tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-295410072024-03-07T04:39:28.999-05:00Americans Against HateAmericans Against Hate (AAH) is a civil rights organization and terrorism watchdog group, whose goal is to be an active voice against those that spread bigotry and violence.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger172125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-61312831879720709392013-09-21T09:29:00.001-05:002013-09-21T09:29:50.145-05:00France Fights Public School IslamismBy Deborah Weiss<br />
FrontPage Magazine<br />
September 13, 2013<br />
<br />
<br />
Secular France wants nothing to do with religion. Yet, it has been forced to grapple with its increasing Islamization that appears to be spinning out of control. The French Education Minister has a new plan to push back: a secularism charter in every public school. However, France’s misguided efforts are unlikely to solve the problem.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">
France is officially a secular country with separation of church and state. There is no state religion and everyone is free to believe or not believe as they wish. The expression of religious faith is permitted within the boundaries of public order. All creeds are respected and treated equally under the law. But, unlike America which has true religious freedom and allows religion in the public square so long as one religion is not favored over another, the principles underlying France’s 1905 Laïcité laws call for the cleansing of religion from State functions and institutions. Therefore, despite the fact that France’s Constitution claims otherwise, secularism reigns supreme over faith.<br />
<br />
In recent years, France’s secular underpinnings have been challenged. Largely due to faulty immigration policies, France is quickly becoming the most Islamized country in Europe. Approximately 200,000 people immigrate legally into France every year, and another 200,000 people immigrate illegally. Currently, approximately 10 percent of France’s population is Muslim (an estimated 4.7 – 10 million people) and the numbers are rising.<br />
<br />
Muslim immigrants pose a severe threat to French secularism and therefore to the nation’s identity. Many Muslim immigrants show little interest in assimilating, learning French, or integrating into mainstream society.<br />
<br />
Increasingly, Islamic institutions and practices are replacing French secular traditions. Muslim University students are demanding separation of the sexes, excused absences for religious reasons, and pressuring universities to alter their curriculums.<br />
<br />
In some areas, there are Muslim enclaves governed by Sharia law. In these "no-go zones" government officials have de facto relinquished control. Police, firemen, and even ambulances refrain from entry. At last count, France had 751 "Sensitive Urban Zones," as these areas are euphemistically called.<br />
<br />
The French are loosing control in other regions of the country as well to groups of Muslims who regularly violate State laws. For example, in some locales Muslims block traffic and fill the streets for Jummah prayers on Fridays, in violation of French law. Yet, the police stand idly by. There are numerous other examples along the same lines.<br />
<br />
In recent years, the French government has been trying to push back against the Islamization of its country. It has introduced several initiatives in an attempt to enforce its secular principles.<br />
<br />
For example, in 2010, the Parliament passed a law making it illegal to wear a full face veil in public. Though the Islamic burqa was not specifically named in the legislation, everyone knew that the burqa was the target of the bill. In 2004, the government outlawed all religious symbols and attire in public schools. Students can no longer wear yomikas, crosses, or hijabs to school.<br />
<br />
Now on August 26, 2013 the French Education Minister Vincent Peillon has announced that the government will post a secularism charter in each of its 55,000 public schools by the end of September. The purpose of the charter is to remind students and teachers of France’s secular underpinning and restore "secular morality." Some of the items embodied in the charter mirror France’s Constitution, reiterating that there is no State religion and emphasizing separation of religion and state.<br />
<br />
Additional items listed in the Charter expressly assert that the school is a secular institution, students are prohibited from proselytizing, and that students are disallowed from demanding excused absences or challenging class lessons based on their religion.<br />
<br />
Minister Peillon’s true thoughts on the role of secularism in the Republic are revealed in his 2008 book titled, "The Revolution is not Over," published by Seuil. In it he asserts that the purpose of secular education is "to remove the student from all forms of determinism, whether familial, ethnic or social" in order to "enable each student to emancipate himself." He states that the goal of the school is to produce "a free individual, emancipated from all guardianships: political, religious, familial, social – so that he can make his own choices."<br />
<br />
His writings aspire to a new religion -- that of secularism, as indicated by his language: "the Republican system is forced to invent a new metaphysics and a new religion in which man can transcend himself. It is not a religion of God made man… It is a religion of the man who creates himself thought constant movement." He expressly states that socialism needs a new religion to take the place of the old and that Secularism can be that religion. His claims that done properly, this can create a "new birth", "a transubstantiation" and "a new Church."<br />
<br />
Apparently, he and other officials in the French government believe that true religion is the problem and that squelching it in favor of a secular man-made religion is the solution.<br />
<br />
To date, there is no evidence that such an approach will work. At the current rate of Muslim immigration combined with its high birth rates, France will be a Muslim majority country in 23 years.<br />
<br />
The measures instituted by the French government are largely symbolic. The government doesn’t appear to have the fortitude to enforce French secularism by doling out consequences for serious infractions of French law committed in the name of Islam, whether in the no-go zones or elsewhere.<br />
<br />
True religion is not the problem. Religions that operate within the spiritual sphere, respecting the laws of the land are not a threat to the fabric of French society. There is no reason to repress the religious freedom of all because of the problems posed by only one "religion" that seeks to impose itself on unbelievers. The government must acknowledge that those who seek parallel societies run by Sharia law constitute a subversive political movement, cloaking itself in the language of religion. France must treat the movement accordingly. If it doesn’t, the Islamist threat will continue to erode the foundations of French society.<br />
<br />
This article was commissioned by Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a freelance writer. She is a co-author of "Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at <a href="http://www.vigilancenow.org">www.vigilancenow.org</a> </i>
</span>
dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-14769616668326602402013-08-23T21:32:00.001-05:002013-08-23T22:00:04.168-05:00Fort Hood Trial: Don’t Say the “T” WordBy Deborah Weiss<br />
FrontPage Magazine<br />
August 22, 2013<br />
<br />
<br />
The Fort Hood shootings constituted the largest massacre on a military base in the history of the United States. There is overwhelming evidence that the defendant’s motivations were religious in nature. But as the trial ensues, the US government continues to bend over backwards to avoid calling the massacre an act of Islamic terrorism, consistent with Islamist demands not to associate Islam with terrorism.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">
On November 5, 2009, Army Major and psychiatrist Nidal Hasan took his semi-automatic pistol and headed to the Soldier Readiness Processing Center on the military base at Fort Hood. There, soldiers were being cleared for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/05/national/main5539067.shtml">Hasan fired a spray of bullets killing 13 people and wounding over 30 others. It was the worst massacre on a military base in US history.</a><br />
<br />
Hasan had purchased a gun that would be efficient in a high-target environment and attended weeks of target practice.<br />
<br />
Two days prior to the blood bath, Hasan gave away his furniture, disseminated business cards that read Soldier of Allah, and emailed Al-Awlaki saying he looked forward to joining him in the afterlife.<br />
<br />
Dressed in traditional Islamic garb, Hasan appeared at the Fort Hood military base prepared to fulfil his Islamic duty to defend his Muslim brothers.<br />
<br />
Upon his arrival to the scene, he bowed his head in prayer, then jumped up and <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/08/20/judge-sanitizes-jihad-motive-by-blocking-evidence-in-nidal-hassan-case-n1668956">screamed “Allahu Akbar”</a> (Allah is the greatest!) before unloading his ammunition at unarmed soldiers.<br />
<br />
Reports indicate that army officials were cognizant of Hasan’s increasing radicalization since 2005. <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33753461/ns/us_news-tragedy_at_fort_hood/">Hasan had given a seminar which revealed his Islamist ideology, during which he justified suicide bombings.</a> He also expressed increasing ambivalence about serving in the military since the US was “killing Muslims”. <br />
<br />
Additionally, an investigation discovered conclusive evidence <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Anwar-al-Awlaki">that Hasan had significant email communications with Anwar Al-Awlaki</a>, a prominent Al-Qaeda operative who was a target of Obama’s targeted killing drone program. Hasan’s emails asked whether it was acceptable to kill innocents during jihad and when suicide bombings were justifiable. He also regularly visited jihadi websites which condoned suicide bombings.<br />
<br />
Hasan was <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fort-hood-hasan-20130820,0,2266226.story">charged in a Military Court</a> under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with 13 counts of pre-meditated murder and 32 Counts of attempted murder.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fort-hood-testimony-20130815,0,4208147.story">He appeared before a board of mental health professionals to determine his fitness to stand trial.</a> At his hearing, Hasan confessed to the murders and claimed he did it to “defend Taliban leadership.” He showed no remorse. Never-the-less, the board ruled he was sane.<br />
<br />
Hasan is representing himself at trial. The trial commenced August 6, 2013. During Hasan’s opening statements, he confessed the murders and blatantly asserted his jihadi motives. He explained that he had “switched sides” and regards himself as mujahideen.<br />
<br />
The prosecution has had almost 90 witnesses and Hasan has engaged in virtually no cross-exam. Some believe that he is purposely leading a strategy of defenselessness in order to achieve martyrdom. Though he denies it, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57598332/fort-hood-massacre-trial-is-hasan-seeking-martyrdom/">Hasan’s past statements indicate that he wished he had been killed so he’d become a martyr and that government execution would still qualify him as such.</a> <br />
