This is in fact 25% fewer in number than in 2009, but the attacks, arrests and intimidation of journalists, even ‘netizens’ continues at a worryingly high rate
Click map for closer view and entire report
“Media workers are above all being murdered by criminals and traffickers of various kinds. Organised crime groups and militias are their leading killers worldwide,” said Reporters Without Borders Secretary-General Jean-Francois Julliard.
Criminals? Yes, clearly. They’re all criminals. Traffickers? Traffickers of what? Drugs presumably in South America and parts of Africa. In the Middle East’s conflict zones, particularly in Iraq (7 killed) and in Pakistan (11) there is little doubt that the killers are militias, insurgency suicide-bombers and car-bombers. In those cases journalists are no more specifically targeted than are the passing family. They were only there doing a job of work. Certain states too seemed to be imposing a mafioso-like control, by murder and/or imprisonment on these human conduits of free information.
While the report does not break down every death and its perpetrators there can be little doubt that those that are not state or drug/mafioso related are the consequence of insurgency violence. Almost always Islamist insurgency violence. On the first day of 2011, as Christians were slaughtered as they came out of a church in Egypt, we should remember this. (Also reported at CBS)
ALL CONTINENTS
These deaths touched all continents, but the deadliest continent by far was Asia with 20 cases, and this was due above all to the heavy toll in Pakistan, where 11 journalists were killed in 2010.
Europe, the EU to be precise, did not escape. There was one murder of a journalist in Greece and one in Latvia, both as yet unsolved. But north America and Australasia were completely free of such murders.
Some deaths are suspected of being state-sponsored. There is nothing listed for China, which might suggest something about the secret nature of that regime. Or it might suggest that it mainly locks up rather than executes its mouthy free-speakers (see Iran & China jail most journalists – 34 each).
The number of journalists kidnapped rose from 33 in 2009 to 51 in 2010.
THE EXILE OPTION
Many journalists flee abroad to escape violence and oppression. A total of 127 journalists from 23 countries did this in 2010. The exodus from Iran continues. For the second year running, it was the biggest source of fugitive journalists – 30 cases registered by Reporters Without Borders in 2010.
ONLINE CENSORSHIP? THE DILEMMA FOR FREE SPEECH
There has been a 3% rise in the number of countries affected by internet censorship, up 2 from 2009 (60-62). The difficulties regarding free speech and freedom of reporting faced by the world is highlighted by this part of the report:
“Significantly, online censorship is no longer necessarily the work of repressive regimes. Democracies are now examining and adopting new laws that pose a threat to free speech on the Internet.”
Yes, it is “significant”. The internet is a major conduit for radicalisation, incitement and planning of terrorism, as well as being a platform for freedom. How are freedom loving peoples supposed to deal with this pathway for good and ill, while there is no real limit on what can be said, learned, incited or orchestrated online?
Year 2010 witnessed decrease in journalists victims, 7 reporters killed in Iraq
The year 2010 had witnessed a considerable decrease of 25%, in the number of journalists killed all over the world, whilst 7 Iraqi journalists have been killed during the year, according to a report by ‘Journalists Without Borders’ about the freedom of press in the past year.
BAGHDAD (Ahlul Bayt News Agency) – The year 2010 had witnessed a considerable decrease of 25%, in the number of journalists killed all over the world, whilst 7 Iraqi journalists have been killed during the year, according to a report by ‘Journalists Without Borders’ about the freedom of press in the past year.“2010 had witnessed the abduction of 51 reporters, the detention of 535, threats or aggressions against 1,374, imposition of observation on 504 media organizations, immigration of 137 reporters out of their homeland, detention of 152 Internet reporters and aggression on 52 others, along with harming 62 states due to the observation imposed on the Internet,” the report, copy of which landed in Aswat al-Iraq news agency said on Saturday.
The report pointed out that the year 2010 had witnessed the killing of 57 journalists during carrying out of their professional duty, compared with 76 killed in 2009, thing that represented a 25% decrease in the number of victims among reporters, along with the decrease of journalists killing in the areas of conflict during the past few years, admitting the “difficulty of defining the killers among the criminal gangs, armed and extremist religious groups or states who carried the attacks against journalists.
Within the said framework, the Secretary General of ‘Journalists Without Borders,’ Francois Juliar, pointed out to the “decrease of the number of journalists, killed in areas of conflict, compared with the previous years, whilst journalists remain to be victims of criminals and illegitimate traders of crime, with Mafias and militias remain in the forefront of killers of journalists in the world; that is why all those who care for the future must eliminate this phenomena.”
The report confirmed that among 67 countries that witnessed murder crimes or assassinations against journalists, Pakistan, Iraq and Mexico, had been “the most violent areas against journalists over the past decade, with Iraq that witnessed the killing of 7 journalists in 2010, compared with 4 in 2009, most of them killed after the withdrawal of the U.S. combat forces in August, 2010, “whilst Iraqi journalists are surrounded by those who oppose their independence, including local authorities, corrupt groups and extremist religious movements.”
Fewer journalists were killed in 2010 than the previous year but more were kidnapped, Reporters Without Borders said in its annual report.
Fifty-one journalists were kidnapped during the year, with journalists seen more and more as “bargaining chips”.
The figure of 57 represents a 25% drop on 2009, in which 76 journalists were killed – including more than 30 in one attack in Mindanao in the southern Philippines.
Pakistan saw the most fatalities in 2010, with 11 deaths. Iraq saw seven, as did Mexico. Journalists were also killed in seven African countries, including three in Somalia.
Journalists had also been abducted on every continent in 2010.
Bloggers had also been arrested and abducted, the group said, and for the second year running more journalists fled Iran than anywhere else.
“All countries need a leader who isn’t afraid to fight terrorism. I believe Mr. Blair did a necessary job in helping his allies. Are we all just supposed to lie down and wait for them to come for us, I don’t think so.”
And – “Mr. Blair is one of the finest politicians to have had the privilege of serving the United Kingdom, and Britons are fortunate to have had him as their Prime Minister. Time will show that Mr. Blair’s approach to affairs in the Middle East were and remain correct. From a member of the Commonwealth, thank you, Mr. Blair, for your continued service to legitimate and lasting (and not convenient or politically expedient) freedom.”
AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”
AND – “I am sick and tired of television and radio interviewers asking the same old questions over and over, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, presumably they hope Mr Blair will let slip some secret information which they would then use against him. History will show if the decision was the right one, (I believe it was) but people must accept that Tony Blair is an honourable man, and made his decision based on the known facts and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.”
Presiding Judge Jan Moors yesterday, on the first day of the trial, told Wilders the court “reads newspapers and watches television” and that Wilders has been blamed by others for being “good in taking a stand and then avoiding a discussion.” By choosing not to testify “it seems you’re doing that today as well.”
During the first real trial day, Wilders is allowed a 2 minute speech in which he explains his usage of his right to remain silent. See also the Judge his reaction, comment that lead the court it self on trial.
“Mr. Blair is one of the finest politicians to have had the priviledge of serving the United Kingdom, and Britons are fortunate to have had him as their Prime Minister. Time will show that Mr. Blair’s approach to affairs in the Middle East were and remain correct. From a member of the Commonwealth, thank you, Mr. Blair, for your continued service to legitimate and lasting (and not convenient or politically expedient) freedom.”
AND –“Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”
AND – “I am sick and tired of television and radio interviewers asking the same old questions over and over, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, presumably they hope Mr Blair will let slip some secret information which they would then use against him. History will show if the decision was the right one, (I believe it was) but people must accept that Tony Blair is a honourable man, and made his decision based on the known facts and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.”
Reported at The Guardian – note the “far-right”. He isn’t; he is more like a right-leaning British Liberal Democrat, or perhaps one of today’s left-leaning Conservatives.
It looks like the British papers and political classes won’t be able to ignore or dismiss Mr Wilders any more as has been their wont hitherto. This disgraceful trial of a leading politician, a man whose party has recently attracted around 20% of the vote, which is now the third party in Holland and is about to hold the balance of power, would be the equivalent of seeing Nick Clegg in the dock.
Of course this is never likely to happen to Mr Clegg, as he and his party see no issues with creeping Islamification of our country or of any western countries. And what of his partners in coalition – the Conservatives? Or the official opposition Ed Miliband’s Labour party? Answer came there none. For all three main British political parties there is no problem here. Is it any wonder many of us feel completely disenfranchised?
While Islamist fundamentalists KILL, threaten democracy and attack freedom, Geert Wilders sits in a court in freedom-loving Amsterdam accused of "hate speech" against these fundamentalists !!!!!
