danske samfund omtalt på en sådan måde i den offentlige debat."

Geert Wilders har været under pres fra den hollandske regering for ikke at offentliggøre en 15 minutter lang islamkritisk film, og det var det, der gav ham anledning til at rose Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

"Jeg ville ønske, at vi havde sådan en premierminister i Holland. Desværre har vi en kujon, som ikke står fast på forfatningens ord om ytringsfrihed, men i stedet har stillet sig på Talibans side," sagde han.

Det kunne jo se ud til, at vi også har sådan én. Mere på Gates of Vienna.

Europa fik søndag et nyt land, da parlamentet i Kosovo godkendte en erklæring om, at den serbiske provins under FN-administration er uafhængig. Efter at premierminister Hashim Thaci havde oplæst erklæringen om et "uafhængigt og demokratisk land" på et særligt møde i Nationalforsamlingen, vedtog de 104 medlemmer enstemmigt udkastet.
...

Serbien reagerede prompte på beslutningen. Præsident Boris Tadic fastslog, at Serbien aldrig vil anerkende Kosovo som et selvstændigt land. Rusland har også taget afstand fra Kosovos uafhængighedserklæring.

Nåja, serberne er jo kun kristne, så de er selvfølgelig nogle "Untermenschen", som bare har at underkaste sig Islam.

Den diplomatiske anerkendelse af et selvstændigt Kosovo ventes at komme fra USA og flere europæiske lande i løbet af det kommende døgn.

Ja, det passer vel også fint ind i EU-fantasternes Euromediterran-projekt, som vi helst ikke må få noget at vide om, og i tumben Bush's planer om islamisering af Europa.

UPDATE kl. 20:00 (det tog dæleme ikke længe):

EU's og FN's bygninger i Mitrovica, hvor der udstationeret danske soldater, blev her til aften ramt af håndgranater, efter at Kosovo erklærede sig selvstændig med moralsk støtte fra EU. Det er i denne delte by, der opfattes som et af de mest følsomme områder i Kosovo, at knap 300 danske soldater er udstationeret. En håndgranat eksploderede ved FN-missionens bygning uden at forårsage større skader, sagde en vestlig kilde i Mitrovica.

EU-medarbejdere evakueret
EU skyndte sig at evakuere sine embedsmænd fra den bygning, hvor europæerne er ved at forberede den nye EU-mission, som skal afløse FN-administrationen i Kosovo. Ifølge politikilder blev en bil fra OSCE, Organisationen for Sikkerhed og Samarbejde i Europa, beskadiget af eksplosionen ved FN-bygningen.

NATO opretter barrikader
Franske soldater fra NATO's fredsbevarende KFOR-styrke har oprettet barrikader ved den bro over floden Ibar, som holder byens etniske albanere og serbere adskilt fra hinanden.

Den syriske stormufti, Ahmad Badr El Din El Hassoun, har holdt en tale i Europaparlamentet. Det fik mange af medlemmerne til at udvandre. Og det skabte så igen overskrifter i en del danske aviser, deriblandt Kristeligt Dagblad. Den vinkel, Kristeligt Dagblad og andre danske aviser anlagde på det passerede, gik på, at man ville have os til at overveje, om det var rimeligt at lade et religiøst overhoved tale i en verdslig forsamling.

Den vinkel interesserer ikke mig. Det interesserer mig derimod, hvad manden sagde. Eller måske snarere, hvad han ikke sagde. Men oplysninger om det, endsige da forsøg på stillingtagen til hans tale, det får man ikke i nogen af de danske aviser.

Begge dele skal forsøges her, ud fra en søgning på navnet: Ahmad Badr El Din El Hassoun, på Google.

Det mest fyldige referat af hans tale findes på en svensk hjemmeside, hvis jeg må have lov til at springe de hollandske over; for der var forbavsende mange hollandske hits på Google, men dem har jeg ikke gennemgået.

Jeg deler stormuftiens tale op i punkter, som jeg efterfølgende tager stilling til. Han sagde:

1. Der er kun én menneskelig civilisation, som vi alle er en del af. Der findes godt nok forskellige kulturer, og der må foregå en dialog mellem disse kulturer, men vi skal ikke glemme, at vi i fællesskab har skabt vor fælles civilisation.

2. Hvad er da forbindelsen mellem civilisation og religion? Civilisation er skabt af mennesker, religion kommer fra Gud. Religion er Guds råd til mennesker og lægger grunden til en moral og en rettesnor. I min religion tror vi på en religion som omfatter såvel Abraham, Moses, Jesus og Muhammed. Geografisk stammer alle disse religioner fra vores område. Jøder, kristne og muslimer har alle forbindelser til denne region.

3. Ingen krig er hellig. Kun freden og menneskelivet er helligt. Hvis man slår et menneske ihjel, slår man en Guds skabning og en bror ihjel. Mennesket kan genopføre ødelagte bygninger, også hellige bygninger, men kan ikke give liv til en død. Derfor er mennesket det helligste af alt. Religion må ikke give argumenter for at slå et andet menneske ihjel.

4. Stater må hvile på civile grundvolde og ikke baseres på religion. Jeg påtvinger ikke dig min religion, og du påtvinger heller ikke mig din religion. Men du er ikke "den anden", én, som er forskellig fra mig. Vi er alle mennesker

5. Kvinder æres og respekteres i mit land (Syrien), men de kan rammes af uretfærdighed og undertrykkelse fra visse mænds side. De deltager imidlertid i alle dele af samfundet.

Mine bemærkninger:

1. Om alle fem punkter: Det er bemærkelsesværdigt, hvad der her siges, når man tænker på, at det siges af en muslim. Og når jeg nu vender mig imod det, er det ikke, fordi jeg vil være lyseslukker, det skyldes, at skal dette være indledning til en diskussion, så skal diskussionen være ægte, det vil sige: så skal man ikke af høflighed undlade at komme med "frække" indvendinger.