<br />
So the question remains, how should Hasan’s mass murder be characterized?<br />
<br />
An independent commission conducted an investigation of the Fort Hood shootings. DoD released its report in January 2010. It found that the Pentagon was unprepared to defend itself against internal threats. DoD and other government agencies have <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/">characterized the massacre as “workplace violence”</a> and omitted any mention of Islamist ideology or terrorist behavior.<br />
<br />
The leaders of the investigation stated that their concern was “actions and effects, not necessarily motives”. And, <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2009/11/08/general-casey-diversity-shouldnt-be-casualty-of-fort-hood/">Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey proclaimed that “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”</a> <br />
<br />
The FBI determined that because Hasan had no co-conspirators, further investigation was unnecessary.<br />
<br />
In his public address and at the eulogy, President Obama also refused to acknowledge the role of Islamic terrorism in the massacre.<br />
<br />
Yet motive is what distinguishes one type of homicide from another. A homicide victim is equally dead regardless of motive. But our legal system and moral code mandate that intent be taken into account when determining what, if any punishment should be accorded.<br />
<br />
The omission of the terrorist motives in the Fort Hood massacre is <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/6/nidal-hasans-fort-hood-trial-starts-workplace-viol/">resulting in the denial of purple hearts for the fallen soldiers,</a> and a denial of medical benefits and financial compensation for the survivors.<br />
<br />
Though the UCMJ does not have terrorism in its code as a possible charge, the military court could have waived jurisdiction, allowing Hasan to be prosecuted in Federal Court where a charge of domestic terrorism would have been in order.<br />
<br />
Even if Hasan was not criminally charged with terrorism, the government could make a political determination that this was a terrorist act, allowing the victims to be properly compensated. DoD <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/6/nidal-hasans-fort-hood-trial-starts-workplace-viol/">officials claimed that Hasan could have argued he couldn’t get a fair trial due to accusations of criminal liability.</a><br />
<br />
However, Hasan has already admitted criminal guilt. Therefore, it is more likely that the government’s characterization of the massacre as workplace violence was made in line with its pattern of denial regarding Islamist ideology.<br />
<br />
This Administration has rewritten all national security training material to <a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/25/57-top-u-s-muslim-groups-demanded-government-wide-islamophobia-purge-in-letter-to-white-house/">delete all reference to Islamic terrorism</a> and has launched an aggressive campaign of interfaith dialogue and <a href="http://www.legal-project.org/4088/us-praises-sharia-censorship">“peer pressure and shaming”</a> to stifle all debate on the issue of Islamism.<br />
<br />
The Administration has also formed close alliances with Islamist organizations in a quest to silence all speech critical of Islam, in a manner tantamount to blasphemy codes.<br />
<br />
Free speech constitutes a human right and is critical to maintaining the cause of freedom. It is especially important to allow open debate on the nature of national security threats and their motivational ideology.<br />
<br />
Denying the threat of Islamic radicalism has consequences. Resulting policies hamper America’s ability to defeat those that wish us harm. Whether the Benghazi attacks, the Fort Hood massacre or other Islamic terrorist attacks, most Americans realize that purging the language does not eradicate threats.<br />
<br />
This awareness does not apply to the Administration, however, where the folly continues.<br />
<br />
<i>This article was commissioned by <a href="http://www.legal-project.org/">The Legal Project</a>, an activity of the Middle East Forum.</i><br />
<br />
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the Washington Times. She is a contributing author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” (Palgrave MacMillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at <a href="http://www.vigilancenow.org">www.vigilancenow.org</a> </i>
</span>
dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-34167040186199236362013-05-26T18:22:00.000-05:002013-05-26T19:07:24.810-05:00U.S. Praises Sharia CensorshipBy Deborah Weiss<br />
FrontPage Magazine<br />
May 24, 2013<br />
<br />
<br />
The United States is silent as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) passes its most recent UN Resolution that unravels global consensus to support freedom of speech.<br />
<br />
From 1999-2010, the OIC succeeded in passing its <a href="http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf">defamations of religions</a> resolutions, which ostensibly would protect Islam from all criticism, including true statements of fact. Though the name of the resolutions indicated that it would pertain to all religions equally, in the OIC’s interpretation, it applied to Islam only.
<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">
Realizing the clash that this concept holds with that of free expression, the US State Department urged the OIC to produce an alternative resolution which would address the OIC’s concerns about Islamophobia and still protect free speech.<br />
<br />
Accordingly, in March 2011, the OIC introduced the now infamous <a href="http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4db960f92.pdf">Resolution 16/18</a> to combat intolerance based on religion or belief, purportedly proposed as a replacement for the defamation of religions resolution. It garnered wide-spread support and Western states touted it as a victory for free speech. They believed that its focus marked a landmark shift from suppression of speech critical of religions to combating discrimination and violence against individuals based on their religious beliefs.<br />
<br />
Over time it became clear that the OIC retained its long term goal to protect Islam from defamation and indeed to criminalize all speech that shed a negative light on Islam or Muslims. Resolution 16/18 turned out to be a tactical move by the OIC to bring the West one step closer toward realizing its goal of achieving global blasphemy laws, by using language more palatable to the West, and open to interpretation.<br />
<br />
Against this backdrop the US held the first conference to implement Resolution 16/18, the process now known as the <a href="http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/rm/2011/178640.htm">Istanbul Process</a>.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, America’s concern for the protection of free speech seems to have gotten lost as its focus moved closer to the OIC’s positions, and an emphasis was placed on protecting Muslims in the West from Islamophobia.<br />
<br />
Some circles including free speech advocates, national security experts, and those concerned about the Persecuted Church, have beaten the drum against Resolution 16/18 and the continuation of the Istanbul Process. Their efforts have been to no avail as the Istanbul Process continues.<br />
<br />
However, while awareness of the perils of Resolution 16/18 is on the increase, news on Resolution <a href="http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/LTD/G13/122/68/PDF/G1312268.pdf?OpenElement">A/HRC/22/L.40</a> has gone virtually unreported. It retains the same title as Resolution 16/18, but has glaringly dangerous amendments.<br />
<br />
To focus on just one, it asserts that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group. This is obviously problematic. The lumping together of these categories implies a false equation of immutable characteristics such as nationality and ethnicity with those that are subject to choice such as religion or belief.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Religions and belief systems come in all stripes. To preclude the possibility that any of them might be ideologically associated with terrorism leads to a position based on an unexplored assumption rather than a conclusion based on fact. Indeed, the assertion condemns the mere exploration of the facts a priori, a notion which is not only illogical but dangerous.<br />
<br />
After 9/11 and the multitude of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam, one ought to be able to raise legitimate questions about Jihadi ideology without being labeled a bigot. Government has an obligation to determine the motivational ideology of terrorism even if even if it turns out to be an interpretation of a religion.<br />
<br />
The government should not get into the business of ascertaining what is or is not proper theological interpretations of any religion. But a distinction has to be made between those who are truly practicing a religion as the word is understood in the West, versus those who are implementing a subversive political ideology cloaked in the language of religion.<br />
<br />
Anyone who has conducted a good faith investigation knows that there is such a phenomenon as Islamic terrorism. Only those in denial can claim otherwise. Truth should never constitute prohibited speech, no matter how ugly reality might be.<br />
<br />
The condemnation of honest discussion on this important matter, along with other disturbing speech restrictive clauses in Resolution L.40, demonstrates the unraveling of the consensus by nation states to promote freedom of expression. Those who follow the OIC closely know that its allegiance to this concept was folly from the onset. One need only take a cursory glance at the OIC countries to determine the disingenuousness of this portention, as many OIC countries fine, jail and even execute the exercise of speech deemed <a href="http://www.rationalistinternational.net/Shaikh/blasphemy_laws_in_pakistan.htm">blasphemous</a> to Islam. For those less informed, nothing more than the language embodied in Resolution L.40 is needed to realize that the OIC’s commitment to free speech is a sham.<br />
<br />
Subsequent to passage of Resolution L.40, the EU representative to the UN <a href="http://webtv.un.org/watch/ahrc22l-40-vote-item9-50th-meeting-22nd-regular-session-human-rights-council/2245193180001?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">expressed unabashed concern</a> over the erosion of international consensus to support free speech. He insisted that the EU will continue to uphold the ideas pertaining to the protection of minorities, but will oppose any efforts to undermine the right to free expression, including discussion of Islamic terrorism.<br />
<br />
The US representative <a href="http://webtv.un.org/watch/ahrc22l-40-vote-item9-50th-meeting-22nd-regular-session-human-rights-council/2245193180001?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">stated no such concern</a>. She failed to make a principled statement on America’s position regarding freedom of speech. Instead, she lavished praise on the OIC for maintaining a consensus on Resolution 16/18 for three consecutive years.<br />