The reason the trial was suspended? Mr Wilders decided to exercise his legal right to remain silent. The presiding judge remarked to the effect, “you don’t always remain silent outside of this court.” (paraphrased. The exchange is NOT reported in full, interestingly, at The Guardian). To this from the judge Geert Wilders’ counsel responded that the judge was betraying his own bias. He demanded new judges.
Guardian excerpt follows. Note the use of the phrase “Islam-baiters”. Would that be similar to “Blair-Baiters”?
Oh no, of course not.
Baiting a sentient being is quite acceptable; baiting a religion is clearly a big “No-No”:
“Dutch far-right leader’s advocate challenges presiding judge’s comment on opening day of Wilders’ trial for inciting racial hatred
Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom party and one of Europe’s leading Islam-baiters, went on trial today charged with hate speech and inciting racism, but the case was swiftly engulfed by uncertainty after a challenge over alleged judges’ bias.
The opening of the trial, expected to last a month in Amsterdam, followed a successful weekend for the maverick Dutch politician, with his influence over a new rightwing government confirmed and a campaign speech in Germany aimed at establishing a trans-national European movement against Muslim immigration.
Wilders entered the dock amid heavy security and promptly affirmed his commitment to free speech, dismissing the charges against him while not entering a plea.
“I am on trial, but on trial with me is the freedom of expression of many Dutch citizens,” he said.
Mr Wilders launched his political crusade against Islam after resigning from the centre-right VVD party in 2005 over its support for EU membership for Turkey.
He then polarised the country by making the first European call for full Islamic dress to be banned. In 2005, he was given police protection after the exposure of an Islamist terrorist plot on his life.”
His point proven? Sane minds might assume so. But are those who threaten his life also in court? Of course not. Such as these can threaten to kill and get away with it. While such as Wilders can highlight their threats to kill and be up in court for doing so.
PLEASE, lawmakers and lawyers – get a grip, before the public does. This can’t go on.
FREEDOM ON TRIAL
Wilders, pictured in court today, leads the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament.
So why is a Dutch politician on trial? He hasn’t killed anyone, nor threatened to. He hasn’t physically attacked anyone, nor threatened to. He hasn’t encouraged anyone else to attack or kill. He is on trial for HATE SPEECH!!
“Hate speech” for highlighting some who have done all three aforementioned.
What Geert Wilders has done is to describe a religion as he sees it – a danger to liberty in the Netherlands, Europe and the world.
And today the 47 year-old member of parliament, whose trial opened in Amsterdam, faces imprisonment or a large fine.
IT IS SHAMEFUL THAT IT HAS EVER GOT THIS FAR.
Recent history leading up to Wilders’ trial today.
On January 20th this year he first appeared in court. This is the only video I have been able to find right now. Apologies that it comes from a BNP YouTube site. The British National Party is a racist party. The huge majority of us are NOT racist.
HIDDEN CAMERA AT GEERT WILDERS TRIAL!!! [English Subs]
The above is an 8 minute excerpt of Wilders’ counsel arguing that this court on 20th January is invalid.
Thanks to the unnamed photographer and translator.
Thanks to Hollandse Nieuwe for the full length upload at living scoop – http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?…
__________
More on the January/February 2010 court appearances here at UNDhimmi
Since the recent Dutch elections Wilders’ political support has grown and thus his profile has been raised exponentially. He supports Free Speech, and does not support the tide of Islam which he sees as sweeping through his country, all of Europe and the wider western world.For that he is on trial in his own land.
Meanwhile those who follow the religion he criticises KILL and ATTACK people and encourage others to do both. Bin Laden has today claimed that the Europe terror plots are his.
Makes you proud to support FREEDOM and freedom of speech, doesn’t it?
It may well become the trial of the century: this week, Dutch MP Geert Wilders stands before the judge on charges of “sowing hate” through his speeches and writings about Islam.
But it is not Geert Wilders who really is on trial here: it is, rather, that sacred principle of free speech on which democracy and the Enlightenment are born.
This, of course, is what makes the Wilders case so ironic – and so tragic: in speaking out to defend the free democracy of the Netherlands from the incursion of oppressive, Islamist influences and attempts to exercise power, he has been silenced by the very government he is struggling to protect.
Go figure.
The trial has been repeatedly postponed since it first opened in Amsterdam last January, after an earlier high court ruling dismissing the charges was appealed in the lower Amsterdam courts. For Wilders, however, its timing could not come at a more strategic moment. As the founder and leader of Holland’s far-right Freedom Party (PVV), Wilders is not only Holland’s most controversial politician, but also its most-favored, ranking higher in the polls now than it did after a sweeping victory in parliamentary elections this past June. Moreover, just last week, after months of debate, the Dutch parliament finally settled on a new coalition government that will include support from the PVV under Wilders’ leadership.
The lawsuit itself centers around Wilders’ statements comparing of the Koran to Mein Kampf , as well as other anti-Islam remarks he has made in recent years. Also at issue is his film, “Fitna,” which includes newsreel footage of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslim extremists. The charge – that he is inciting hate and has insulted Muslims – carries no small cost: if he loses, the 47-year-old Wilders could face a prison term of up to two years.
Yet the whole case bespeaks, in fact, the very viability of Wilders’ accusations; for not since the founding of the Third Reich have the principles of our democracy been so at risk as they have been during the nine years since 9/11, challenged at every turn by followers of Salafism and other strains of fundamentalist Islam – and by the West’s efforts at responding to radical Islam within its borders. Hence the threats against cartoonists who draw images of Mohammed; hence the censorship of television shows and theater productions; hence the brutal murder of filmmaker and commentator Theo van Gogh by a Muslim extremist on the streets of Amsterdam, not far from the courthouse where Geert Wilders is being tried. Now, it is speech itself we stand to lose. It is our ideas that may be stifled and suppressed.
And so it is not just Wilders whose future is as stake, but that of Western civilization, of the ideals which are our guiding light. Agree with Mr. Wilders’ views or not, one can only hope, then, that the judges whom he faces will uphold his right to speak them; and from the courthouse steps out onto the streets, across the canals of Amsterdam and beyond, that they will defy those who try to silence him, with the sound of freedom ringing.
Group says that Islamic faith should be identity enough
Hizb Ut-Tahrir-Skandinavien holder den årlige konference i Bella Center i København søndag d.3.oktober 2010, hvor emnet var Muslimernes rolle i Vesten. Mænd og kvinder var adskilt. (Foto: Søren Bidstrup/Scanpix 2010)
The conference featured separate men’s and women’s areas for attendees
At its annual conference this weekend, Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir called on Muslims to be proud of their faith and not label themselves as Danish Muslims or French Muslims.
During the conference, themed on the Muslims’ role in the West, the message to Muslims was that their faith should be their identity.
At the conference, Jaweed Yusuf, a member of the group, explained that it was their duty to call others to Islam, however difficult that might be and whatever consequences it might entail.
The group, which has been subject to controversy in Denmark, denied rumours that its members plan to run for parliamentary election, or that it supports the use violence to achieve its goals.
“I am just about to download a copy of the koran. Do you want me to burn one for you?”
I smiled.
Did you smile? If so, imho, you understand liberalism.
Did you frown, even scowl? You don’t understand. In other words, you’re one of today’s liberals. But be warned that means you take yourself and others FAR too seriously to be a genuine liberal. You allow your enemies liberty, democratic freedoms and freedom of speech and association, while you are not so sure about the rights of those you dislike, distrust, or even ‘hate’, even if they are the very epitome of “liberty” and are widely recognised and even awarded as such. [See also my post here on Open Democracy]
To prove that point just imagine that somewhere in the Middle East, some backwoods imam had been planning to hold a Burn the Bible Day. [OK, I realise this is a common, if unreported, occurrence anyway, but do please suspend for a moment your preconceptions; continue to disregard that minor detail in the time-honoured “liberal” way.]
A Christian woman shows a charred Bible, written in Urdu, to the photographer outside her torched house in Gojra town located in Punjab province August 4, 2009.
If you had then received a text saying –
“I am just about to download a copy of the bible. Do you want me to burn one for you?”
– would you have smiled or scowled?
On that reaction, again, imho, rests real LIBERAL (originally somewhat akin to Liberty) credentials.
For your information I smiled at the thought of both.
Think about it. You know it makes sense.
Smile, Damn you!