2. Angående punkt 1 om den fælles kultur. Det er jo sandt, at globaliseringen er over os. Men det er også sandt, at noget af det, der forhindrer globaliseringens goder, f. eks. økonomisk vækst, i at slå igennem, er den forskellige kultur. Den økonomiske vækst i Kina er langt større end i den arabiske verden. Og det har noget med den forskellige kultur at gøre.

3. Angående punkt 2 om civilisation som menneskelig, men religion som guddommelig: Religion og religion er flere ting, ofte helt uforenelige ting. Når Jesus siger, at der til de gamle er sagt: Øje for øje og tand for tand, men jeg siger jer: Får du et slag på den ene kind, så vend også den anden til (Matt 5,38f), så ser jeg en uoverstigelig kløft mellem den farisæiske måde at tænke på og den måde, Jesus anbefaler os at tænke på. Og i koranen ser jeg ikke Jesu tænkemåde afbildet. Eller når Paulus siger, at alt er tilladt, skønt ikke alt er gavnligt (1 Kor 6,12 og 1 Kor 10,23), så nedbryder han al tale om haram og halal, ikke blot i henseende til mad, men i alle henseender. Og så skal man ikke lade, som om alle religioner i grunden vil det samme, eller lade, som om islam indeslutter både kristendom og jødedom i sig. Sådan forholder det sig ikke.

4. Angående punkt 3 om, at der ikke findes noget, der hedder hellig krig: Det lyder jo smukt, og der anes endda et koransted bag påstanden, nemlig sura 5,32f: "Hvis nogen slår et menneske ihjel ... er det, som slår han hele folket ihjel". Men ærlig talt, hvordan kan stormuftien sige den slags uden at få en dårlig smag i munden? Det er islam, der op gennem sin historie gennem den ene krig efter den anden har ført land efter land ind under halvmånen. Det er islam, der fastsætter dødsstraf for en række "forbrydelser", frafald fra islam, ægteskabsbrud, bespottelse af profeten Muhammed, osv. "Mennesket er det helligste af alt".

Ak, nej, under Muhammed-krisen var det ikke det, der faldt i øjnene som islams trosbekendelse, men det, at man ønskede hævn, og ikke hævn, fordi danskerne havde dræbt en araber, men hævn, fordi vi havde spottet Muhammed. Og så blev det livsfarligt at være dansker mange steder i den muslimske verden; var man dansker, var man ikke spor hellig. Hvis stormuftiens tale ikke blot skal være skønne ord, så er der virkelig meget at tage afstand fra indenfor islam, herunder forresten også diverse koransteder, der opfordrer til drab. Intet af dette gjorde han dog.

5. Angående punkt 4 om, at staterne ikke skal have religion som deres grundvold: Udmærket. Det betyder f. eks., at der skal være religionsfrihed. "Jeg påtvinger ikke dig min religion og du påtvinger heller ikke mig din religion". Og sådan står der da også på papiret i mange muslimske staters love. Men hvad nytter det, hvis det ikke står i menneskers hjerter? Der er jo mange muslimske lande, hvor man risikerer at bliver slået ihjel, hvis man konverterer til kristendommen, ikke af statsmagten, men af privatpersoner, som måske nok får deres straf, men ikke nogen særlig hård straf, for hvilken stat ønsker at lægge sig ud med flertallet af befolkningen!

6. Endelig punkt 5 om kvinders ligestilling! Her er det altså ikke nok at sige, at kvinder "æres og respekteres". Også de mænd, der spærrer deres døtre inde eller sågar dræber dem, gør det jo, fordi de "ærer og respekterer" kvinderne. Det drejer sig i stedet om lovgivning og tradition. Har kvinder lige arveret med mænd, skønt koranen siger noget andet? Har de ret til skilsmisse, skønt koranen er imod det? Er det tilladt en muslimsk kvinde at gifte sig med en kristen mand? Det sidste kan udmærket være "forbudt" af traditionen, selv om det er tilladt af lovgivningen. Sådan er det jo f. eks. herhjemme. Her skal en muslimsk kvinde, der vil giftes med en dansk, kristen mand, som regel have sin kommende mand til at konvertere til islam, hvis ikke hendes familie skal nægte alt fremtidigt samkvem med hende.

I det hele taget: Det er udmærket, hvad stormuftien siger. Men det er knap så udmærket, hvad han ikke siger. Og desværre er det jo sådan, at vi er nødt til at lægge vægt på det sidste, når vi skal i dialog med en muslim.

P. S. Jeg må naturligvis tage højde for referatets rigtighed. Hvis stormuftien har sagt noget af det, jeg har efterlyst, så meget desto bedre.

Ricardt Riis er tidligere præst ved Horsens Klosterkirke, nu pensioneret. Har deltaget i Forum Teologi/Naturvidenskab gennem mange år. Har udgivet en del bøger på eget forlag og er nu bestyrer af to hjemmesider, bl.a. www.martinluther.dk. Læs Ricardt Riis' blog her

Selv om 15 lande - blandt andre Frankrig, Polen og Canada - officielt betegner Det Osmanniske Riges omfattende massakrer på deres landsmænd for folkedrab, så mener udenrigsminister Per Stig Møller, at det er en diskussion for historikerne.

- Det er regeringens opfattelse, at der er tale om et historisk spørgsmål, som det bør overlades til historikere at besvare, skriver Per Stig Møller i et svar til Folketingets Udenrigsudvalg.

Føj for pokker. Det er lige til at brække sig over, at se PSM være ved at grise sine bukser til af skræk for EU og islamerne. Men det er jo bare med at holde gode miner til slet spil, for Tyrkiet SKAL jo med djævelens vold og magt med i EU - det er allerede vedtaget i Bruxelles/Strassbourg. Og det kan ikke forbavse, at vores siddende EU-pampere in spe ikke tør tage stilling. Som Dante skrev, er de varmeste steder i helvede forbeholdt dem, som opretholder neutralitet i en periode med store moralske kriser.