<br />
The Obama Administration has erroneously characterized the <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/dramatic-video-shows-fort-hood-massacre-aftermath-article-1.1262031">Fort Hood attack</a> as mere workplace violence; has <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/sep/24/picket-muslim-advocacy-groups-influence-heavily-us/">cleansed from its national security</a> and counterterrorism lexicon any reference to Islamic terrorism, has <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/state-department-hasnt-ruled-out-role-anti-islam-video-in-libya-strike-sources/">blamed the Benghazi attacks</a> on the an anti-Islam video and has taken a lead role in the Istanbul Process, promising to use "<a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/168636.htm">peer pressure and shaming</a>" against American citizens who speak out on these issues in a way that the Administration finds disagreeable.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it should have come as no surprise when after the Boston bombings, during a time of trial, tribulation and grief, the President’s address emphasized that people should prioritize America’s value of <a href="http://www.680news.com/2013/04/20/obamas-full-speech-following-bombing-suspect-arrest/">diversity</a>. No doubt that this diversity of ideas includes the motivational ideology of Islamic terrorism, even though acknowledgment of its existence is now verboten.<br />
<br />
<i>This article was commissioned by the <a href="http://www.legal-project.org/">Legal Project</a>, an activity of the <a href="http://www.meforum.org/">Middle East Forum</a>.</i>
<br />
<br />
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a freelance writer. She is a co-author of "Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at <a href="http://www.vigilancenow.org">www.vigilancenow.org</a></i>
</span>
dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-20550713591071211322013-03-06T22:16:00.000-05:002013-03-06T22:20:06.429-05:00OIC Ramps Up ‘Islamophobia’ CampaignBy Deborah Weiss<br />
FrontPage Magazine<br />
February 28, 2013<br />
<br />
<br />
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has long been on the forefront of the Islamist mission to establish the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West. Now, during its 12th Islamic Summit held in Cairo February 7-8, 2013, the OIC set forth new and creative ways to silence, and ultimately criminalize criticism of Islam.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">
The OIC is a 57-member state organization that claims to represent 1.5 billion Muslims around the globe. As the second largest international organization in the world, behind only the UN, and as the largest Islamic organization in the world, it is obviously quite powerful. Though it is arguably the largest voting block in the UN, most people have never heard of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the OIC’s primary aims for at least the last fourteen years has been the international criminalization of speech that is critical of any Islam-related topic, including Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.<br />
<br />
Since 1999, the OIC has set forth UN resolutions that would “combat defamation of religions.” These resolutions condemned criticism of religion, but in the OIC’s interpretation, it applied only to Islam. True statements of fact constituted no exception.<br />
<br />
Support for the resolutions declined once the United States and other Western countries caught wind of the true meaning of “defamation of religions” and its inevitable chilling effect on freedom of expression.<br />
<br />
In 2011, at the State Department’s request, the OIC drafted an alternative resolution that was intended to retain freedom of expression and still address the OIC’s concerns about alleged Islamophobia. The result was Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief.<br />
<br />
The US State Department and numerous Christian organizations were elated, believing that the OIC had abandoned its mission to protect Islam from so-called “defamation,” and instead replaced it with the goal of protecting persecuted religious minorities from discrimination and violence. In other words, many assumed a paradigm shift away from providing legal protections to a religion and toward legal protections for people.<br />
<br />
But the OIC had some very creative interpretations of the language embodied in the new resolution. By its manipulation of words such as intolerance and incitement, giving new meanings to what many thought was plain English, the OIC made it clear that it had not dropped its ultimate goal of protecting Islam from “defamation.”<br />
<br />
Almost immediately upon its passage and the passage of a similar resolution in the General Assembly, the OIC set out on the unconventional task of “implementing” Resolution 16/18, contrary to the norm of leaving UN resolutions in the realm of the theoretical.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department acted as a willing accomplice in this effort, holding the second “Istanbul Conference” in December of 2011. But, in its implementation phase, rather than moving toward the preservation of free expression, the OIC successfully moved the process in the opposite direction: toward speech restrictive policies.<br />
<br />
<br />
Though the U.S., thus far, has not pushed for the enactment of “hate speech” laws, it has “advocated for other measures to achieve the same result.” Indeed, at this Administration’s behest, all national security training materials and policies “de-link” any interpretation of Islam from Islamic terrorism. Many U.S. government agencies have now made it verboten to mention Islamic terrorism or assert anything negative about Islam.<br />
<br />
The OIC’s task is easier in the EU countries, most of which already have some sort of hate speech restrictions. They vary from country to country. Some are cast as laws against the “denigration of religions”; some are “hate speech” laws; some are “public order” laws and some are “incitement to religious hatred” laws. Additionally, the penalties can range from civil fines to jail time depending on the country. The U.S. is the last hold out on retaining true freedom when it comes to matters of speech.<br />
<br />
This past February, the OIC held an Islamic Summit, a high-level meeting held every three years. It is the OIC’s largest meeting. Heads of State and high ranking officials from member states attend. The purpose of the meeting is to provide guidance pertinent to the realization of the objectives provided for in the OIC Charter and to consider other issues of importance to member states and the Islamic Ummah. This year’s theme for the agenda was “The Muslim World: New Challenges and Expanding Opportunities.”<br />
<br />
Though the summit focused largely on Syria, Mali, and the “Palestinian issue,” the OIC also made it clear that it would ramp up its efforts to defeat “Islamophobia.”<br />
<br />
The OIC is fastidiously working on the creation of legal instruments to address and combat “Islamophobia.” Renewing its commitment to mobilize the West to comply with Islamic blasphemy laws, the OIC vowed to push for nation states to enact laws that will criminalize the “denigration of religions” during in its next Istanbul conference, anticipated to take place this June.<br />
<br />
Further, it is requesting that the UN start an international mechanism that could serve as an “early warning system” against instances of discrimination and intolerance on religious grounds. Specifically, the OIC is proposing the creation of an observatory at the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, presumably analogous to the Observatory on Islamophobia that the OIC already maintains. The difference would be that the new observatory would be overseen by an internationally sanctioned entity (the UN) and would expand to all religions.<br />
<br />
It is fair to say that since Islamist organizations have coordinated campaigns across the world that encourage and solicit reports of either real, feigned, staged or imagined incidents of “Islamophobia,” the new “empirical data” that such an observatory would collect, would still be drastically skewed. No other religion has a worldwide campaign instructing its members to report unpleasant truths as “bigotry” or to complain about slights as minor as “hostile looks.”<br />
<br />
Additionally, the OIC is continuing to use the language embodied in pre-existing legal instruments in order to make it harder for Western countries to object. For example, Resolution 16/18 mirrors some of the language in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). ICCPR, Article 20 states “the advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” The U.S. rightly signed a reservation to this clause, effectively opting out, insisting that Americans retain the right to exercise their First Amendment freedom of speech.<br />
<br />
Further, though Article 20 makes such speech illegal, it leaves the definition of these terms open to interpretation and does not specify that the illegality must be criminal in nature. Despite this, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, spokesman for the OIC Secretary General, insists that pursuant to Article 20 the “denigration of symbols or persons sacred to any religion is a criminal offense.”<br />
<br />
Such claims are indicative of the legal and linguistic gymnastics that the OIC will use to achieve its goal to “combat defamation of Islam” and to export Islamic blasphemy laws, labeling them as something aesthetically easier to swallow.<br />
<br />
At the Summit, OIC members also unanimously elected Iyad Madani to the post of OIC Secretary General. His term is to commence in 2014 when current Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu’s term expires. This is the first time that the OIC will be headed by a Saudi.<br />
<br />
Though the current OIC regime is comprised of sticklers for Islamic blasphemy laws and staunch advocates for the obliteration of Israel, it is likely that the OIC will become even more extreme under Madani. Compared to the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia, Ihsanoglu and gang can be considered reformers pushing “Islam lite.” The election of a former Saudi Minister to head the largest Islamic organization in the world and lead the UN’s most powerful voting bloc is a bad omen of what’s to come. Indeed, it would come as no surprise if under its new leadership, the OIC’s old leadership would be labeled “Islamophobic.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a freelance writer. She is a co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at <a href=" www.vigilancenow.org”>www.vigilancenow.org</a> </i>
</span>
dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-91611440863952123832013-02-10T12:36:00.002-05:002013-02-10T12:36:55.688-05:00U.S. Pastor Faces Trial in Iran for Christian FaithU.S. pastor faces trial in Iran for Christian faith<br />
State Department looks the other way<br />
<br />
By Deborah Weiss<br />
Washington Times<br />
January 21, 2013<br />
<br />
<br />
As this is being written, Saeed Abedini, an American citizen and evangelical pastor, sits in an Iranian jail awaiting his trial. The expected ruling is death, for charges which are presumed to be related to his Christian faith. The State Department, which works closely with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to stamp out “intolerance” and “Islamophobia” against Muslims in America, has been virtually silent about Mr. Abedini’s predicament in Iran, one of the member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">