_______________
OTHERS THOUGHTS ON LIBERTY/DEMOCRACY/LIBERALISM/LIBERTARIANISM
Libertarianism is a political philosophy or a family of related political philosophies based on strong support for individual liberty, which Libertarians encourage mainly through private property ownership and guaranteed personal sovereignty.
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.
Stewart has taken an indefinite leave of absence and has written on an atheist forum that he expected to be sacked.
But he defended his actions, saying: “The video was a joke video, of course… People do this stuff all the time and if people get really upset about this then they’re taking it far too seriously.”
See what I mean about a sense of humour? Or is that a liberal thing too far?
“Mr. Blair is one of the finest politicians to have had the priviledge of serving the United Kingdom, and Britons are fortunate to have had him as their Prime Minister. Time will show that Mr. Blair’s approach to affairs in the Middle East were and remain correct.From a member of the Commonwealth, thank you, Mr. Blair, for your continued service to legitimate and lasting (and not convenient or politically expedient) freedom.”
AND –“Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”
AND – ““I am sick and tired of television and radio interviewers asking the same old questions over and over, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, presumably they hope Mr Blair will let slip some secret information which they would then use against him. History will show if the decision was the right one, (I believe it was) but people must accept that Tony Blair is a honourable man, and made his decision based on the known facts and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.”
Aitchison: “… a crucial bit of context to this discussion which always bears repeating, is that although Blair is a “mainstream democratic politician”, as Green notes, he is also responsible for a war which led to the deaths of well over a million people, producing four millions refugees, sectarian violence and torture and increasing regional instability and the threat of terrorism. There is a compelling case that this was also an illegal war and that Blair should be facing a tribunal in The Hague.”
In the light of the above quote, forgive me if I conclude that this – “worried about Blair’s free speech?” – is one of those rhetorical questions to which, it is assumed, we all know the answer – “NO, NO, NO.”
It’s no more than a kind of plea of the type – ‘there you go, we REAL democrats REALLY DO think about these things, for EVERYONE, REALLY. Even for those about whom we have come to negative conclusions.’
Correction, it IS more than that. It is also an opportunity to state again how wrong and illegal and disastrous was the Iraq invasion, according to them and their fellow-travellers aka The Stop The War Coalition. Even though, even if, it wasn’t any or all of the above.
Correction 2. And it is more even than that. It is an attempt to distance themselves and other “civil-righters” with a “yes, but no but”from the decision Tony Blair took regarding cancelling his London public book-signing and postponing his private book launch party, both last Wednesday. And wait… wait, please do! There’s an and another thing which is just as important.
Correction 3:It is the attempt to gloss over, in the hope that none of us will notice, that these people, these characters, these riotous rentamob types have been permitted to TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAD PLANNED TO ATTEND THE BOOKSIGNING at Waterstone’s and of those who had planned to come to the private party.
Are they REALLY saying that THEIR rights of association do not count? Do not matter? Do not enter into the debate?
Let us see if the Peace in Our Democracy Against the War gang can justify that THEFT OF CIVIL & HUMAN RIGHTS.
OUTRAGEOUS
It is an OUTRAGEOUS position, especially when taken by people purporting to be consistent in their approach to civil liberties for all. Civil liberties, freedom of speech, freedom of association for ALL? All, as long as you’re not Tony Blair. He can go hang, as it were.
What we are presented with by Open Democracy is this argument:
We don’t approve of Tony Blair’s decision over Iraq, SO…
Although in principle he HAS human rights such as freedom of speech and association, he doesn’t really deserve them, BECAUSE –
We don’t approve of Tony Blair’s decision over Iraq, AND…
We also believe he destroyed our civil liberties. And anyway –
We don’t approve of Tony Blair’s decision over Iraq, AND…
He disappointed us on the Left of politics, by leaning to the Right, and managing therefore to oust the Tories as the natural party of government. BUT…
We don’t approve of Tony Blair’s decision over Iraq, EVEN IF…
He was electorally, historically hugely successful – three record-breaking times, FGS! BUT still –
We don’t approve of Tony Blair’s decision over Iraq, AND…
The press, right and left think he is a liar. They have no ulterior motives. They must be right and anyway –
We don’t approve of Tony Blair’s decision over Iraq, AND ANYWAY…
He hasn’t been tried yet. He’s getting away with it. Not even arrested yet! Give us a chance. We’ve only been trying for about seven years!
I could go on, but you get the picture. Never in the field of political assassination has any politician been so studiously targeted, blackened and all but destroyed.
THE UNDESERVING ONE
To support this attack AND OPEN DISREGARD FOR the rights of (nearly) ALL these Open Democracy/Our Kingdom people link so-called rotten policies to Mr Blair alone, ad hominem style.
Regardless of any good he or his party may have done (and Blair’s government, for which I did not vote, was with hindsight THE most reforming and progressive for DECADES) HE is clearly the Undeserving Few One.
UTTER, UTTER HYPOCRISY
The thinking seems to go like this: If others continue to argue that the freedom of speech and association of Tony Blair, his admirers, friends and colleagues are as unquestionable, irrevocable, irreducible and as protected under the law as those of, for instance Binyam Mohamed (the non-British, but still unquestionably protected British resident known to have trained for jihad) it’s obvious innit mate?
These others clearly don’t see the whole troof as it is written – Openly Democratically, like.
This is disgraceful hypocrisy. We are NOT talking about a convicted or escaped criminal here. Mr Blair, his friends and admirers are ordinary citizens, protected each and every one under the law. Under the law. That’s what I call “crucial”, whether these creatures call him ‘war criminal’ or ‘Jesus Christ’.
Civil and human rights DO APPLY to all, of course.
Except when civil and human righters say they don’t.
GUY AITCHISON’S ARTICLE AND COMMENTS AT ‘OPEN DEMOCRACY’[Noteworthy references are indented and in dark red]
Should we be worried about Blair’s free speech?
The cancellation by Tony Blair of several events on his book tour this week due to fears of disruption by anti-war protesters has led to concern in some quarters over the former Prime Minister’s “free speech”.
Blair Protest, outside the Iraq Inquiry, London, Blair inside by chrisjohnbeckett, on Flickr
Whilst it’s unsurprising to find devoted acolytes of Blair, who are still prepared to defend the Iraq invasion, such as LabourList columnist Paul Richards(1), denouncing “Trots” for daring to publicly challenge their hero, concerns have also been expressed by two respected commentators on these issues.
(1)At Labour List, Paul Richards says: “The Trots call it vanguardism – they lead, we follow. Those who dissent disappear. For that reason there was more at stake than whether Blair’s suit got egged, or even the cost of policing the signings. There is an important principle in play – that if a citizen wants to meet another citizen and ask them to sign a book, no-one should be able to use violence and threats to prevent it.”
Blair had been due to attend a book signing in Waterstones, Picadilly[sic], followed by a launch party at the Tate Modern on Wednesday, but pulled out of both events because of the “inevitable hassle” it would cause the public and the burden it places on the Metropolitan police
Padraig Reidy(2), of Index on Censorship, describes Blair’s decision as “practical, but hardly ideal”. He doubts the protests would have turned as “violent” as they were in Dublin where protesters threw eggs and shoes at Blair, but notes that the fear that they might has clearly informed Blair’s decision. In which case “a literary event has been closed down due to fear of violence” which “sounds like mob censorship”, according to Reidy.
(2)Padraig Reidy, Index on Censorship, says:“Clearly the violent scenes in Dublin have made Mr Blair think again. But would things in London inevitably have turned out the same? I’m not sure. An equivalent group to Eirigi does not exist, and the groups that have previously protested against Blair have not, to be fair, turned violent. Then again, they might have decided to follow the example of the Dublin crowds. In which case, a literary event has been closed down due to fear of violence. Which, to me, sounds like mob censorship.”
Writing on the New Statesman blog, David Allen Green(3), a lawyer who blogs as “Jack of Kent”, agrees with Reidy from “a principle-based” standpoint. He concludes by asking “should all people of goodwill now shout out: For Tony Blair and Free Speech?”
(3)David Allen Green: “A retired politician is promoting a publication to those who may wish to purchase it. This is not some extremist politician, but a former mainstream, democratic politician. And this is not just any former mainstream, democratic politician, but the only UK party leader to have won a decisive general election with a sustainable majority since 1987. But that politician cannot do any events. The events are being cancelled. Is this a cause for concern?”
It would be too easy, perhaps, to point out the irony of people agonising over the free speech of a former Prime Minister who did so much to undermine that right when in office, so let’s stick to why civil libertarians shouldn’t be adopting Green’s rallying cry.