Læs her, her og her, hvad der skete med de kristne (!!!) armenere.

Europas dødsdom

Af Mogens Camre

29/11 STEMTE Europa-Parlamentet om godkendelse af Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæggende rettigheder. Det var egentlig en formalitet, for charteret var allerede godkendt af regeringscheferne i medlemslandene, som - bortset fra England og Polen - betragter charteret som juridisk bindende.

Parlamentet henviser da også i afstemningen om charteret til, at »Lissabon-traktaten ... har bevaret substansen i den betydelige landvinding, som del II af traktaten om en forfatning for Europa udgør.«

Jo, forfatningen blev ganske vist forkastet af de franske og de hollandske vælgere, men i EU regner man som bekendt ikke med vælgerne, så derfor er alt som før.

Det må vi bare ikke vide, for nu skal Lissabon hastes igennem af Folketinget og de andre parlamenter.

For charteret stemte 534, imod stemte 85. Jeg stemte selv imod.

Ganske vist er en stor del af charterets bestemmelser udmærkede præciseringer af bestemmelser, som allerede står i Europarådets konvention om menneskerettighederne, men nu bliver disse bestemmelser retligt bindende og underkastet EF-domstolen, således at EU kan påtvinge os en bestemt fortolkning af disse rettigheder, og det vil EU gøre, fordi EU's ledere tror, at alle andre vil være mod os, som vi ønsker at være mod dem.

Under parlamentets afstemning sad jeg med den følelse, at flertallet var ved at skrive den europæiske kulturs dødsdom.

Det var naturligvis ikke det, de troede. De troede, at de var ved at befæste Europas værdier, for de vil ikke se i øjnene, at papiret giver lige adgang for en langt mere brutal og selvsikker kultur, som ønsker at udslette det meste af det, der står i charteret.

Mangfoldigheden

I artikel 21 forbydes enhver forskelsbehandling på grund af bl.a. religion eller tro, politiske eller andre anskuelser eller »ethvert andet forhold.«

For at slå meningen helt fast hedder det i artikel 22: »Unionen respekterer den kulturelle, religiøse og sproglige mangfoldighed.«

Det betyder, at EU ønsker lige ret for de mennesker, bevægelser og holdninger, som ønsker at ødelægge den europæiske kultur.

Vi har ved en flertalsbeslutning i Rådet og Europa Parlamentet besluttet at forbyde det Europa, som kun har overlevet ved at udelukke og forskelsbehandle dem og det, som ikke ønskede vores kultur.

Kollektiv udvisning er forbudt i flg. artikel 19.

Vi må ikke udvise dem, som gør det nødvendigt at beskytte vore ledende politikere dag og nat.
Vi må ikke udvise de mange, som optræder voldeligt i vore byer.
Vi må ikke udvise dem, som ikke bryder sig om demokrati og ligestilling og som truer en Manu Sareen og andre indvandrerkonsulenter bort fra deres arbejde.
Vi bøjer os for krav om halalslagtet kød i vore børnehaver, vi neddrosler julen i vore skoler, og vor nye integrationsminister bøjer sig for tørklæderne, for hun har ikke fattet, at de er en demonstration for den ideologi, som vore soldater dør for at bekæmpe i Afghanistan.

Forskelsbehandling er forbudt - for os. En svag kultur bøjer sig for en stærk. Sådan gik Romerriget til grunde. Vi har åbenbart intet lært.

Well, it's a bargain if it works, right? A few billion to end a dangerous, century-old conflict – it's actually a steal.

But innovative research by Steven Stotsky, a research analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) finds that an influx of money to the Palestinians has had the opposite effect historically. Relying on World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other official statistics, Stotsky compares two figures since 1999: budgetary support aid provided annually to the Palestinian Authority and the number of Palestinian homicides annually (including both criminal and terrorist activities, and both Israeli and Palestinian victims). Graphed together, the two figures show an uncanny echo:

The correlation is even clearer when the aid of one year is superimposed on the homicides of a year later:

Igen - Tak, Per Stig Møller...

Palæstinensernes økonomiske ønsker på donorkonferencen i Paris er mere end opfyldt. Danmark afsætter 590 millioner kroner.

Den palæstinensiske selvstyrepræsident, Mahmoud Abbas, fortalte mandag på den store internationale donorkonference for palæstinenserne i Paris, at der er brug for en kapitalindsprøjtning på 5,6 milliarder dollar (omkring 30 milliarder kroner) i de palæstinensiske områder. Ellers er der risiko for "en katastrofe".

Og Abbas fik sit ønske opfyldt - og mere til. Mandag aften sagde Frankrigs udenrigsminister, Bernard Kouchner, at der på konferencen blev givet løfter om tilsammen 7,4 milliarder dollar (godt 38 milliarder kroner).

Hvis så i det mindste det var betinget af, at "Palæstina" henter sine "palæstinensiske" borgere hjem for at opbygge landet for alle de mange penge. Men grise kan ikke flyve - pengene skal bruges til at føre krig mod Israel med, lur mig!

- Fra dansk side bidrager vi med 590 millioner kroner, og så støtter vi blandt andet også via EU, siger udenrigsminister Per Stig Møller (K), der deltog i konferencen sammen med repræsentanter fra 90 lande og organisationer.

Dansk pølsefascisme vækker opsigt

Efterfulgt af et billede af Pia Kjærsgaard. Så ved vi ligesom hvordan melodunten er lagt:

Lykønskningerne begyndte i dag at løbe ind til Anders Fogh Rasmussen (V), men samtidig betonede analytikere og avisskribenter, at statsministeren, uanset Ny Alliances rolle og balladen omkring de færøske mandater, måske får en kortlivet regering. En svensk avisleder håber på snarligt opgør med Dansk Folkepartis "pølsefascisme".

Blandt de første til at lykønske officielt var den britiske premierminister, Labour-politikeren Gordon Brown, som betonede den "historiske valgsejr" til Fogh.