Thirty-two-year-old Saeed Abedini was raised in Iran as a Muslim. At age 20 he converted to Christianity and subsequently became an evangelical pastor. He married a U.S. citizen, and is now a U.S. citizen himself. He and his wife have two children, ages 4 and 6.<br />
<br />
Mr. Abedini still has family that remains in Iran, and for years he has been travelling to visit them. Initially, he also worked to set up an underground church, an act which is illegal in Iran.<br />
<br />
In 2009, he was caught and arrested. He was let out on bail conditioned upon his agreement to stop running the underground church and to refrain from proselytizing his Christian faith. In return, the Iranian government agreed not to put him in prison. Both parties kept their agreement for years. Mr. Abedini visited Iran eight times since his 2009 arrest. During his visits, he saw his family members and initiated plans to start an orphanage.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 2012, the Iranian government went back on its promise. During one of Mr. Abedini’s visits to Iran, a Revolutionary Guard interrogated him, and he was placed under house arrest. Disregarding Mr. Abedini’s U.S. citizenship, the Iranian government forced him to remain at his parents’ house.<br />
<br />
Then, in September 2012, Mr. Abedini was sent to Evin prison in Tehran, notorious for being especially brutal and abusive. He was never informed of the charges. Moreover, the government confiscated his bank account, which contained approximately $105,000 that had been donated to him to help start the orphanage.<br />
<br />
In a letter sent to his family, Mr. Abedini stated that he had endured beatings during interrogations that occurred regularly, and that the Iranian guards have given him death threats, saying that he “will hang” for his “faith in Jesus.”<br />
<br />
Throughout all of this, the State Department remained silent, despite the fact that it is mandated to protect U.S. citizens who travel abroad.<br />
<br />
Finally last week, for the first time, Mr. Abedini’s lawyer was permitted to see his file. It was only then, with less than one week’s notice, that he discovered the date of Mr. Abedini’s trial. His lawyer reports that the charges are
indecipherable, except for one dating back to the year 2000, the same year that Mr. Abedini converted to Christianity and became an apostate.<br />
<br />
The charge issued is for “actions [taken] against the national security of Iran.” This is typical of the type of charge hurled against religious minorities that are to be persecuted. It is clear that the charges against Mr. Abedini
pertain to his Christian conversion and prior evangelizing.<br />
<br />
The trial date is set for Jan. 21, 2013. Mr. Abedini’s case is assigned to Judge Pir-Abassi, who heads the 26th Branch of the Revolutionary Court. The judge is nicknamed the “hanging judge,” and he has a reputation for doling out
especially harsh sentences. He has been known to issue death sentences to mere protesters and political dissidents. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has cited Pir-Abassi as one of three judges
“responsible for particularly severe violations of religious freedom.”<br />
<br />
The judge is so extreme that most attorneys refuse to handle cases that are calendared for his courtroom. In 2011, the European Union named Judge Pir-Abassi as an individual subject to sanctions for his human rights abuses. It has issued a ban disallowing him to enter the European Union.<br />
<br />
In Iran, as in all Muslim countries, conversion out of the Islamic faith (apostasy) constitutes a capital offense. According to Faraz Sanei of Human Rights Watch, the Iranian regime believes that evangelicals are trying to convert Muslims to Christianity and considers them a particular threat. He reported that Iran has increased its targeting of Christian converts starting in 2005 when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president. The targeting escalated even further after the 2009 protests.<br />
<br />
Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt and Idaho Sen. Jim Risch have issued a letter along with numerous other congressional signatories, calling for Pastor Saeed’s release. There are also some online petitions circulating toward that same goal.<br />
<br />
Finally last week, in a feeble, almost meaningless statement, Ms. Victoria Nuland of the State Department proclaimed that the Department has a “serious concern” about Mr. Abedini’s detainment. After learning that he has been denied access to his lawyer since his arrest, she asked Iranian officials to “respect Iran’s own laws and provide Mr. Abedini with access to a lawyer.”<br />
<br />
The Obama administration bends over backwards to ensure that that it doesn’t use any language that might offend American Muslims, even if accurate. Yet it has turned a blind eye to the real persecution of religious minorities implemented by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation countries, such as the abuse of Mr. Abedini, despite his being an American citizen.<br />
<br />
Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, is John Kerry’s confirmation hearing for the position of secretary of state. If Mr. Abedini is lucky enough not to be executed in the interim, Thursday’s hearing would provide the perfect opportunity for senators to place pressure on Mr. Kerry to demand Mr. Abedini’s unconditional release.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a freelance writer. She is a co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at <a href="www.vigilancenow.org">www.vigilancenow.org</a></i>
</span>dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-67152107985032243672013-02-10T12:31:00.002-05:002013-02-10T12:31:59.837-05:00Islamist Org Working to Prohibit Criticism of IslamPosted by Deboarh Weiss: An article written by Ryan Mauro of RadicalIslam.org<br />
<br />
Expert: Islamist Org Working to Prohibit Criticism of Islam<br />
January 15, 2013<br />
<br />
<br />
Deborah Weiss, Esq. is an expert on the defamation of religions U.N. resolutions set forth by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. She writes for several online news sites and is co-author of the book, Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West's Fatal Embrace." <br />
<br />
The following is RadicalIslam.org National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with Deborah Weiss.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Ryan Mauro: What is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and what is its end goal?</b></i><br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">
<i><b>Deborah Weiss:</b></i> The OIC is the largest Islamic organization in the world, claiming to represent 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide. It’s comprised of 56 UN Member States plus the Palestinian Authority. They tend to vote together as a block in the UN and are arguably the most powerful voting block in the UN as a whole. They are certainly the most powerful voting bloc in the UN’s Human Rights Council.<br />
<br />
Though the OIC holds itself out as a “moderate” organization, it is clear from its own documents and its concepts that it is anything but moderate. Its long term goal is the worldwide implementation of Sharia law and the supremacy of an Islamic State.<br />
<br />
In its immediate activities, it is working to solidify the relationships among Muslim majority countries, to unify the Muslim voice, to support the so-called “Palestinian struggle” and to restrict all speech that is critical of anything related to Muslims or Islam including Islamic terrorism and Islamic persecution of religious minorities.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Mauro: Tell us about the OIC’s concept of “Combating Defamation of Religions” and its impact.</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Deborah Weiss:</b></i> “Combating Defamation of Religions” is a concept which gives an idea or religion, in this case Islam, protection from criticism, as opposed to what we have in the American legal system which only gives defamation protections to people. <br />
<br />
Additionally, the OIC’s definition of defamation includes anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims, even if it’s true and even if it’s opinion. In fact, it goes even further and condemns any free expression that would violate Islamic blasphemy laws even when, and perhaps especially when, expressed by non-Muslims. So it’s the OIC’s attempt to pressure non-Muslims to comply with Islamic blasphemy codes. Its target is the West and failure to comply with its demands is deemed “Islamophobic” even when no actual bigotry or prejudice is present.<br />
<br />
The impact of putting the concept of combating defamation of religions into effect has numerous consequences and implications.<br />
<br />
First, though it’s called “combating defamation of religions,” the OIC interprets and applies it to Islam only without any reciprocity for other religions. In fact, the concept of protecting Islam from “defamation” is used in many OIC countries to persecute religious minorities. The concept gives credence to Islamic blasphemy laws, which not only operate to suppress freedom of religion, but also violate human rights. For example, in Pakistan, Ahmadiyya Muslims believe in a prophet after Mohammad. They generally have a peaceful, egalitarian interpretation of Islam. Yet, they are considered heretics, and it is not only illegal for them to practice their faith, but it is criminal. Merely sending out a wedding invitation with an accurate quote from the Koran can land an Ahmadiyya Muslim in jail.<br />
<br />
Last, but not least, the implementation of the concept of combating defamation of religions has serious consequences for freedom of speech. This is the main concern from a Western, and specifically American perspective. The OIC as well as other Islamist organizations continue to work hard to stifle free speech. They are constantly placing pressure on Western governments and societies to refrain from saying or dong anything that violates Islamic blasphemy codes, even though they don’t word it this way.<br />
<br />
For example, the OIC encourages “hate-speech” laws in Europe that make it illegal to speak negatively about Islam. And in America, though the government has thus far declined to make such speech illegal, it is enacting policies that discourage such speech even when it’s critical in protecting US national security.<br />
<br />