The first point, and a crucial bit of context to this discussion which always bears repeating, is that although Blair is a “mainstream democratic politician”, as Green notes, he is also responsible for a war which led to the deaths of well over a million people, producing four millions refugees, sectarian violence and torture and increasing regional instability and the threat of terrorism. There is a compelling case that this was also an illegal war and that Blair should be facing a tribunal in The Hague.
Yet, judging by his media appearances, Blair has clearly learnt nothing from the disaster in Iraq, and in the course of promoting his book, has been agitating for military aggression against Iran. In this context it is impossible to regard these book signings as simply another benign “literary event” and the protests, by extension, as somehow inappropriate or an over-reaction. These are events used by a prominent politician, with considerable influence on the world stage, to promote an aggressive and militaristic ideology and worldview that has caused wide-scale destruction and loss of life. The people who choose to exercise their democratic right to protest outside the book signings are, as they see it, fulfilling a moral imperative to publicly condemn Blair’s crimes and prevent further ones.
And while passions run high these were to be, despite various smears, explicitly non-violent protests. Stop the War Coalition(4) had called for peaceful protests outside Waterstones and the Tate Modern; there was no incitement to violence, or suggestion that protesters should physically try and block Blair and others from entering the venues.
(4) “Blair was forced to cancel a Waterstone’s book-signing when it became clear how an event for a war criminal was being hosted as if he was like any other outhor. [sic]A protest at the Tate Modern gallery has been called for the same reason.”
The decision to cancel the event was Blair’s and not that of the protesters or the police. Blair explained his decision on the grounds that he “didn’t want the public to be inconvenienced by the inevitable hassle caused by protesters” and wanted to avoid an “extra strain on police resources, simply for a book signing.” It wouldn’t be too cynical, given who we’re talking about, to suggest that concern for his public reputation also played a role in this decision, but crucially it was his call.
The fact is that protests will always be an inconvenience to the public in some way – that is, after all, how you get your point across – and police time and resources will have to be taken up if they are to fulfil their legal duty to facilitate the right to protest. Protesters, acting in the belief they are raising urgent moral and political concerns, can hardly be expected to weigh up these considerations in some kind of cost-benefit analysis – the cost and inconvenience of protest is something we all agree to put up with as the price of living in a free society.
Whilst anti-war protesters are making use one of the few outlets they have to remind us of Blair’s crimes, the man himself will never lack a platform for his views. Since the publication of A Journey we have been subjected to, what Gerry Hassan has dubbed “Blair Week”, with endless sofa appearances, newspaper interviews, and wall-to-wall coverage and promotion of his book by the BBC, of the kind that got them into trouble when they did it with U2’s album.
Instead of the book signing, Blair opted for an appearance on ITV’s This Morning with Phillip Schofield and Holly Willoughby for what was doubtless a cosy chat. There will be many more such appearances to look forward to in the months ahead as Blair seeks re-entry into British public life.
So whilst we can all agree with Green that “defence of free expression is often most important when the beneficiary is unpopular”, let’s not go rushing for our copies of Voltaire just yet.
As far as we know the decision to cancel was Blair’s. Certainly fear of civil unrest in London with rentamob in tow was a valid reason. HE would have been blamed if it had gone ahead and there had been gridlock, or even if someone had been seriously injured. You know that. He would also in that circumstance have been accused of cashing in despite the threats.If your name’s Blair, heads you lose, tails you don’t win.
I take issue with the whole premise of this article. It is disgraceful from someone calling himself a “civil libertarian” to conclude that Blair does not have freedom of speech rights because, it is said by some, he made an ‘illegal’ political decision.
Par for the course argument, but even MORE disgraceful when one thinks about it, than at first reading. It casts light on the TRUE thinking of some so-called “liberal thinkers”. Ending with the aside to, and ignoring of Voltaire for confirmation of your stance. Voltaire did not use qualifications. You do.
Somehow, because YOU and others consider that the Iraq invasion was illegal, and therefore Blair was a war criminal, albeit an unconvicted and untried one (but ignore such inconsequential technicalities – purlease folks) somehow he, alone amongst humans has no human rights, no rights of association, no free speech rights.
That conclusion, which is clear to see gives the lie to all the protests of those who profess to be liberal-minded. If you can’t understand that, you understand little about free speech, civil liberties and democracy.
And if you don’t care about the “important” Blair’s freedoms, which I conclude you don’t – what about ours? The rest of us? The 600 who queued quietly to get their books signed in Dublin, while 200 rioted? The majority number of supporters c/w the minority protestors who likely would have turned out at Waterstone’s too and were denied that by rentamob?
The good people of this country, the majority, who DON’T think of our former prime minister as a war criminal? What about them/us? Their/our rights?
For over three years we have been denied the right to listen live to probably the last half century’s moving force for good in British politics in case we’re all blown up by some madman, encouraged by a malign media, a literati which understands zilch about Blair and the reasons for Blair, and so-called civil libertarians.
This is a dreadful state of affairs, and is as far removed from real true liberalism as any ‘liberal thinker’ could ever have imagined.
But thank you for writing this, nonetheless. JUST what I was looking for. I will use it here.
__________
UPDATE, 17th Sep 2010
I just added this comment to another commenter at Openish Democracy:
Ref hfakos –
“Whether or not the Iraq war was illegal is not a matter of YOUR belief.”
Nor is it a matter of YOUR interpretation of the law. That’s the nub of all of this – the INTERPRETATION of international law, in association with such factors as the relevance of earlier UNSC mandates.
Imagine the stink if Tony Blair were ever charged with ANYTHING under international law. Imagine, as you no doubt do frequently, Blair in a dock over this. He’d wipe the floor with the UN over its irresponsibility and endless failures to act over more than a decade on its own resolutions.
As for this nonsense –
As others pointed out, none of Blair’s freedoms has been violated, he published his book and got ample air time to spew his hatred and war-mongering (Iran), this ME “peace” envoy of the EU.
I DO firmly believe his freedoms were violated. Violated by the threat of violence towards him and others at the London booksigning. Which part of “violence” do you not understand? I notice that thousands turned up pro and against the Ground Zero mosque. I did not hear any reports of violence. But the 200 yobs in Dublin, the rentamob – inciting online a bigger turn-out for London WERE violent. Even as they screamed “Police Violence” at a most unviolent-looking policewoman.
Oh, and if you think his remarks about Iran were “spewing hatred” you are some fool.
This “ME peace envoy”, btw, to cast some light on your ignorance, is NOT of the EU ONLY, but of the Quartet – UN/US/Russia AND EU. And he is not a “peace envoy”, but their representative.
If he was NOT doing a good job out there, do you think Mahmoud Abbas would still be content to work with him?
Which freedom of yours was violated by not being able to get a signed copy of a war criminal’s book?
The freedom to meet a much admired former prime minister!! Obviously! Tough to understand? Btw, Mr Judge and Jury, he is NO WAR CRIMINAL. Not charged, not tried, not found guilty, and never will be.
I honestly care more about the freedoms of the invaded and occupied Iraqis than about your discomfort.
Oh, do you now? Honestly? Were you in Saddam’s Iraq helping those oppressed by him – murdered by him for three decades? NO. This is sel-serving tripe you serve up. You care nothing for the Iraqi people. You care about nothing apart from proving a great British prime minister a criminal.
As for your last three questioned remark, I could tell you a story, but you probably wouldn’t believe it. You certainly wouldn’t understand it.
Anyway this website of so-called Open Democrats, where freedom is OK, except for those with whom you disagree, has a mention at my little place. Why? Because you’re worth it.
_______________
On the Open Democracy page there is also this, with these telling articles. (Just so you know):
Guy Aitchison is co-editor of openDemocracy’s UK blog, OurKingdom. He is one of the originators of the Take Back Parliament protest movement for fair votes and also campaigns with Power2010. Before that he was deputy director of the Convention on Modern Liberty.
New Statesman blog, David Allen Green – “For Tony Blair and Free Speech?”
Labour List, Paul Richards says: “The Trots call it vanguardism – they lead, we follow… if a citizen wants to meet another citizen and ask them to sign a book, no-one should be able to use violence and threats to prevent it.”
“Getting really bored with the persistence with which people pursue their anti-Blair propaganda, steadfastly refusing to see any good in the man.” – AND –“Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.” – AND – “I am sick and tired of television and radio interviewers asking the same old questions over and over, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, presumably they hope Mr Blair will let slip some secret information which they would then use against him. History will show if the decision was the right one, (I believe it was) but people must accept that Tony Blair is a honourable man, and made his decision based on the known facts and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.”