"Jeg ser frem til at arbejde tæt sammen indenfor de mange områder, hvor Storbritannien og Danmark har så meget til fælles, skrev Brown, som frygter dominoeffekten fra en eventuel dansk EU-folkeafstemning.
...

Antonio Missiroli, en af de førende analytikere ved Bruxelles-tænketanken European Policy Centre, EPC," sagde det ligeud:

"Den virkelig gode nyhed er, at der nu næppe kommer en folkeafstemning. Danmark bliver ikke noget ballademagerland," sagde Missiroli og mindede om, at Fogh nu er den eneste europæiske regeringschef, som har "overlevet" Irakkrigen politisk.

Nej, der skulle jo nødig sættes en stopper for islamiseringen af Europa. Demokrati har fanden skabt.

Flere internationale avisskribenter var mindre overstrømmende. I Sverige påpegede avisledere, nu for tredje gang, det beklagelige i, at et "fremmedfjendsk" parti er en stadig politisk kraft. "En borgerlig magt som beror på et fremmedfjendsk parti er faktisk ikke misundelsesværdigt, skrev den svenske boulevardavis Expressen, som ved næste valg håber på et opgør med Dansk Folkepartis "pølsefascisme".

Svenskerne er surströmming-fascister, demagoger og antidemokrater. De kan bare holde kaje, kan de.

by Baron Bodissey

I reported last night on the Oriana Award, which was given to Bat Ye’or during Counterjihad Brussels 2007 by the Italian delegation.

Bat Ye’or gave a sobering keynote address at the conference, describing in some detail the process that has created Eurabia, and outlining the ongoing efforts by the EU, the OIC, and various NGOs that are leading inexorably towards the full Islamization of Europe.

The “Eurabia” process is not a secret one; however, it is not well-known to the general public, because it is buried under cubic acres of official EU working documents, treaties, and declarations of intent. Consider the Islamization of Europe a purloined letter, lying in full view of anyone willing to overcome an aversion to mind-numbing bureauspeak and take a serious look.

Ms. Ye’or has done all the requisite work, and has laid out all the details of what has become known as Eurabia.

Her speech, along with other materials from Brussels, has been posted at Counterjihad Europa. Others will become available as the transcription and conversion of documents is completed. Here is an excerpt:

I will start by a warning: have no illusions. The Eurabia in which we live is solidly established although there are some improvements since the election of Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy, and also the realization by more and more people that things cannot go on like this. For 40 years Eurabia has built its networks, its finance, its hegemonous power, its totalitarian control over the media, the universities, the culture and the mind of people. If one wants to end this system, one will have to reverse decades of policy…

Eurabia grew within the growth of the European Community (EC) and then the European Union (EU). It was conceived and planned by the European Council and implemented by the European Commission as a supranational policy, linked to the European Community interests and immediate security concerns over terror and energy supplies. The EC correlated a massive Muslim immigration to a strategy of peace and stability in the Mediterranean, hoping that the Euro-Arab symbiosis through economic development, soft diplomacy and multiculturalism would guarantee peace, markets and oil. In the Euro-Arab policy, Muslim immigration is welcomed as an element of a Mediterranean geo-strategy conducted as a partnership with the Arab-Muslim world on the base of pacifism and continual funding and services provided to the Arab world, similar to the subsidies given to the economically underdeveloped EU member-states. The European Investing Bank is the model for the Mediterranean Investing Bank.

This strategy had also an ideological perspective: the refusal of any more war — peace at last by resorting to economic agreements and mutual concessions. However this laudable formula, which succeeded for the integration of Europe, was not adapted to deal with a Muslim world that conceived its international relations only in the framework of jihad. Worst, the Nazi evils came back with a vengeance in the Euro-Arab alliance so similar to the Vichy-Berlin-Arab and Palestinian Nazi and Fascist axis of the thirties and forties against Jews, democracies and America. These evils had not died after World War II, and they reemerged within the Eurabian-Arab Palestinian jihad against Israel.
- - - - - - - - -
Let us see how the secret Arafat-EC alliance has transformed Europe. Threatened by Palestinian terrorism in the late 1960s and the 1970s, and by an oil boycott, Europe searched for protection under the wings of those who threatened her. The conditions were: oil and peace for Europe in exchange for a hostile policy toward America and Israel, and most important, European support for Arafat and the PLO, a jihadist and international terrorist movement. Since that moment, Europe entered into the vicious cycle of dhimmitude and self-destruction by justifying jihadism. It developed a culture of hate against America and Israel and paid billions as a security ransom to the Palestinians. Likewise, it opened its gates to massive Muslim immigration according to agreements with the Arab League countries.

This choice of a policy based on fear, ransom and surrender, and on the justification of jihad has blinded Europe to its dangers. Allied with the PLO and the Arab League, the EC denied the threat of global jihadism. This denial, fundamental to Eurabian policy, motivated the appeasement and peaceful surrender to jihadists while pretending that Europe’s enemies were American, but above all, Israel’s policies of resistance to jihad. Hence, Europe transferred onto Israel and America the threat of a terrorist war to which it had already capitulated.

It is “Palestinianism” — the most cherished European ideology because it is the very guaranty of its security against terror — that has determined European support for jihadist tactics. And jihad is not like any war, it represents a whole theological corpus of war, with its holy strategy and ritual tactics of air piracy, terrorism, abductions, beheadings and killings of civilians.

For the Arab and Muslim world, Palestinianism embodies the ideology and aims of jihad against a rebellious dhimmi people. Based on a Muslim culture, history and theology, it denies territorial independence and sovereignty to any non-Muslim people. Such a position is self-defeating for all non-Muslim states, and particularly Europe. Palestinianism is at the root of Europe’s self-destruction. [emphasis added]

The full text of Bat Ye’or’s keynote speech is available here (in pdf format). I recommend that you print and distribute it to anyone you know who thinks “Eurabia” is a paranoid fantasy.