Though not necessarily a direct result of the OIC’s UN resolutions, the implementation of the concept of combating defamation of religions has resulted in America’s recent cleansing of all national security training material for the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the National Counterterrorism Training Center. National security and intelligence professionals will still learn about terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, but will be deprived of teachings regarding the underlying[Islamist] ideology, disconnecting the motivation from the terrorist behavior. This ties one hand behind America’s back in fighting the War on Terror and is very dangerous.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Mauro: In March 2011, Secretary of State Clinton urged the OIC to “move beyond a decade-long debate over whether insults to religion should be banned or criminalized.” At the United Nations in September 2012, President Obama spoke against banning anti-Islam speech in the wake of the violence following the publicity surrounding the Innocence of Muslims YouTube video. What is your criticism of the U.S. government’s relationship to the OIC then?</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Weiss:</i></b> While President Obama might have spoken out against the legal ban of anti-Islam speech, his administration has worked to implement policy bans on such speech in a way that is both unprecedented and has grave national security implications. Whereas the National Security Strategy Memo, the guiding document for all American national security policies, previously proclaimed that radical Islam is the most dangerous ideological threat to American freedom in the 21st century, now all mention of it has been deleted.<br />
<br />
Government agencies discourage use of the words “jihad”, “Islamist”, “caliphate” and others. Any connection of Islamism or radical Islam to terrorism is verboten, even when the terrorists identify themselves as Islamic. Terrorism is merely a symptom of a deeper problem, and the refusal to address the underlying ideology that motivates it makes it more difficult to identify terrorism in its early stages and more difficult to defeat it.<br />
<br />
The OIC has a strong anti-freedom and anti-Israel agenda. Despite this, the Obama administration works with the OIC on numerous fronts, sometimes excluding Israel from participation.<br />
<br />
You might be interested to know, Ryan, that although Obama said we shouldn’t ban anti-Islam speech after the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video, he also asked Google, the parent company of YouTube to check its terms and conditions to determine if the video violated them, and to remove the video if it did. Fortunately, YouTube insisted on keeping the video posted.<br />
<br />
As to Hillary Clinton’s comment urging the OIC to move beyond the banning or criminalization of religious insults, all I can say is that she has no authority to effectuate this in the Muslim world. The OIC must have been laughing all the way home as they exited the December 2011 State Department Istanbul Conference where Secretary Clinton promised to use the “peer pressure and shaming” to silence the speech of Americans critical of anything Islam-related. The result of that conference brought the OIC one step closer to making their goal of criminalizing such speech a reality.<br />
<br />
<br />
<hr />
Ryan Mauro is RadicalIslam.org's National Security Analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and is frequently interviewed on Fox News.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a freelance writer. She is a co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at <a href="www.vigilancenow.org”>www.vigilancenow.org</a></i>
</span>dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-43131337581684467692013-01-11T19:21:00.001-05:002013-01-11T19:24:31.525-05:00CAIR’s Thought Police: At It AgainBy Deborah Weiss<br />
FrontPage Magazine<br />
January 11, 2013 <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb0K0suVfBMahtUzL8IxwNT0kVAH1ICXgEHBrMwEqQ20fMe3JE3F4HEagGeGHdzZ_xgCa1B2nfGSLzehILvzTLD3AhJQ82WeLKkdoILCLFCwC4YE_M2uY5-rP4wfi78D0in8pf/s1600/img_0183.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="213" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb0K0suVfBMahtUzL8IxwNT0kVAH1ICXgEHBrMwEqQ20fMe3JE3F4HEagGeGHdzZ_xgCa1B2nfGSLzehILvzTLD3AhJQ82WeLKkdoILCLFCwC4YE_M2uY5-rP4wfi78D0in8pf/s320/img_0183.jpg" /></a></div>
The thought police over at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are urging journalists to delete the word “Islamist” from their lexicon. Though CAIR claims that the word stems out of bigotry, CAIR’s real agenda is to protect Islam — and Islamists — from so-called “defamation.”<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">
The Associated Press Style Book is a guide for journalists which lays out rules for spelling, punctuation, and other guidelines. In its most recent edition, it added the word “Islamist,” which it defines as: “Islamist: supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.” Generally, the word “Islamist” is used to distinguish those who want to practice Islam as a spiritual faith, as opposed to those who interpret it and apply it as a political ideology. Those in the latter category desire the merging of mosque and state.<br />
<br />
On January 3, 2012, Ibrahim Hooper, national spokesperson for CAIR, published a column suggesting that in the New Year journalists should refrain from using the word “Islamist.”<br />
<br />
He complains that news reports unfairly focus on Islamists and notes that there are no news reports of “Christianist,” “Hinduist,” or “Judaist” political leaders. He further insists that the word “Islamist” is used almost always “pejoratively” by “Islamophobic groups and individuals” who link the word to terrorism, persecution of religious minorities, and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. Hooper whines that such “bigoted attacks” unfairly target Islam because they are not equally hurled at other faiths.<br />
<br />
Hooper goes on to claim that often the word “Islamist” is used by “Islam-bashers” who “disingenuously” claim to hate political Islam, though deep in their hearts they hate all Islam. As proof of his assertion, he accuses the alleged Islamophobes of failing to explain how a practicing Muslim can be politically active without attracting the label “Islamist.” After all, he writes, Muslims who wish to serve the “public good” and are merely “influenced” by their faith are slapped with the label “Islamist.” He professes that they just want to work for the “welfare of humanity and to be honest and just,” and if that same inspiration had eminated from the Bible instead of the Quran, they’d be deemed “good Samaritans.”<br />
<br />
However, Hooper allows one exception for when use of the word “Islamist” is acceptable, and that is when it is used by Islamists themselves.<br />
<br />
And therein lies the rub. It’s not really the word to which Hooper is objecting. It is the negative connotation which serves to “defame Islam.” In the eyes of CAIR and other Islamist organizations, anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims constitutes “defamation,” even if it’s true. This is a definition at odds with that in the American legal system which requires defamation to consist of a false statement of fact.<br />
<br />
<b>
So the real agenda of CAIR and its ilk is not to stop “bigotry” against Islam or Muslims, but to whitewash and obfuscate the truth and propagate a disinformation campaign about, yes, Islamist terrorism, Islamist persecution of religious minorities and Islamist human rights violations, all of which are done in furtherance of the ultimate goal of Islamist Supremacy.</b><br />
<br />
The word “Islamist” has negative connotations because the underlying idea that the word represents is negative in the minds of freedom loving people. Any cosmetic word change that carries the same meaning will eventually attach a negative connotation as well.<br />
<br />
The real issue here is not to let the Islamist thought police like CAIR remove the arsenal of words from the English language in service of undermining the War on Terror. Words have meaning and it is critical that we accurately use them to identify our enemies. By placating CAIR’s demands, we tie one hand behind our backs in defending freedom.<br />
<br />
<br />
Hooper conflates those whose values come from their religious faith and practice it within a constitutional framework, with those who use their faith to undermine constitutional freedoms. The reason news reports don’t contain allegations of Christianist, Hinduist and Judaist politicians is because there are no analogous political movements cloaked in the language of other faiths which seek to subvert the government and replace it with so-called “religious” institutions to be dominated by a monolith.<br />
<br />
Though it isn’t incumbent on reporters to explain to the likes of CAIR how a Muslim can be influenced by his faith without being labeled “Islamist,” for Hooper’s benefit, it is laid out here:<br />
<br />
1. Consider Islam a spiritual practice and not a political ideology to be imposed on others.<br />
<br />
2. Do not work toward the merging of mosque and state.<br />
<br />
3. Don’t demand that infidels comply with Islamic laws.<br />
<br />
4. Support equality under the law between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between men and women.<br />
<br />
5. Support freedom and refrain from advocating for anti-Constitutional measures such as restrictions on freedom of speech or special preferences in the workplace not afforded to those of other faiths.<br />
<br />
6. Stop supporting terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah and start supporting national security measures that will protect American citizens from terrorist attacks including terrorist attacks by Muslims.<br />
<br />
Muslims who can’t practice their version of Islam without violating these rules, accurately warrant the label “Islamist.”<br />
<br />
It makes sense that Hooper would object to the negative connotations inherent in the word “Islamist” since the organization he represents qualifies for that label. CAIR has close connections to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing trial in the history of the United States. Several of its former leaders sit in jail on terrorism-related convictions. And, its current leadership is well known to be empathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah, both State-designated terrorist organizations which seek the obliteration of the State of Israel.<br />
<br />
CAIR serves as an apologist for what is commonly called “creeping Sharia.” It opposes every free speech stance that might be deemed anti-Islamic even if it’s true. CAIR has also opposed every national security measure that would protect American citizens from Islamist terrorism.<br />
<br />
During the meetings from which CAIR sprung into existence, its founders proudly referred to themselves as Islamists. They fully believe in and support the ultimate vision of a worldwide Sharia State, where Islam reigns supreme over all other religions.<br />
<br />
But, whether the term is spoken by those who favor or abhor its meaning, an Islamist by any other name is still an Islamist. Journalists have a duty to report the truth even when, and perhaps especially when, the subjects of the information find it offensive.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a freelance writer. She is a co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at <a href="http://www.vigilancenow.org">www.vigilancenow.org</a></i>
</span>
dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-601996908245847012012-12-30T22:09:00.000-05:002012-12-30T22:09:21.241-05:00E-Tracking Saudi WomenBy Deborah Weiss<br />
FrontPage Magazine<br />
December 21, 2012<br />
<br />
<br />
Saudi men are now receiving automatic text messages from the government whenever their wives exit the country. It is part of a new program to electronically track women and ensure that they don’t leave the country without permission from their male “guardians”. The response from liberal feminists in the West? Silence.