[I know you’re busy and life is short, so here it is, in my humble opinion.]
But first the reasons that are not so valid –
1. NOT BECAUSE IT IS INSULTING
The reason should not be fear of insulting or upsetting others; fear, even, that a few of the insulted and upset others will rampage and even kill innocent people just to show how insulted and upset they are. That is arguably a reason for burning the Koran! Life does not come with a “please do not insult” tag tied to every baby’s little toe. If the idea alone of burning the Koran is given as “enough to offend Muslims” and that offence is accepted as reason enough for raising the temperature, count me out. It’s an offensive world. Bibles too are burned by Muslims and yet few people in the west demonstrate or rampage about it. Many are offended that the Ground Zero Islamic Centre is being built very near the Islamist outrage of nine years ago. These American “offended” are expected to shut up and let liberal freedom fly! Liberal freedom is at times an over-burdened vehicle.
2. NOT BECAUSE ANY RELIGION CAN PLEAD A SPECIAL CASE
It should not be because a particular religion must be above criticism while atheism, agnosticism, secularism, Christianity, Judaism, philosophy, theology, democracy and politics are not – most definitely NOT above criticism. Even though these arms of the world’s decision-making influences have to deal with the fallout when one religious group uniquely uses the threat “don’t say I’m a killer, or I’ll kill you, you infidel” and is then treated so “unfairly” as a “pariah”, not for its response to others’ feelings but for its response to its own.
3. NOT BECAUSE OF NON-ISLAMIC TOLERANCE, EVEN OF THE INTOLERANT
It should not be because we are so tolerant that we tolerate, even elevate our own toleration of intolerance. Our encouragement of upside-down thinking, is unquestionably well-meant, after all. Isn’t it? Apologies for my question mark, but you know how tough it is when one’s brain is constantly on the edge of being thoroughly washed. Any begged questions arising may produce in turn dumb-stricken tight western lips. But that’s not becasue such western lips are, to mix metaphors, tongue-tied in their morally relative confusion. Oh no. Still, even that shameful silence should not be a reason for banning the koran-burning. (Read this on Muslim Mafia, but don’t get carried away via the links and forget to come back here!)
5. NOT BECAUSE WE ARE ‘CIVILISED’ AND THUS COMPREHEND FREEDOM’S REPERCUSSIONS, AND ‘THEY’ DON’T
It is said that those who protest in Muslim lands over the American pastor’s Koran Burning Day just don’t understand democracy. The Muslim position, it is said, is that in Muslims lands the authorities would clamp down on those who would burn Holy Books” [except they don’t, see above references.] So, goes this Muslim position and conclusion, if America doesn’t stop Pastor Terry Jones’s actions, even his words [saying they disagree is not enough] they OBVIOUSLY AGREE WITH HIM. That is at best condescension to the thought-processes of Muslims, at worse capitulation.
JOINING THE DOTS
If you believe that the Middle Eastern world, which has absorbed western capitalism, music, the internet and much of our culture willingly, does NOT understand that free speech also means FREEDOM from intimidation for speaking freely, AND that our right to that freedom is held as firmly as the rights that a religion is trying to impose on ALL of us, then you’re as mad as the mad hatters think you are. No special pleading. In short, although I am NOT in favour of the burning of the Koran, it is not for the reasons of “respecting” a religion. I am not in favour off the Ground Zero Islamic Centre either. It is common sense that that would be a red rag to a bull. I am not against it for the reason of disrespecting any religion. The “respect” business is a red herring, and stinks to high heaven. A little common sense from the Muslim angle regarding the Islamic Centre at Ground Zero might well have meant that the Florida pastor would not have felt that he wanted to burn the Koran. There are, probably, a few dots that need to be joined here.
A commenter at the Daily Mail the other day reminded me of how dangerous this world can be when intolerance, professing to be tolerance, but in fact only dressed up as liberalism takes root. Even amongst those who use liberal free speech liberally to vent their bile. This idiot, blaymag (whose name has been deciphered by a Facebook friend as meaning ‘soccer hooligan’) says (my bolding):
Lets stop giving this little piece of dirt any airtime and burn all his books. He should be hanging from a rope or serving life for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He should be locked up on a deserted island along with Bush and forgotten forever. He should also be expunged from history the same way that he destroyed this country’s hitory.[sic]
– blaymag, Newcastle, 8/9/2010 13:28
WHEN TYRANNY & OPPRESSION TAKE HOLD
This prize fool wanted to burn Tony Blair’s book AND hang him. This was written in a British newspaper, if that is an accurate description for the Daily Mail. The comments moderator saw no reason to moderate it out or even to write a story around it. We Brits never used to talk about burning books and/or hanging politicians. Today the “hanging Blair” cry is not exactly unheard of. In fact it is commonplace when his name is mentioned. Apparently it’s par for the course in free-speech loving Britain, and we are thus led to believe, acceptable talk.
In my humble opinion this live and let die approach is actually symptomatic of the tyranny and oppression of the press and their massed ranks – against Tony Blair, in particular, and against politics in general, against non-Tory MPs at the Tory press and vice versa at the Labour press.
To check if I am right on this analysis, trying sending in a comment saying that an MP’s family should be hanged. Then (if they take umbrage at that, since an MP’s family are not guilty of anything judged politically “evil”) try this one: “David Cameron should be hanged”. Let me know what happens, please.
This week Tony Blair felt compelled to cancel a book-signing in London following the first rowdies venting their middle east type demo in Dublin last Saturday. He wasn’t ORDERED to cancel the Waterstone’s event, of course, but for reasons of security he did not meet or speak with those who were willing to queue up for hours for the pleasure, inconveniencing and no doubt costing many of them financially. Then he cancelled a private party on the same day and for the same reason – security and possible intimidation of his friends when the rowdies descended on their gathering at The Tate.
DOES THIS MATTER?
How essential is HIS free speech? How much freedom have he and his friends got in this country today, when this is forced upon him and them? How much right does HE have to freedom of association? NONE, or at least very little, it seems to me.
As for free speech itself? Is it a good idea? In principle yes, but clearly it is more free for some than it is for others in this once great democracy. Free speech is not a given in all non-western countries. And in such lands there is a VERY clear idea of right and wrong. No thinking required.
For us in the west, of course, we MUST retain the right to free speech, even as others try to deny it to us in case we tread on their tender tootsies. How we square that with real liberty and the kowtowing that we are required to do towards those who do NOT believe in free speech is a matter for lengthy debate.
Melanie Philips is as good a place as any to start. A year or two ago I’d have surprised myself by that suggestion. Now, having half-read ‘The World Turned Upside Down’, interrupted by my partial read of ‘A Journey’, I know better.
If the American pastor’s book-burning is still on we do not yet know for sure. But I DO know this – whatever we do we must not let the book burners/hangers and floggers disappear underground. We must know who and where our enemy is.
On April 6, 1933, the Main Office for Press and Propaganda of the German Student Association (Deutsche Studentenschaft) proclaimed a nationwide “Action against the Un-German Spirit”, which was to climax in a literary purge or “cleansing” (“Säuberung”) by fire. Local chapters were to supply the press with releases and commissioned articles, sponsor well-known Nazi figures to speak at public gatherings, and negotiate for radio broadcast time. On April 8 the students association also drafted the Twelve Theses which deliberately evoked Martin Luther and the historic burning of “Un-German” books at the Wartburg festival on the 300th anniversary of the posting of Luther’s Theses. The theses called for a “pure” national language and culture. Placards publicized the theses, which attacked “Jewish intellectualism”, asserted the need to “purify” German language and literature, and demanded that universities be centers of German nationalism. The students described the “action” as a response to a worldwide Jewish “smear campaign” against Germany and an affirmation of traditional German values.
In a symbolic act of ominous significance, on May 10, 1933 the students burned upwards of 25,000 volumes of “un-German” books, presaging an era of state censorship and control of culture. On the night of May 10, in most university towns, nationalist students marched in torchlight parades “against the un-German spirit.” The scripted rituals called for high Nazi officials, professors, rectors, and student leaders to address the participants and spectators. At the meeting places, students threw the pillaged and unwanted books into the bonfires with great joyous ceremony, band-playing, songs, “fire oaths,” and incantations. In Berlin, some 40,000 people gathered in the Opernplatz to hear Joseph Goebbels deliver a fiery address: “No to decadence and moral corruption!” Goebbels enjoined the crowd. “Yes to decency and morality in family and state! I consign to the flames the writings of Heinrich Mann, Ernst Gläser, Erich Kästner.”