And for those who think America is exempt from all this, bear in mind the “North American Union”. The NAU is also considered a paranoid fantasy by most people, but it is being constructed in the same manner, piecemeal, boring document by boring document. Agreements, protocols, joint understandings, etc. — none of them requires the consent of Congress. They are not secret, but they are never noticed by the public at large, and so never generate any popular counter-pressure on our elected representatives.

Imagine a European Rip Van Winkle, who went to sleep in the 1950s, during the heady days of the “Common Market”, when removing trade barriers was supposedly the only issue. Waking up fifty years later, he discovers that a totalitarian European regime has been imposed from Brussels, without so much as a by-your-leave from the citizens of the nations of Europe.

O Brave New World, indeed!

It begins with the removal of trade barriers. Then comes the talk about “the free flow of goods and people”. Then the “harmonization of laws within the Community”. With PC-Multicultural indoctrination to grease the skids, no one notices until it’s too late. They wake up and find that their God-given rights have evaporated, and decisions are made on their behalf and without their consent by a distant and unaccountable corps of bureaucratic mandarins.

Watch Europe closely: its present is America’s future.

---

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 03, 2007

The Development of a Parallel Society

by Baron Bodissey

An Interview with Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo

At the Counterhihad Summit in Brussels last month, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs interviewed Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, who was one of the featured speakers at the conference. Heroyalwhyness, a longtime Gates of Vienna reader and commenter, has transcribed the interview; the results are below.

Q: Hello, I’m here with Patrick Sookhdeo, am I saying that correctly?A: Sookhdeo.

Q: Sookhdeo. You just gave a very powerful presentation at this conference, and I wanted to discuss with you — just how far infiltration of Islam is in Western societies, particularly you focused on Britain.

A: That’s correct. I think that its important that we separate out the countries because Islamic infiltration is dependant on a number of factors. And in some places, they have been able to make much more headway than in others. I think the UK is by far the place where they have made the most headway.

Q:Why is that?

A:I think there are several reasons. I think, firstly British policy of successive governments followed a policy of multiculturalism. It was politically driven and effectively enshrined Islam. Which meant, it was politically acceptable. It was allowed to develop socially and culturally. I think that’s a very big area, the multicultural. I think the second where the majority of Muslims came from, they came from the Indian sub-continent. British policy during the days of the hiraj was to allow the Muslims a degree of autonomy in terms of ‘how’ they could live out their religious lives, known as communalism. And so, when they came here, although initially they were part of society, gradually they began to develop much more, this communal position furthered by a British policy of multiculturalism. And I think that in the last forty years, Islam has rediscovered it’s roots. Classical Islam has rediscovered the Qur’an, the hadith, it’s Sharia and they have discovered an Islamic identity. I think these things together has projected them very much into a community which is distinctive.

Q: So you would say that they have, not a choke hold but a strong hold in the UK.

A: They have created blocks, you could say power blocks from which they can influence. And those power blocks are geographical. Where, in areas they form the majority — also in society, where they can lead a society in matters of government, where they can seek to shape government policy. So, I would say that they are present in many different aspects of British life.

Q: How did they do that? What was their strategy? It wasn’t by accident, certainly?

A: No no. It was very well thought out and fortunately, many had not done work on this. Back in 1979, there was the Islam in Europe conference, and one of their basic strategies that arose was that Muslims should NOT integrate as individuals in society but rather as communities. So they emphasized the development of Muslim communities — in other words, they would become majority in given areas and then they would go to the next stage which was to engage the political bodies in that area. If you had to reduce their strategy over the past 30 years it would firstly the creation of an Islamic consciousness, and all Muslim women would wear the hijab, everyone eats halal meat — those very basic things that gives visibility to the Muslim community. They know “who” they are. And their Sharia, their law, it now becomes operative within. Secondly, to create organizations and institutions. For example, an Islamic Woman’s Society, an Islamic legal society, an Islamic educational society… now, each of those societies sits down and works out it’s principles and sets “what are our objectives”, “where do we want to go”, “how are we going to get there”, “how does Islam fit within this”, and “where does our law come in”. Once they have that in place, they move to the third stage which is to say to their local authority “look, we have lots of Muslim children in school, should not the school cater for our children, in terms of dress, in terms of Ramadan, in terms of food, in terms of education ?” They’d say, politically, we’re here, should we not be present on national days, should we not be a part of everything. So what has happened is they’ve engaged the political structures at local, regional and national levels. Islam has now been accepted and brought into the center. That engaging also had to do with the media, social, cultural, religious bodies all operating in tandem so their presence was known, it was felt. And then there is the final stage which is the threat. If you don’t give way to what we want, then we are not to blame if you are attacked. Now in England, we have had our 7/7 and sadly, Muslim leaders came out and said, “It’s really British government policy is to blame because you/we are in Iraq killing Muslims. You can’t blame our young people. In other words, they are saying to the government, “ you have got to follow our foreign policy. We will tell you what to do”. So you’ve got that fourth stage which is where violence is threatened or utilized.

- - - - - - - - -
Q: Now, in America, this is starting to happen. I’m on the “Stop the Madrassa” coalition. There is a school in Brooklyn, an Arabic school and we’re trying to stop it. But it’s certainly not the first, and I can see in the UK, they’ve been very successful, have they not? Are there a great many Muslim schools, public schools?

A: Very much so. In fact,. the worrying feature is that our present Labour Government has decided to fund at least one hundred Muslim schools. So you have independent Muslim schools, that’s outside of the state funding.

Q: Yes, we have that too

A: And the government is now saying, “we need now to fund them and to bring them into the state sector as Muslim schools — which I think is an unwise decision to take.

Q: And so, what do you think is the next step in the UK? What happens next?

A: I think the worrying factor is how far these communities are going to go in terms of some kind of autonomy. If they form majorities within given geographical areas… that is already happening…

Q: That is happening.