<br />
<span class="fullpost">
Saudi Arabia constitutes one of the most oppressive regimes in modern day history. It is known for its notorious human rights violations such as public beheadings, its extreme persecution of religious minorities, and its policies of gender apartheid, all of which are based on its stringent interpretation of Islamic law, or Sharia.<br />
<br />
Already, the law requires that women be covered from head to toe in burkas when in public, that unrelated men and women cannot mingle, and that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s. In divorce, child custody goes automatically to the man. Inheritance laws favor sons over daughters. The list goes on and on. In short, women are treated as little more than chattel.<br />
<br />
But this isn’t enough for the Saudi government. So, recently, it implemented a practice whereby a male “guardian” is notified with a text message every time his wife or daughter leaves the country.<br />
<br />
It has always been the case in Saudi Arabia that women, all of whom are referred to as “dependents”, (along with children and foreign workers employed by individuals), must obtain written permission from a male relative or other male guardian before being able to work, attend university, obtain necessary medical procedures or leave the country.<br />
<br />
In 2010, the Ministry of the Interior implemented several initiatives to “update” the “efficiency” of the guardianship program, making it easier for guardians to authorize a dependent’s departure by, for example, allowing men to fill out permission forms online rather than producing the paperwork in person.<br />
<br />
Additionally, men had the choice of opting into a program whereby they would be notified whenever their “dependents” crossed the country’s borders.<br />
<br />
But in recent weeks, this notification program has been changed to automatically send text messages to men even when they did not sign up for the program. Thus, all male guardians in Saudi Arabia now receive a text message when their wives or daughters cross the border, even if he happens to be travelling alongside her.<br />
<br />
The change in policy was prompted by an incident where a 28-year-old woman used falsified documents to escape Saudi Arabia. Reportedly, she had converted from Islam to Christianity, a capital offense under Sharia law. She fled to Sweden, presumably to evade punishment. Subsequently, the Saudi government made SMS notification official policy rather than elective.<br />
<br />
One husband, who had been notified of his wife’s border crossing as he accompanied her, was alarmed by the notification. He alerted al-Sharif, a women’s rights activist, of the new policy.<br />
<br />
Al-Sharif became famous, or infamous, depending on one’s viewpoint, when she uploaded a YouTube video of herself defying the government’s prohibition on women’s driving. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prohibits women from driving. Last year, numerous Saudi women, who defied this ban, including Al-Sharif, were arrested and jailed. Al-Sharif was subsequently released on bail, so long as she promised not to drive again or speak to the media.<br />
<br />
Upon learning about the government’s e-tracking of women, she sent out tweets with the news, which were met with outrage from both men and women in Saudi Arabia. Reply tweets made proclamations like, “[H]ello Taliban, here with some tips from the Saudi e-government” and “[W]hy don’t we just install a microchip into our women to track them around?”<br />
<br />
Instead of making the guardianship system hi-tech, Saudi Arabia should be phasing it out.<br />
<br />
It’s ironic that one of the richest, most technologically advanced countries in the world is using technology to ensure that its human rights, morality, and treatment of women does not progress past that of the 7th century. The more advanced technology gets, the more backward and controlling of women becomes Saudi Arabia.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, feminists in the West, especially in America, don’t realize how good they have it.<br />
<br />
There are constant cries of “sexism” or accusations of male patriarchy every time a man compliments a women’s legs (“objectifies” her), or an older boss innocuously puts his hand on an employee’s shoulder (“sexually harasses” her), or a man provides his wife with an opportunity to be a stay-at-home mother (“devalues” her).<br />
<br />
Some men are afraid to open doors for women or pay for them on dates out of fear of “insulting” today’s “emancipated” women. And supervisors may go overboard in censoring the workplace out of fear of being slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit.<br />
<br />
Yes, feminists in the West have made themselves clear: treat them like men or they don’t consider themselves equal.<br />
<br />
Yet, women in Saudi Arabia are legally infantilized by the guardianship system in Saudi Arabia and treated as less than second class citizens in most of the Islamic world. Real human rights for women just plain do not exist under Sharia law.<br />
<br />
It is true that the Sharia does not directly address text messages or driving. However, the humiliation, excessive control of women, their subjugation and general deprivation of freedom as manifested in policies such as airport e-monitoring, certainly derive from the gender inequality based in Islamic law.<br />
<br />
Yet, the technological advancement used to tighten control of women even further produces not a peep from the Gloria Steinem’s of the West. Though Saudi feminists are outraged, when it comes to true sexism based in Islamist ideology and culture, liberal feminists in the West are, as usual, silent. Mum’s the word.<br />
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a freelance writer. She is a co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).</i>
<br />
</span>dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-64944775140854552882012-11-28T22:35:00.000-05:002012-11-28T22:37:58.857-05:00After Benghazi, Muslims Attack Free SpeechBy Deborah Weiss<br />
Washington Times<br />
November 4, 2012<br />
<br />
<br />
It’s unclear if the Obama administration’s purpose in condemning the now-infamous “anti-Islam YouTube video” was to deflect from Obama’s failed Middle East policies, and those of Benghazi in particular, or if it was his intent to “protect Islam from negative stereotypes” as he promised to do in his Cairo speech. Either way, his constant denunciation of the 14-minute, amateurish, anti-Islam YouTube clip signals weakness to the Muslim world and may have given license to Muslims in the West to demand restrictions on freedom of speech.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">
It later came to light that the brutal murders of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were the result of a pre-planned terrorist attack by an al Qaeda affiliate. However, in the beginning the Obama administration insisted that the attack had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy and instead blamed the murders on a “spontaneous” uprising in response to the obscure video, which administration officials referred to as “reprehensible and disgusting.”<br />
<br />
Obama appointees refused to let the storyline drop. Jay Carney, White House Spokesman; Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State; and U.N. representative Susan Rice all repeated the mantra. Mr. Obama even addressed the clip in his speech at the United Nations, proclaiming that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”<br />
<br />
To make matters worse, in Pakistan, the U.S. government went so far as to purchase $70,000 of TV ads lambasting the film, in an unsuccessful attempt to quell anti-American riots.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, on Sunday, Oct. 14, 2012, thousands of angry Muslims marched outside Google headquarters in London. They were protesting the same YouTube trailer scapegoated by the administration. Titled “Innocence of Muslims,” the film portrays the Prophet Mohammad as a pedophile, philanderer and religious fraud. It was originally posted in English, but later was translated into Arabic and went viral on the Internet.<br />
<br />
As protestors in London ratcheted up their “Campaign for Global Civility,” police flanked the doors of Google headquarters and placed barricades around the building. Several streets in England’s capital were closed down for hours due to the demonstration.<br />
<br />
The march was organized by the Muslim Action Forum, a group that formed in direct response to the anti-Islam film and its notoriety. Hundreds of mosques from across Great Britain participated in the event, with some people traveling as far as Glasgow in order to attend.<br />
<br />
Police reported that an estimated 3,000 protestors showed up, but the Muslim Action Forum claims the number was approximately 10,000.<br />
<br />
The stated purpose of the campaign is to ban the video worldwide. Protestors carried signs that read, “[W]e love our Prophet more than our lives” and “[Google executives] support terrorism.”<br />
<br />
It’s hard to believe with signs like these, that civility is the goal. According to Sufi cleric Alam Ghulam Rabbini, though, civility means the restriction of free speech if it “hurt[s] the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims.” According to Sheik Faiz Al-Aqtab Siddiqui, terrorists are not necessarily those who kill people, but those “who kill human feelings as well.” Thus, blasphemy equals terrorism.<br />
<br />
At the demonstration, over a dozen Imams made speeches in Arabic, English and Urdu. The speeches were met with shouts of “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is great!”), the same cry echoed by Islamic terrorists around the globe before launching their attacks. The audience was urged to honor the Prophet by refusing to back down until their demands were met. There was no room for alternative viewpoints.<br />
<br />
In effect, the crowd demanded that western non-Muslims comply with Islamic blasphemy codes.<br />
<br />
Protests have already been held in much of the Muslim world, where blasphemy rules already exist. Now, Muslims in the West are holding mass protests to shut down any YouTube material that they deem to be “Islamophobic,” in direct contradiction to the principles of free speech.<br />
<br />
This was the third protest held this month. The Muslim Action Forum is planning to hold protests across the globe and is currently organizing a “Million Muslim March,” to be held in the upcoming weeks.<br />
<br />
Masoud Alam, organizer of the London march, is hoping to put together a coalition of Jews, Christians and others to join in the campaign. Hopefully, non-Muslims won’t be deluded into believing that such a campaign will protect their faiths from insult, assault or criticism, as the “civility” likely applies only to Islam.<br />
<br />
It appears that the more the Obama administration condemns the film, the more Muslims protest. The Islamic notion of “combating defamation of Islam” as it is defined in the Muslim world is a concept utterly at odds with the American value of free expression. In the American legal system, only people are afforded protection from defamation, and truth is a defense. People are free to express their opinions, however abhorrent they might be. But “defamation of Islam” provides Islam with protection from criticism, even if the criticism is true.<br />
<br />
Google executives are to be commended for standing strong. So far, they have refused to remove the video clip in countries where free speech is legal, even when governments have requested the video’s removal. As Eric Schmidt, Google Chairman explained, “the answer to bad speech is more speech.”<br />
<br />
Political Islam is the ultimate enemy of freedom. Yet, the more Muslims galvanize to demonstrate hostility toward America, Mr. Obama just keeps coming back for more self-blame.<br />
<br />
<br />
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a freelance writer. She is co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).</i>
</span>
dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-74577752656596231412012-11-02T22:30:00.000-05:002012-11-04T17:55:37.923-05:00The War Against Free Speech Rages OnBy Deborah Weiss<br />
FrontPage Magazine<br />
October 22, 2012<br />
<br />
<br />
The Obama administration conveniently scapegoated a short, anti-Islam video for the murderous attacks on the US consulate on September 11, 2012. Now that the State Department has confessed its knowledge that Benghazi was the result of a pre-planned terrorist attack, many in both the mainstream and conservative media are asserting that it’s obvious nobody would really have responded to a silly 14-minute YouTube clip with mass protests. Not so fast. In fact, the administration’s relentless condemnation of the video’s content, even after the Benghazi facts have been established, may have given license for many Muslims in the West to do the same.