The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end. The breakthrough of the German revolution has again cleared the way on the German path…The future German man will not just be a man of books, but a man of character. It is to this end that we want to educate you. As a young person, to already have the courage to face the pitiless glare, to overcome the fear of death, and to regain respect for death – this is the task of this young generation. And thus you do well in this midnight hour to commit to the flames the evil spirit of the past. This is a strong, great and symbolic deed – a deed which should document the following for the world to know – Here the intellectual foundation of the November Republic is sinking to the ground, but from this wreckage the phoenix of a new spirit will triumphantly rise.
— Joseph Goebbels , Speech to the students in Berlin
Not all book burnings took place on May 10, as the German Student Association had planned. Some were postponed a few days because of rain. Others, based on local chapter preference, took place on June 21, the summer solstice, a traditional date of celebration. Nonetheless, in 34 university towns across Germany the “Action against the Un-German Spirit” was a success, enlisting widespread newspaper coverage.[citation needed] And in some places, notably Berlin, radio broadcasts brought the speeches, songs, and ceremonial incantations “live” to countless German listeners.
Among the authors whose books student leaders burned that night numbered well-known socialists such as Bertolt Brecht and August Bebel; the founder of the concept of communism, Karl Marx; critical “bourgeois” writers like the Austrian playwright Arthur Schnitzler, and “corrupting foreign influences,” among them American author Ernest Hemingway, British writer H. G. Wells; and of course, notable Jewish authors such as Franz Werfel, Max Brod, and Stefan Zweig. Especially notable among those works burned were the writings of beloved nineteenth-century German Jewish poet Heinrich Heine, who wrote in his 1820-1821 play Almansor the famous admonition, “Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen”: “Where they burn books, they will also burn people.”
Kristallnacht (German pronunciation: [kʁɪsˈtalˌnaxt]; literally “Crystal Night”) or The Night of Broken Glass was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Nazi Germany (including Austria and Sudetenland) from the 9th until the 10th of November 1938. It is also known as Novemberpogrome, Reichskristallnacht, Reichspogromnacht or Pogromnacht in German.[1]
The Kristallnacht was triggered by the assassination in Paris of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew. In a coordinated attack on Jewish people and their property, 91 Jews were killed and 25,000 to 30,000 were arrested and placed in concentration camps. 267 synagogues were destroyed, and thousands of homes and businesses were ransacked. This was done by the Hitler Youth, the Gestapo and the SS.[2] The Kristallnacht also served as a pretext and a means for the wholesale confiscation of firearms from German Jews.[3]
While the assassination of Rath served as a pretext for the attacks, the Kristallnacht was part of a broader racial policy of Nazi Germany including antisemitism and persecution of the Jews.[4]Kristallnacht was followed by further economic and political persecutions. It is viewed by many historians as the beginning of the Final Solution, leading towards the genocide of the Holocaust.[5][6]
_______________
Video, Tony Blair says the Koran burning is plain WRONG. On Pastor Jones – “He may be able to be stopped here in Britain … this does not represent countries like us. But it is important that leaders come out and say this is wrong.”
Imho, it depends on the reasons one is so certain it is wrong. I realise that Tony Blair has strong feelings on religion and the reasons for and repercussions of religion. I heartily support the aims of Mr Blair’s Faith Foundation but I DO think that it is not as straightforward as calling for respect from the concerned.
So, there you go. It’s not a first. I have told you before that I don’t always agree with Mr Blair on everything.
Two comments at the YouTube site –
“Why can’t we have a book burning day for Tony Blair’s Autobiography.”
AND –
“If the pastor wanted to burn Tony ‘jump on any possible bandwagon’ Blair I wonder if there would have been such an outcry.”
EVIDENCE, IN CASE YOU NEED ANY MORE, OF THE INTOLERANCE OF THE INTOLERANT
1. Free Republic, 25 May 2005, Saudi Arabia Desecrates Hundreds of Bibles Annually, Washington DC – The Saudi government burns and desecrates hundreds of bibles its security forces confiscate after raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately or at border crossings. As a matter of official policy, the government either incinerates or dumps bibles, crosses and other Christian paraphernalia.
2. Justify This!, 10 Dec 2006, Muslim Students Urinate, Spit On Then Burn Bible, TWO Muslim students have been expelled from an Islamic school in Melbourne for urinating and spitting on a Bible and setting it on fire.
3. Associated Content, 18 Jun 2007, Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses, Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza’s Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip’s small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned.
4. Spero News, 19 Dec 2008, Muslims burn Bible in Pakistan, Pervez Masih tells AsiaNews that on that day, he and others were whitewashing and decorating the little church for Christmas. They stopped at noon for lunch, leaving the church open. When they returned, they found the bible and other sacred texts reduced to ashes, and a handwritten letter telling them to convert to Islam if they wanted to “live in peace” and avoid hell. In Pakistan, there is significant controversy over the law on blasphemy, condemning even to death those who offend the sacred book of Islam, the Qur’an. But nothing is done against blasphemous acts toward the books of other religions.
“Getting really bored with the persistence with which people pursue their anti-Blair propaganda, steadfastly refusing to see any good in the man.” – AND –“Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.” – AND – “I am sick and tired of television and radio interviewers asking the same old questions over and over, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, presumably they hope Mr Blair will let slip some secret information which they would then use against him. History will show if the decision was the right one, (I believe it was) but people must accept that Tony Blair is a honourable man, and made his decision based on the known facts and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.”
Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”
Comment at end
Ban Blair-Baiting
18th February, 2010
DUTCH POLITICIAN GEERT WILDERS IS ON TRIAL IN THE NETHERLANDS
Of course you knew that, didn’t you? How could you not? I mean, hasn’t it been all over the papers since 20th January this year?
Er… SORRY. MY PROFUSE APOLOGIES. Of course it hasn’t.
‘The 20th of January 2010 will be a crucial day for defending our freedom. This is the day when the political trial against Geert Wilders will start. Yesterday, Geert Wilders was summoned by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) on behalf of the Court of Justice of Amsterdam.
The indictment reads: group insult of Muslims, incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims due to their religion and incitement to hatred and discrimination against non-western immigrants and / or Moroccans due to their race.’
If this trial convicts Wilders YOU may well be next. After all, you ARE a free European in a free country in a free continent, aren’t you? Free speech, and all that? But DARE to express your thoughts on a religious/political creed which at its most fundamental interpretation and practice wishes to terrorise you, your country and your continent into submission, and you could find yourself sharing prison grub with Mr Wilders.
BE WARNED. BRITAIN’S UNBALANCED, BRAINWASHED, WRONG-HEADED AND DHIMMIFIED BROADCASTERS AND PRINTED PRESS WON’T TELL YOU THAT WILDERS IS EVEN ON TRIAL, MUCH LESS WHAT HIS CONVICTION WOULD MEAN FOR EUROPE.
This man will –
Pat Condell’s thoughts on the Geert Wilders Case (7:51)
Uploaded on 12th February, this youtube video has had only 243 views so far. I expect if it had been about Binyam Mohamed we could have added three zeros at the end.
I do not agree with Pat Condell’s aside that this it is only the present government that has turned a blind eye to Islamist terror and the accompanying creeping Islamisation of our country (and continent.) None of the main opposition parties has raised a whimper of complaint about the government policy of dhimmitude. The Conservative party and OF COURSE the wimpish civil righting and habitually wrong Liberal Democrats have at varying times even accused the present government of being too heavy-handed on issues arising from our fear of upsetting and insulting those who moved here for such liberal rights as freedom of speech including freedom to insult and to be insulted.
So Condell’s words are a little facile, imho. But generally, here is a man who gets it:
“And you know that smell, it’s that pungent mix of authoritarianism and cowardice that we all become depressingly familiar with. Certainly here in Britain we know all about it. We’ve had twelve years of it. And we haven’t forgotten the shameful events of this time last year when Mr Wilders was refused entry to Britain because our government allowed itself to be bullied and threatened by a handful of Muslim loudmouths who took it upon themselves to suppress free speech in a free country AND were allowed to get away with it because otherwise they might have been offended.”
Personally I have never, repeat never noticed any government authoritarianism, though I have noticed cowardice. But on immigration and integration/multiculturalism, the previous Conservative government too operated an open-door policy. Islamist fundamentalism, and even terrorism has been around in this world for MORE THAN FORTY YEARS. And here in Britain it has found fertile land into which to lay its roots.