A: And if non-Muslims are being pushed out, if they create their own institutions, which they’ve done. If they’re able to Islamicize police forces, which they’ve already done — and capture political power — At what point do they say these areas are now going to be under Sharia, and we will determine “who” comes in and “what” can take place within? Let me give you two illustrations. Dogs. Muslims are currently saying their hadiths, traditions say that dogs are unclean and should not be in these areas. So what happens if you have a dog? Another is alcohol. What happens if you have a taxi driver who is this Muslim, he picks up somebody who has alcohol at this alcohol shop. Does that mean the alcohol shop will have to close down? Or advertising. One may not like some advertising if they advertise beer or scantily clad ladies. Should they all be removed? So it has huge impact on what happens within a community. My concern for the states, I think, is not just madrassas which are developing, but actually Islamic communities of the type which we have seen develop in the UK.

Q: Like Dearbornistan.

A: Exactly. That is now happening in the states.

Q: Now, if George Bush could have done something differently after 9/11. Did he do anything that you think could have been done differently? Done better? More effectively? Or is this just a runaway train?

A: I think Mr. Bush’s strategy, and may I add, I doubt any other incumbent would have done it differently because they had to safeguard the American people. That was the priority.

Q: yes —

A: And it meant that they had to develop Homeland Security for the first time join up all the dots and all the security agencies working together properly, good immigration laws with much greater emphasis on counter terrorism. I, personally, think he did the right thing. But I think secondly, he had to go after the perpetrators. And so, it was right that the Taliban, al Qaeda was attacked in their back yards, so to speak, in Afghanistan.. And I don’t think Mr. Bush could be faulted. Again, as I said, any incumbent would have done the same.

Q: Do you think the train has left the station?

A: I think in the UK, it has. Because the Muslim community has been allowed to develop in such a way that it’s going to be very difficult for outsiders to influence it. It could be, she could be influenced from within. It would mean the Muslim community leaders standing up and saying, “Look, we want to come back into the station and we want to be a part of life “. That’s a decision they have got to take. But if they continue to preach separation, the development of a parallel society, old Indian version of communalism, then I think it is very very difficult to see a way ahead.

Q: Why would they back peddle when they have been so successful? I don’t understand. I mean, what would be the objective? They are achieving their objectives this way.

A: I think that you would, are not happy… there are some young professionals who have embraced Western values, particularly separation of religion from state. Internal, private law rather than public. Really they’d appreciate a liberal Western society. And I think people like that obviously do not want an Islamic state. I think there are some Muslim leaders who are sitting down and saying, Look we have fled from rigid societies, do we want to replicate those societies here? Is it possible for Islam to adjust to a contemporary Western society? So I think we’ve got those thinkers. The real dilemma is, the communities are conservative by nature, even though they are traditionalists. Their leadership tends more the hard line. They’re the Jamaat, the Muslim Brotherhood. Their leaders are actually saying, “well, we got what we wanted, and it’s taking us where we want. And more than that Western society, secular society is so corrupt, we don’t want that! We want our children and our families to grow up in our own communities, with our own religion and with our own law “ In other words, we want a Muslim street. That’s where the tension is going to be.

Q: And this Muslim Street, do you think it would welcome Christians and Jews and infidels? It’s not in the book, Patrick.

A: Well, thus far in the UK, they are saying they don’t want them because they have had anecdotal evidence of people being pushed out of those areas of conflict and violence. And the Muslim Street is the Muslim Street under Sharia, otherwise they are going to create zones into which non-Muslims are not going to be allowed into.

Q: I think that is very dangerous. Your opinions on Turkey entering into the European Union. Do you have any thoughts on that?

A: Very much so. Turkey is a member of NATO and a very valued member. I can see a place where Turkey, in terms of economics and trade can have a relationship with the European Union. For Turkey to become a full member of the European Union would pose real challenges to Europe. The size of the Turkish population by 2020, it could get up to a hundred million, that’s about a quarter of Europe would be of an Islamic position. The present government is moving away from the secular state and is moving towards an Islamist state. Europe is very weak in terms of its foundations, it’s Judeo-Christian basis is very weak

Q: which makes it so very easy to infiltrate.

A: Precisely. I would be uneasy with a fully integrated Turkey into the European Union because I believe it could pose real difficulties for Europe for the future. If, there are those who have suggested that if Europe [Turkey] enters the European Union by 2020, Europe could have as much as 45% Muslim.

Q: Wow.

A: It begins to pose real difficulties for a country which would then be shaped by Islam.

Q: And in regards to the global jihad, by the way, I just purchased your book, “The Global Jihad”, is that available yet, is that on Amazon yet?

A: It’s Amazon UK. It’s being published in the US next month.

Q: Maybe we’ll do a show with you when that comes out and help you sell some books.

A: Thank you.

Q: How Israel fail? Israel, most assuredly failed. Not always, not throughout history. But you have to say the current leadership is weak. What would you have done differently? If you were advising…

A: Yes. Are you thinking in the context of Hizb’allah?

Q: Yes.

A: I think if one is going to war then one needs to decide to pursue it absolutely or not at all. Secondly, there is a temptation now to use air power because no one wants more body bags. And air power by itself is not sufficient. Thirdly, the issue of ground troops was very significant and how far they would move, but more than that, Israel underestimated the fighting capabilities of Hizb’allah. She will need to take seriously an irregular force fighting asymmetrically and she will have to look at how she can engage in that, particularly if her air power takes out buildings from which insurgents can hide bombs. I think the whole strategy needs to be re-looked.

Q: Well, thank you very much and good luck.

A: Thank you so much too.

The citizens of Europe are extremely worried by this Islamization process, but their political leaders impose it on them against their wish. Europe is in worse shape than America because European democracies lack two pillars of freedom that America still has – solidly enshrined in the first and second amendments of its Constitution. In many European countries, freedom of speech no longer exists. It has been restricted by laws intended to curb so-called "hate speech." These laws forbid people to express their worries about massive immigration and about the Islamization of their nations.