<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">
On Sunday, October 14, 2012, thousands of Muslims stormed the London Headquarters of Google, the parent company of YouTube. They were protesting the notorious anti-Islam video clip, titled “Innocence of Muslims,” a 14-minute, amateurish, low-budget trailer that portrays Mohammad in a negative light. The video had been falsely blamed by administration officials for the murders of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US diplomats in Benghazi, Libya.<br />
<br />
Barricades were erected around the building, and numerous streets in England’s capital were blocked off near the Queen’s palace. Those in protest were demanding that YouTube pull down the video.<br />
<br />
The Muslim Action Forum organized the event and approximately 800 imams from mosques across the UK assisted. Muslims from Manchester, Blackburn, and Luton attended. Others came from as far away as Glasgow.<br />
<br />
The Birmingham Mosque told its attendees that it was important to attend the event in honor of the Prophet, and warned participants to refrain from violence in order to prove to the world that Islam is a religion of peace. The mosque provided buses to transport crowds to the event.<br />
<br />
Though police reported that only approximately 3000 people attended, the Muslim Action Forum insists that attendance was closer to 10,000. At a glance, the irate mob appeared to consist primarily of men, but in fact, a smaller gathering of women joined them, as is often the case, in the back of the crowd. They were fully covered from head to toe in hijabs and chadors.<br />
<br />
The name of the campaign was “The Campaign for Global Civility.” Demonstrators carried signs that demanded civility from others, even as they intimidated those with whom they disagreed. Others signs proclaimed “Islam is a religion of peace,” even as an implied threat of violence filled the air. And some even had the audacity to wave signs that read, “Prophet Muhammad is the founder of freedom of speech” despite the fact that the entire purpose of the protest was to shut people up. Additional signs read that “Google is a worldwide terrorist” and “[H]ow dare you insult the blessed Prophet.”<br />
<br />
Protest organizer, Masoud Alam, asserted that the goal of the demonstration was to have the anti-Islam YouTube clip banned worldwide. The video has been blocked by Google in a few countries where prohibited by law, such as Saudi Arabia, and a handful of governments in other countries removed the video when Google refused. However, it remains posted throughout the West and in numerous other regions. Alam made it clear that the protests would continue until demonstrators get their way. There would be a zero tolerance for dissent.<br />
<br />
Indeed, the protest in London was the third held this month in the here-to-fore Free World. The Muslim Action Forum plans to hold protests at Google offices around the globe, including a “Million Muslim March” anticipated to be held in the next few weeks.<br />
<br />
Masoud Alam proclaims that he’s merely seeking “civility” and Alam Ghulam Rabbini, a Sufi cleric, explains that Google should not have the right to “hurt the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims.” But the real goal of the protests is to stifle all criticism of Islam in a way that parallels Islamic blasphemy laws. In fact, Alam states that he believes “YouTube and its parent company, Google, continue to share Islamophobic material and continue to incite racial hatred” and admits that “[T]his insult of the Prophet will not be allowed.”<br />
<br />
Clearly, if the video is taken down, it will not end the demonstrations, but only serve to further embolden those who seek to stifle free speech in the name of Islam.<br />
<br />
And, in accordance with the Muslim Brotherhood mandate to sabotage the West from within, using their own hands (emphasis added), the Muslim Action Forum hopes to create a coalition of dhimmis, including Christians, Jews and conservatives to join their ranks for the cause of civility. Never mind that the bridge of civility flows in only one direction, with complete disregard for the daily diet of anti-Semitism fed through Arab media, and the persecution of Christians spread pervasively throughout Muslim lands.<br />
<br />
So far, Google has stood firm. First, it refused to remove the video clip in response to the administration’s “inquiry” to determine if the clip violated YouTube’s terms and conditions, and now it stands strong in its response to thousands of angry Muslims who want to protect Islam from so-called “defamation.”<br />
<br />
And, while Team Obama continues to denounce the content of this film, “shaming” those who espouse a different viewpoint, the President’s actions amount to yet another policy of appeasement. Fighting negative stereotypes of Islam wherever he finds them, as he promised to do in his speech at Cairo, the President is giving a green light to those who want to do the same by other means.<br />
<br />
The real job of the President of the United States it to stand on principle and fight for the rights enshrined in the Constitution…. including the right to freedom of speech. Google executives have it right. They have asserted that the company “has very clear views on this issue. We believe the answer to bad speech is more speech.”<br />
<br />
In the context of other wars, the President has stated that he wants to “lead from behind.” However, in the War against Free Speech, he’s ahead of the pack.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>
Please drop a note of support to Google executives to stand on principle as the pressure mounts in the coming weeks:</i><br />
<br />
<table style="width:400px">
<tr>
<td><i>Google UK, Ltd.</i></td>
<td><i>Larry Page, CEO</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><i>Belgrave House</i></td>
<td><i>Google Headquarters</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><i>76 Buckingham Palace Road</i></td>
<td><i>1600 Amphitheatre Parkway</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><i>London, UK , SW1W9TQ</i></td>
<td><i>Mountain View , CA 94043</i></td>
</tr>
</table>
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a freelance writer and co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).</i>
</span>dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-70899860318203092132012-11-02T14:45:00.000-05:002012-11-02T22:17:32.862-05:00Rescuing RimshaBy Deborah Weiss<br />
FrontPage Magazine<br />
October 15, 2012<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh48P95dVoZkEeHZNZxxw4fWnudXtflPRlbl1BkBvq-kOo4AHejAHFOjOdK2qZE4VypKFgtj9wuFoZMbhtzXj1pr2DJWg0yVwqCJK0Ei-2-TxR6sZTqozDSaF4x6c1I3xsj2r86/s1600/PAKISTAN_-_RimshaMasih_ok.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="228" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh48P95dVoZkEeHZNZxxw4fWnudXtflPRlbl1BkBvq-kOo4AHejAHFOjOdK2qZE4VypKFgtj9wuFoZMbhtzXj1pr2DJWg0yVwqCJK0Ei-2-TxR6sZTqozDSaF4x6c1I3xsj2r86/s320/PAKISTAN_-_RimshaMasih_ok.gif" /></a></div>
The penalties for committing the crime of blasphemy in Pakistan are cruel, if not unusual. But even if little Rimsha is acquitted of the charges, she still faces the possibility of death.<br />
<span class="fullpost">
<br />
Rimsha Masih is a 14-year-old Christian girl believed to have Down’s Syndrome. She resides in the town of Mehrabad, a poverty-stricken slum on the outskirts of Islamabad.<br />
<br />
This summer, one of Rimsha’s neighbors claimed he saw her burn the pages of a holy book that contained Koranic verses. Such conduct constitutes “blasphemy” in violation of Pakistan’s penal code. The rumor spread like wildfire and local clerics whipped up religious sentiment, riling up the masses.<br />
<br />
Subsequently, on August 16, 2012, Rimsha was playing in an area close to her home when she was attacked by a vicious mob of religious fanatics, intent on killing her. She and her mother were severely beaten.<br />
<br />
A call to the local police station prompted Rimsha’s arrest. She and her mother were carted off to jail, where Rimsha sat traumatized in a high security prison for three weeks, waiting for her bail hearing.<br />
<br />
During that time, the Ramna Police Department conducted an investigation of Rimsha’s case. It discovered that Imam Khalid Jadoon Chishti had framed Rimsha as part of a larger scheme to force Christians in the area to flee their homes permanently. Several witnesses stated that the Imam held extreme animosity toward “infidel Christians” and knew that blasphemy charges against Rimsha would force a mass exodus of local Christians from their homes.<br />
<br />
Indeed it did. Outraged Muslims sought to collectively punish Rimsha’s entire village, which consisted of approximately 800 Christians, by threatening their lives and property. Hundreds fled due to fear and intimidation.<br />
<br />
At Rimsha’s bail hearing, the police contended that there was no factual evidence to support the claim that Rimsha had committed blasphemy, but instead she had been framed by the Imam. Rimsha was a street sweeper, a job often performed by poor Christians for meager pay. It seems that she had swept up some pages from the Noorani Qaida — a primer used to teach children the Islamic Holy Scriptures — and then placed them in her plastic bag to throw out. At least three witnesses testified that Imam Chishti said he was unsure if this was sufficient to uphold a blasphemy charge, so he personally ripped out pages from the Koran, burned them himself and then planted them in Rimsha’s bag.<br />
<br />
Based on the information provided by the police report, in addition to witness testimony, the judge granted Rimsha bail on September 8, 2012. She and her mother were airlifted from the jailhouse to an undisclosed location where they were placed in hiding for their own protection. They will remain there until the next hearing date, which is scheduled for October 17, 2012. At that time, the court will consider the defense attorney’s petition to dismiss Rimsha’s case due to lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