May, 2002: Pim Fortuyn stood for limiting immigration into the Netherlands. He was a hot favourite in the then upcoming election.
Some time ago I wrote here about the attacks on prominent public figures and on freedom in the Netherlands (as well as on some illiberal goings-on here in Britain.) It was clear to me that the failure of Britain, the Netherlands and all of Europe to deal with this issue was impacting on ALL of us.
In case you are about to blame recent western policy in the Middle East, the first abomination was perpetrated in a free European country before the Iraq war (of March 2003).
A flamboyant politician of the Right, Fortuyn wanted to limit immigration into Holland. He was killed as he left a radio station in Hilversum, just 9 days before a general election in which his party was expected to do well.
For this prospect he had to die.
Murder is the silencer. Murder works in Holland.
[Pic: A few minutes after leaving a radio recording studio, Pim Fortuyn lay dead, shot five times by a white, Dutch animal rights activist, who said in court that he was “defending” Muslims.]
What is even MORE shocking – he wasn’t killed by a Muslim.
‘A Left-wing activist confessed in court yesterday to Holland’s first political assassination in 400 years, claiming that he shot Pim Fortuyn to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.
Volkert van der Graaf, 33, a vegan animal rights campaigner, said he alone was responsible for killing the maverick protest leader last May, days before a general election in which the Fortuyn List party vaulted into second place and shattered Holland’s consensus.
Facing a raucous court on the first day of his murder trial, he said his goal was to stop Mr Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as “scapegoats” and targeting “the weak parts of society to score points” to try to gain political power.
He said: “I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself.”‘
BUT I WASN’T A DUTCH POLITICIAN… and I did not speak out…
So we put Fortuyn’s murder down to a rogue fundamentalist, a one-off, hardly typical. He was not even a Muslim. It was not worthy of us, or deserving of anyone, that we should extend blame by association or encourage the learning of lessons. We missed the gradual brainwashing that has been ongoing amongst over-exuberant liberals. A brainwashing that meant that many of us in Europe blame our own countries for the evils perpetrated against us.
Today another politician who thinks in similar terms to Mr Fortuyn is up in court. Clearly the killer of Fortuyn and those who agree with him have won the argument.
THEN THEY CAME FOR VAN GOGH…
In 2004, again in the Netherlands, in the second “political murder” in 400 years (of course it was ‘political’), the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh met his violent end at the hands of an Islamist killer.
Theo Van Gogh, filmmaker and descendant of the artist Vincent Van Gogh, was ritually murdered in an Amsterdam street in 2004. His crime? Making a film called “Submission” (the meaning of “Islam”) which portrayed Islamic violence against women.
For this he had to die.
[Pic: Theo Van-Gogh was murdered in an Amsterdam Street after exposing treatment of women by fundamentalist strands of Islam.]
The film-maker was ritually slaughtered in Amsterdam. He was shot, his throat was cut, and he was stabbed with two weapons. A note from his killer was pinned with one of the knives sunk into his body. It threatened a Somali-born Dutch MP, a colleague of the murdered man. She is now under 24 hour guard.
This atrocity occurred in broad daylight in Holland’s capital city. His killer was a member of the “religion of peace”. Mohammed Bouyeri was sentenced to 27 years in 2005. He has joint Dutch-Moroccan nationality, and had made a courtroom confession vowing to do the same again if given the chance.
In court, clutching a copy of the Koran, Bouyeri said: “the law compels me to chop off the head of anyone who insults Allah and the prophet.”
BUT I WAS NOT AN ARTIST…and I did not speak out…
Today, in the land of their births and violent deaths, a shameful trial is taking place. The defendant, politician Geert Wilders already believes his rights in this trial are being denied him. Perhaps if his name was Binyam, and he was a resident and not a citizen, it’d be quite a different story.
Geert Wilders is under 24 hour guard. If he is found not guilty and is released there is little doubt that that level of protection will continue – IN HIS OWN LAND AND OUT OF IT. Is this what freedom brings to its EU citizens in the 21st century?
DEATH ON OUR STREETS – AS IN THE NETHERLANDS?
What are BRITISH politicians saying about this? The killings? The trial? And what are our FREEDOM LOVING activists doing about it?
Zilch. Nada. Nothing.
Perhaps they’ll say and do something when they come for one of ours. Then again, perhaps not.
First they came for Pim Fortuyn, then they came for Theo Van Gogh. Who will be next?
Wilders? Blair?
While the British, Dutch, European press continues to operate in this way, demonizing those of whom they disapprove politically, such as Geert Wilders will remain under 24 hour protection. I believe that here in Britain Tony Blair too falls into that category. The calls online for his death on comment pages and blogs, which go on without sanction, have made that perfectly clear. After all “Muslims need to be protected”. Don’t they?
From Gates of Vienna – Here we see how the Dutch mass media demonizes Geert Wilders in much the same way they did to Pim Fortuyn, which resulted in his murder.
Before Hitler there was Mohammad. Mohammad mastered the language, the excessive nonsense of Fascist ideology by posing fascist ideals in the dress of a religion. Fascism’s labels have changed – Islam, Nazism, Communism, Francoism, Peronism, and assorted varieties have existed, but irregardless of the label, the intent of Fascism has always been the same – the destruction of the modern world and the imposition of an elite managed utopia. Fascist Islam poses the most radical threat to Western civilisation, and much like Nazism or Communism, its aim is to destroy our modern world and create a slave state based on improbably fascistic ideals propagated by a 7th century racist, cruel, greedy and corrupt politician.
The war by fascist Islam against civilisation commenced in 622, and has rarely shown a lack of energy or purpose. It is only in recent years and especially since 2001, that the world’s consciousness, in part, has been moved to recognise this threat against civilisation. Sadly only a minority of the modern world has been convinced that a war exists, and that a war against fascist Islamic elements is necessary. This is dangerous. The entire resources of the modern world must be brought against Islam’s radical sects that want to wipe out Western civilisation and impose Talibanic governance. Yet most people in the West are indifferent, afraid or unconvinced.
This could turn out to be a tragedy. Each year extremist Islam kills thousands of non-Muslims and Muslims. Much of the carnage is not only Western oriented but designed to target civilians and destroy civil society. The indiscriminate butchery has not abated and only intensifies with modern technology. Defeating theocratic fascism, whether embedded in Hitler’s Germany or a decayed and broken Middle East, mandates war on their territory. The West cannot allow defeatists, appeasers, and irrational emotionalists to destroy its resolve and succumb to the Islamic threat.
There is certainly enough evidence of Islamic intentions to destroy the modern world. The list of Islamic violence against civilisation is impressive. Outside of assassinating civilians in New York, Bali, Buenos Aires, Roma, London, Milano, Moscow, and Madrid amongst others, the Islamo-fascists are or have been recently engaged in armed struggles including:
-A murderous and continuous war of terrorism against Israel.
-In The Sudan during the past 20 years, a Muslim government has killed over two million Christians and Animists in the south.
-Algeria is wracked by bitter fighting between Islamic Fundamentalists and the military.
-Nigeria is in the midst of a civil war between Moslems and Christians.
-In Kenya the Islamic Party has declared Holy War on the government.
-Khaddaffi and his Libyan army have carried out numerous military excursions into neighbouring Chad, and, like Afghanistan and Iran, Libya is still a base for terrorist plots.
-In Turkey the secular Muslim government is being challenged by the militant Refah Islamic Party.
-A war rages between Christian Ethiopia and Muslim Eritrea.
– Christian Armenians attacked by Muslim Azerbaijanis.
– Muslims in Chechnya, Daghestan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have ignited insurrection against the pro-Russian regimes.
– Muslim – Christian conflicts in the Balkans have resulted in a Bosnian Muslim statelet and Albanian – Serbian tensions that could reignite a war.
– A drug network partially based in Lebanon with affiliations worldwide which continues to fund Islamic aggression and which is itself a violent and dangerous network.
-Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia along with Egyptian groups are spending about U$3-5 billion per annum funding various programs of terror and education worldwide.
-Muslims have slaughtered villages of Christians in Indonesia, Timor and the Philippines.
These are the abstract levels of violence. Death threats, beheadings, razor blades against necks pressing for conversion, female slavery, adolescent pubic mutilations, stonings, religious police and violent denunciations of jewish pigs and western imperialists along with cowardly murders of civilians all bring into focus the absurdity but lethality of this political philosophy. Ignoring such evidence is beyond nescient.