Europe, with few exceptions, such as Switzerland, is also unfamiliar with the second pillar of free societies: the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. In countries such as Belgium even pepper spray is an illegal weapon. The result is that the law-abiding citizens are at the mercy of criminals, many of them of foreign extraction.

While the delegates at the counterjihad meeting, who had been invited to the European Parliament by one of Europe's so-called far-right parties, discussed strategies to counter the spread of Islamism, EU bureaucrats convened in a meeting room two floors below. On the fifth floor of the parliament building, they discussed the "harmonization" of self-defense legislation in the 27 EU member states. This means that, if the EU gets its way, the citizens of all member states will soon be submitted to Belgium's strict rules and that pepper sprays will be banned everywhere.

Meanwhile, as became clear from the country reports given at the counterjihad meeting, Europe's no-go zones are multiplying. These are areas where the police no longer dare to venture and where Islamists hold sway. Every night since the beginning of last week, immigrant youths have been torching cars and clashing with police in Amsterdam's Slotervaart district. The incidents started Oct. 14 when a policewoman shot dead a 22-year old ethnic Moroccan while he was stabbing her and a colleague with a knife. Senior police officers compare the current situation in Amsterdam to the 2005 Ramadan riots in Paris. Media outside the Netherlands, however, hardly mention the riots, which aim to drive the police from Slotervaart and turn the neighborhood into a new no-go area – yet another pocket of Eurabia on Europe's soil.

Similar events are currently taking place in Brussels, the capital of neighboring Belgium and of the EU. Last Sunday, demonstrating Turkish youths ransacked an Armenian pub in the Sint-Joost-ten-Node borough. According to the pub owner, police were present at the scene but did not interfere while his pub was being demolished. The Armenian owner, who by Belgian law is not allowed to possess pepper spray, had to flee for his life. The situation in Brussels remains tense.

Fortunately, there is some good news as well. Last Sunday, the Swiss People's Party (SVP) won 29 percent of the votes and 62 of the 200 seats in Switzerland's federal parliament, the National Council. This is the largest number of seats that any Swiss party has ever won since 1919.

During its campaign the SVP used a controversial poster, showing three white sheep standing on the Swiss flag. One of the white sheep kicked a black sheep off the flag. The caption read: "Bringing safety." The SVP poster wanted to emphasize that foreigners commit four times as many crimes as the Swiss do and that this situation will no longer be tolerated. Everyone knows which segment of the foreign population the term "black sheep" refers to.

Even law-abiding foreigners living in Switzerland realize what the SVP's true message is: Get rid of those aliens who perpetrate crimes. Parties in the rest of Europe would be persecuted for using similar posters because people are not allowed to contemplate the issue, but the Swiss are able to raise their voices. It is no coincidence that the freedom-loving Alpine republic consistently refuses to join the EU.

This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on October 24, 2007 .

Modus operandus er velkendt - får EU modgang ved folkeafstemninger rundt om i Europa, venter vi lige et par år, flytter nogle kommaer for et syns skyld, og sender skidtet til folkeafstemning igen (hvis det ikke er for risikabelt). Og så en gang til, hvis befolkningerne er dumme nok til at stemme pampervældet stik imod.

Se desuden Henrik Bluncks' glimrende postering om emnet, samt Jyllands-Postens redaktionelle kommentar.

Gennembrud: EU-traktat i hus

EU’s topledere har vedtaget den nye EU-traktat på topmøde i Lissabon. Traktatens skæbne afhænger nu af, om den bliver skudt ned i folkeafstemninger. Først til december afgøres det, om danskerne skal til stemmeurnerne.

Hat tip: Balder

Man er ikke meget for at oplyse europæerne, hvad de egentlig er gået ind til, endsige give os ret til medbestemmelse. En dansk ambassadør - K. Erik Thygesen, skriver - i fin samklang med pamperne i EU - i dagens Berlinger (18/10, Magasin s. 8):

"Folkeafstemning er et helt uberegneligt instrument - alene af den grund at folk har en tilbøjelighed til at svare på alt muligt andet end det, de bliver spurgt om", og "...når det nu selv af Pia Christmas-Møller erkendes, at et nej ville være en katastrofe, hvorfor så løbe den risiko for fædrelandets ve og vel?"

Nej, folk er så dumme. De kan ikke tænke selv. Så det må Vi hellere gøre for dem.

Yusuf Islam is notorious for having supported the Islamic death penalty for Salman Rushdie. He also refuses to denounce Hamas.

He now gets a peace prize by the EU:

Yusuf Islam is to be awarded the Mediterranean Prize for Peace today January 4, 2007 in Naples, Italy. Yusuf is being awarded the prestigious award as a result of the work he has done to increase peace in the world. […] The prize is assigned each year to personalities of political, cultural, and artistic worlds that contributed with their actions to reduce tensions and begin an upgrading process of cultural differences and shared values in the area of the Greater Mediterranean.

The Mediterranean Award:

In 1997 the Fondazione Mediterraneo funded the Mediterranean Prize (with its sections: Peace, Culture, Art, Diplomacy, Institutions, Social Promotion, Information, Literature, Cinema, Creativity, Architecture and Silver Dolphin). It is yearly assigned to personalities of political, cultural, and artistic world that contributed with their action to reduce the tensions and begin an upgrading process of cultural differences and shared values in the area of the Greater Mediterranean. In 2005 the Fondazione Mediterraneo in partnership with the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for Dialogue between Cultures decided to launch a special category of the ‘Mediterranean Award’ entitled The Euro Mediterranean Award for the Dialogue Between Cultures.

Our so-called leaders through the European Union are busy selling our continent and the freedom of our children down the river, and smile while they are doing it. The only way to stop this is to dismantle the European Union. All of it. If we don't do so, and soon, Europe simply won’t survive.

EU Wants to Increase Muslim Immigration and Internet Censorship
Fjordman - 10/2/2007
A few months ago, the EU's Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini worried about what to do with illegal immigration. To no-one's surprise, he appears to have settled for surrendering and making it legal. The skilled glossocrat Frattini has already banned the use of the phrase Islamic terrorism: "You cannot use the term 'Islamic terrorism,'" he insisted. "People who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of religion, Islamic religion or other religion, they abuse the name of this religion." He now thinks we shouldn't use the word "immigration," either, we should talk about "mobility." Moreover, the "Asian" and "African" immigrants in this case generally come from the predominantly Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East, with some additional ones from Pakistan and similar nations.

The EU has thus decided to flood Europe with tens of millions of Muslims, at the same time as peaceful Europeans demonstrating against the Islamization of Europe were brutally harassed by the police in the EU capital of Brussels.

In the future, the next time Islamic Jihad terrorists, I mean mobile workers enriching us with their presence when they are not abusing Islam, massacre scores of Europeans, the EU will assure us that they did everything in their power to stop this, and then they will continue facilitating the Islamization of the continent as if nothing has happened. The sensible option would be to point out that we had no Muslim terrorism in Western Europe before we had Muslim immigration. The key to ending Muslim terrorism should then logically be to end and preferably reverse Muslim immigration. The EU's solution to this is to continue and even increase Muslim immigration while stopping web searches for the word "bomb." The scary part is that once the infrastructure and principle of Internet censorship has become firmly established, it could be widened to include other kinds of illegal or unwanted activities, for instance "racist" and "xenophobic" websites criticizing Islam or mass immigration. And make no mistake about it: They will do so. They are probably planning this as we speak.

Notice how EU officials announce sweeping and potentially irreversible changes, proclaim that they are "inevitable" and that we may just as well adapt and get used to it. Resistance is futile. This is a lie and it always has been. The entire European Union has been created by such lies, repeated year after year. The gradual destruction of formerly independent nation states was carefully planned and executed, and the introduction of mass immigration from non-Western countries has been and still is a crucial component of this plan. Notice how Frattini specifically singles out Italy, which has so far received less immigration than many other countries in Western Europe, for attention. He also mentions Hungary, one of the newer EU members from the former Communist bloc, meaning that these countries, too, are now supposed to receive a dose of Multicultural diversity, whether they like it or not. The purpose of this immigration, not just between European countries but from Muslim and non-EU countries as well, is to dilute and destroy the established nation states and their culture, until the natives in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Britain, Spain etc. are too weak and demoralized to resist the creation of a pan-European superstate. Opposition to this policy should be banned as racism and hate speech.

Muslim immigration is destabilizing the entire European continent. Since the EU, which should more properly be called the anti-European Union, is facilitating this, the continued existence of the EU now constitutes a mortal threat to the very survival of European civilization. Every day the EU exists brings Europe one step closer to the grave.
EU told to accept 20m migrant workers
The Financial Times, 12 September

Europe must relax its immigration controls and open the door to an extra 20m workers during the next two decades, the European Union's justice chief will say on Friday. Franco Frattini, justice commissioner, is to tell the bloc's immigration ministers in Lisbon that the EU should stop erecting barriers and instead build safe pathways for Africans and Asians who risk their lives heading to the continent to find a job. "We have to look at immigration not as a threat but – when well-managed, and that is our new task – as an enrichment and as an inescapable phenomenon of today's world," he will say. He will suggest the word immigration should be dropped in favour of "mobility". Germany, Italy and Hungary, with their ageing populations, are most in need of immigrants. The reforms could lead to a more than doubling of the EU's foreign-born population by 2030.

Web search for bomb recipes should be blocked: EU
Reuters, 10 September

Internet searches for bomb-making instructions should be blocked across the European Union. Internet providers should also prevent access to any site giving instructions on how to make a bomb, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said in an interview. "I do intend to carry out a clear exploring exercise with the private sector ... on how it is possible to use technology to prevent people from using or searching dangerous words like bomb, kill, genocide or terrorism." The EU executive is to make this proposal to member states early in November as part of a raft of anti-terrorism proposals. These include the screening of private data of passengers flying into the 27-nation bloc and the creation of an early warning system to alert police forces to thefts of explosives. Representatives of the Internet industry are meeting the EU on the sixth anniversary of al Qaeda's September 11 attacks on the United States, at a European Security Research and Innovation Forum. European legislation would spell out the principles of blocking access to bomb instructions. The details would be worked out by each country. Disconnecting a Web site immediately was currently possible only in a minority of EU states including Italy, Frattini said. "The level of the threat (in the EU) remains very high. That's why I am making appeals and appeals for stronger and closer cooperation."

Fjordman is a noted Norwegian blogger who has written for many conservative web sites. He used to have his own Fjordman Blog in the past, but it is no longer active.

Fra TV2 Nyhederne:

Danskerne skal til folkeafstemning om den kommende EU-traktat. Sådan lyder den opsigtsvækkende melding fra politisk ordfører hos de Konservative, Pia Christmas-Møller.

Hun bakkes op af SF, der i Folketinget præsenterer et beslutningsforslag om en folkeafstemning.

Selvfølgelig skal vi have en folkeafstemning om noget, som i den grad griber ind i alles daglige tilværelse. Får vi ikke en folkeafstemning, bliver vi aldrig spurgt igen, og så vil bureaukraterne og islamiserings-lobbyen i EU først rigtig gå til den med krum hals, og ikke helme, før de har fået hele Nordafrika og Mellemøsten hentet til Europa.

Man kunne have ønsket sig at man havde spurgt befolkningerne i EU, om de var indforståede med et par hundrede millioner muhamedanere i Europa, men det blev jo elegant dysset ned, og vi, der var skeptiske skulle finde os i at blive kaldt for sprogets værster ukvemsgloser, i at blive spyttet på, opløste venskaber og i at få flasker i hovedet - af de "frisindede", "demokratiske" og "tolerante" med de rigtige meninger og holdninger.