The list of terrorist committed atrocities since 1968 is long, most of the actions are attributable to Islam, and the West to its danger, ignores the clear signals and signs of fascist violence.
Brief Synopsis of terrorist actions since 1968
-1968
•July 23rd – Three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine hijack an El Al plane to Rome.
•November 22nd – Twelve people were killed at a bombing in the market in Jerusalem.
-1969
• February 18th An El Al aircraft in Zurich Switzerland was attacked, the co-pilot was killed.
• February 21st were killed and eight injured in a bomb blast in Jerusalem.
• August 29th A TWA 707 was hijacked by Palestinian terrorist to Damascus.
• September 29th – A TWA plane flying from Rome to Lodi Italy was hijacked to Damascus.
• November 27th- The El Al office in Athens attacked and innocent bystanders killed.
-1970
• February 10th. A bus carrying passengers to an a plane is attacked by Palestinian terrorist at the Munich airport.
• February 21st- A Swissair plane on a flight to Israel is blown up in mid air by Palestinian terrorists.
• April 21st- A bomb explodes aboard a Philippines airliners. All 36 aboard are killed.
• May 22nd Eight Israeli schoolchildren are killed by Arab terrorist.
• September 6th- An attempt is made to hijack four planes. The attempt to hijack an El Al plane fails, while three others succeed. The planes all end up in the Jordanian desert.
-1972
• January 26th A bomb explodes on a Yugoslav plane killing all but one passenger.
• May 30th- 24 people are killed at Lod airport by Japanese terrorist recruited by Palestinians.
• July 21st twenty two bombs go off in downtown Belfast killing 11 people.
• September 5th – Eleven members of the Israeli Olympic team are killed by Black September an arm of the PLO led by Arafat at the Olympic games in Munich.
-1973
• February 23rd- Israel shoots down a Libyan plane over the Sinai desert fearing it was a flying bomb.
• March 8th- Two IRA bombs explode in London killing one person and injuring 200.
• August 5th- Five people are killed when a Libyan terrorist group attacks a TWA plane.
-1974
• September 8th Libyan terrorist plant a bomb on board a TWA plane flying from Athens to Rome, all 85 passengers are killed.
• November 21st The IRA explodes a series of bombs in Birmingham England- 21 people are killed.
-1975
• September 30th A Hungarian airplane explodes killing all 64 persons on board.
-1976
• January 1st-Eighty-two people are killed aboard a Lebanese plane.
• June 24th- An Air France plane is hijacked to Uganda. Israeli later stages a daring rescue mission to free the hostages.
-1978
• March 12th Thirty seven Israelis are killed on a bus by Palestinian terrorists.
-1981
• April 19th -Thirteen people were killed and 177 injured in a terrorist attack in Davao Philippines.
-1982
• August 6th- A kosher restaurant is attacked in Paris killing eight.
-1983
• April 18th Eighty-three people are killed at the US Embassy in Beirut.
• September 29th- A Gulf Air plane explodes killing all 166 people aboard.
• October 29th- 241 US Marines are killed in a truck bombing in Beirut by the Islamic Jihad (controlled by Syria).
-1984
• September 20th- The US embassy in the Beirut is bombed- 15 are killed.
-1985
• June 23rd 345 people are killed when Sikh terrorist explode a bomb aboard an Air India 747.
• October 7th- The Cruise ship the Achilles Laura was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists.
-1986
• September 5th A Pan Am aircraft is hijacked by Palestinian terrorists. Twenty passengers are killed.
-1988
• Pan Am flight 103 is blown up over Lockerbie Scotland. All 259 passengers and crew are killed.
-1992
• The Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires is bombed and 14 die.
-1993
• February 26th- A bomb explodes in the basement of the World Trade Center in New York. Six die and 1,000 are injured.
• July 27th- Five are killed in a car bombing in Milan Italy.
-1995
• March 20th- 12 people are killed when nerve gas is released in a Tokyo subway.
• April 19th- The Murrah Federal office building is destroyed by a bomb in Oklahoma City Oklahoma killing 168.
-1998
• August 7th – The US embassies in Nairobi Kenya and Dar es Salamm in Tanzania are bombed. Dozens die, hundreds are wounded.
-2001
• September 11th – Attacks on New York, Washington take 3000 lives and wipe out the WTC and part of the Pentagon.
-2003
• November 20 – Istanbul bombings kill 27 and wound 400.
• Removal of Hussein’s regime which killed 300.000-500.000 civilians.
-2004
• March 11 – Madrid bombings kill 191 and wounds 1800.
-2005
• July 7 – At least 50 killed and 700 wounded in transit attacks in London.
-1970 to 1990. During the Arafat and Muslim inspired civil war, in Lebanon 100.000 Christians and non-Muslims are killed and murdered.
-From 2005 to now Muslim ‘youth’ have been rioting in cities in France and Denmark causing billions in damages. Muslims account for almost 2/3 of violent crime in Denmark and over 60% of rapes in France.
1980-2008
In Kosovo, Muslims over the past 20 years, attacked, butchered and forced literally hundreds of thousands of Serbs to leave. Their reward? To be granted a Muslim state by the cowards running tthe EU and the US State department whilst manipulating the Western media that all violence was the result of Serb ‘fascist’ aggression.
-2000 to 2008. Over 5.000 Jewish civilians have been killed or seriously wounded from Arab rocket attacks.
Just since 2005 there have been almost 5.000 Muslim attacks worldwide, with almost 500.000 dead and wounded. And yet we are told by the media that it is in fact Western policy or Jewish intolerance which is to blame for this orgy of rampaging hate and blood.
In short there is a war going on and it has been in train since 1968. In fighting a war we need to destroy fascist Islam at its source, reform our immigration and domestic security systems, and fight to protect our Judeo-Christian set of values from destruction by Islamacists and the Liberal elite.
About the Author
Extremists use Islam to dress up their fascism. And so goes the idea that the association of these two is inaccurate, offensive, and even to some as counterproductive.
PLEASE NOTE: The content of this blog and opinions expressed here or pointed to are all my choice and mine alone. In particular, the controversial postings on the present Wilders/Islam issues implies NO reference whatsoever to Tony Blair’s opinions on Islam. (This note is a result of an e-mail I received from a well-respected online friend and commenter, expressing concern that the title of my blog [Tony Blair] might lead some to incorrect conclusions, or even to weaken Mr Blair’s position on interfaith dialogue. That is NOT, repeat NOT my intention or desire.)
View signatories – presently 17,388 as I write this, 4:45pm, 23rd January.
WHEREAS Geert Wilders has exercised his fundamental human right of freedom of expression and spoken out, with facts and evidence, of the threat posed by radical Islam;
WHEREAS certain elements within Islamic communities have threatened a boycott of Dutch goods if Geert Wilders is not punished by the Dutch government for exercising his freedom of expression; and
WHEREAS certain elements in Dutch industry and the Dutch government are suggesting that Geert Wilders be prosecuted civilly or criminally, in order to prevent such a boycott;
IT IS RESOLVED that, in the event that the Dutch government attempts, in any way, to punish or prosecute Geert Wilders, civilly or criminally, for exercising his freedom of expression, the undersigned will initiate a boycott of any and all Dutch goods.
List of Clickable Links – Pages/Video/Audio/External Sites
This list is alphabetical. Browse down the lists to search for an item.
Or click through to a 'popular page' on the topic where it is likely to be found. All video/audio/articles etc will also be found at the appropriate page or post.
Putting a search item into the search box will bring up one or more pages which include your search item.
Should the USA, Britain & the rest of the western world seriously consider Sharia Finance, in view of the present financial worries?
There is concern that such is the state of collapse of western capitalism that SOME of our leaders may even be considering adopting "Sharia Finance".
It already exists in the west in various forms and is presently being marketed heavily to non-Muslims.
Is this a slippery slope to Sharia Law?
Sharia law and now Sharia finance are touted by its proponents as the answers to the "evils" of the west.
I don't want ANYTHING Sharia in my country - Britain. And I am not happy that there are already FIVE Sharia courts in our land. I don't recall the government asking us to vote for this in 1997, 2001 or 2005.
But two months after Mr Brown took over from Mr Blair in 2007 Sharia courts were set up in English cities. Perhaps Mr Brown thought he had received subliminal permission from the people to do this when he took over from Mr Blair in a subliminal non-election.
What do YOU think?
VOTE NOW for or against Sharia Finance for the West
Or – Tweet this post
is now available online. And her earlier book 
Tony Blair 