Subsequently, the Imam was arrested for framing Rimsha. It is unprecedented that anyone in Pakistan has ever been held to account for making false blasphemy charges. Rimsha’s case has drawn international attention due to her age and mental incapacity. It is likely that the arrest was prompted by outrage abroad, pressuring the Pakistani government to let Rimsha go free. It remains to be seen whether the Imam will be charged with his crimes (witness tampering and possibly additional charges of blasphemy), or whether his arrest was a show, staged for the benefit of the international audience and the human rights watch dogs who have been monitoring Rimsha’s case.<br />
<br />
After the Imam’s arrest, three of the witnesses who had testified against the Imam recanted their statements. They claimed that they had been coerced by the police to accuse the Imam of framing Rimsha. Police and investigators insist this is false and that any claims to the contrary constitute blatant lies.<br />
<br />
Initially, Rimsha was hailed into Islamabad’s High Court to be tried as an adult. She was charged for blasphemy under Section 295(B) of the Pakistan Penal Code for defiling the Koran. A conviction in this court would require a mandatory sentence of life in prison. Other sections of the blasphemy law prohibit a range of behavior from insulting Islam, derogatory remarks about the Prophet, etc. The penalties range from fines to mandatory execution. After a dispute regarding Rimsha’s age, the court accepted a medical report declaring her chronological age to be 14 (albeit with a younger mental age due to her condition).<br />
<br />
Accordingly, on September 24, 2012 the court declared that Rimsha’s case will be transferred to juvenile court where her case will proceed if it’s not dismissed. This is good news for Rimsha, as juvenile courts are generally more lenient than adult courts.<br />
<br />
However, even if she is acquitted, Rimsha is not safe. Literally hundreds of religious clerics throughout Pakistan are demanding a guilty verdict and calling for Rimsha’s death. They have made it clear that if their demands aren’t met, they will take matters into their own hands.<br />
<br />
Though aid groups in Italy, Canada and the United States have offered refuge for Rimsha and her family, Rimsha wants to remain in her motherland. Unfortunately, the mere taint of the blasphemy allegations will no doubt outlive the actual court case, and her chances of returning home alive are slim. In other words, even if Rimsha escapes a judicial mandate of execution, in reality, she will still face the threat of death.<br />
<br />
Rimsha’s is only one story. But there are many more like hers that go unreported. According to Ali Dayan Hasan, Pakistan Director of Human Rights Watch, 1400 people in Pakistan have been charged with the crime of blasphemy since 1986; currently, there are 15 people sitting on Pakistan’s death row for blasphemy convictions and thus far, 52 people have been murdered by mobs while awaiting their day in court.<br />
<br />
The blasphemy laws in Pakistan have existed for scores of years. They originated in India in 1860 under British colonial rule where they were intended to quiet hate speech considered offensive to Muslim minorities. The law was imported to Pakistan as a way to keep the peace and reduce strife amongst different religions. Later, in 1986, under an Islamist government, the laws were amended to include the penalties of life imprisonment and mandatory execution.<br />
<br />
Though the initial intent of the law had a feel-good sense about it, as is always the case with speech restrictive laws, in practice it had an effect opposite of its stated purpose. The wording of the law is vague and subjective. It is used to carry out personal grievances and settle economic scores. It is disproportionately applied against those most vulnerable – religious minorities, women, children and the poor. And, scores of Pakistanis are implicated in false charges entirely.<br />
<br />
The human rights violations and extrajudicial death threats such as those faced by Rimsha, are the inevitable result in a country that for decades has fostered an environment which values “defamation” protections for Islam over basic human dignity.<br />
<br />
It is no coincidence that Pakistan, which originally sought to prioritize peace at the expense of free expression and individual liberty, wound up with neither. Poor Rimsha.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a freelance writer and co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).<br />
<br />
</i>
</span>dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-36828013374500328462012-11-01T20:22:00.000-05:002012-11-02T22:18:21.687-05:00Arrested for Blasphemy in America?By Deborah Weiss<br />
FrontPage Magazine<br />
October 5, 2012<br />
<br />
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, aka Sam Bacile, was recently arrested for violations of his probation terms from a 2010 conviction for bank fraud. But many in both the legal and political world believe that the real crime for which he was jailed was blaspheming Islam.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">
Nakoula is an Egyptian-born US citizen with a history of drug and financial crimes. In 2010 he was sentenced to 21 months in jail and 5 years probation for bank fraud. The terms of his probation were that he was not allowed to use any alias names or use the Internet without prior approval from his probation officers.<br />
<br />
Merely weeks after his release from jail in June 2011, Nakoula posted a film trailer on YouTube. It was a 14-minute video clip promoting the film “Innocence of Muslims.” The video was totally un-noteworthy and of unprofessional quality. Left in English, it might have gone unnoticed.<br />
<br />
Yet, a few months later, the film was translated into Arabic and went viral over the Internet. It inflamed Muslims worldwide, and sparked protests and riots for its content depicting the Muslim Prophet Mohammad as a child molester, womanizer, and religious fraud.<br />
<br />
At first, Nakoula acknowledged that he wrote the script for “Innocence of Muslims,” but denied his role in creating the film. After all, the credits listed a “Sam Bacile” as the producer.<br />
<br />
But upon investigation, federal authorities identified Nakoula as the culprit. Nakoula confessed to producing the film and admitted that “Sam Bacile” was merely an alias. Originally, “Sam Bacile” had called reporters claiming that he was an Israeli Jew who had raised 5 million dollars from wealthy Jewish donors to produce the film. However, in the end it became clear the mere $50,000 to $60,000 film budget was a gift from his wife’s family, who is based in Egypt, where the riots began.<br />
<br />
The riots spread to at least 20 countries worldwide and fanned the flames of pre-existing anti-American sentiment, causing numerous deaths.<br />
<br />
Ever bowing down to Islam, President Obama chose to blame the video clip for “spontaneous uprisings” in Libya, which resulted in the murder of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US diplomatic officials.<br />
<br />
The administration held this story line for days. However, it became evident that the attack on the US consulate which occurred on the symbolic date of September 11, was a pre-planned terrorist attack executed by Al-Qaeda or its affiliates.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, Obama can’t seem to let the film go, even referring to it in his address to the United Nations, castigating it as “disgusting.” And, while he gave lip service to the virtues of free speech, he simultaneously raised Islam up as untouchable, asserting that “the future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” It seems like a bizarre statement coming from a United States president, until one remembers Obama’s Cairo speech in which he claimed that it’s his job as president of the United States to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”<br />
<br />
To make matters worse, this President requested that Google (YouTube’s parent company) remove the video from YouTube. To its credit, Google refused, explaining that free speech is legal in America and that Nakoula had not violated YouTube’s terms and conditions.<br />
<br />
Subsequent to all the attention paid to Nakoula and his video, Nakoula received death threats from enraged Muslims who called for his arrest and execution. Pakistani Federal Railways Minister, Ghulan Ahmad Bilour, put a 100,000 dollar bounty on Nakoula’s head, offering this reward to anyone who would find and murder the notorious blasphemer. The Minister invited both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to join him on his “blessed mission.”<br />
<br />
Thereafter, Nakoula and his family were forced into hiding and Nakoula placed his California home up for sale.<br />
<br />
On September 27, a mere two days after Obama’s speech to the United Nations, Nakoula was arrested for violating his probation terms.<br />
<br />
Flanked by at least five law enforcement officials on all sides, Nakoula was pushed into a car and carted off to court.<br />
<br />
Assistant US Attorney, Robert Dugdale, charged Nakoula with 8 counts of violating the terms of his probation. The charges all related to using an alias name and lying to officials about his role in making the anti-Islam film. The US Attorney’s office refrained from charging Nakoula with unauthorized use of the Internet.<br />
<br />
Nakoula was escorted into court with handcuffs and shackled at the waist. His attorney denied the charges and pleaded for his client to be released on 10,000 dollars bond.<br />
<br />
The court, however, was unsympathetic. The judge ruled that Nakoula would be held in jail without bond, reasoning that Nakoula was both a flight risk and a danger to the community. The latter is a little perplexing for someone who has never committed a violent crime. Nevertheless, Nakoula now sits in jail awaiting the scheduling of his probation revocation hearing, where he faces the possibility of 24 additional months in prison.<br />
<br />
It is relatively easy to find technical violations of probation. In this case, it’s obvious that had so much attention not been shed on Nakoula’s video clip, any infractions of the terms of his probation would likely have gone unnoticed.<br />
<br />
Legal professionals and First Amendment advocates of all political stripes are questioning the legitimacy of the charges. Due to the highly political nature of the case, there is significant speculation that high level US officials may have weighed in on the decision to arrest Nakoula.<br />
<br />
It is common knowledge that authoritarian regimes around the globe arrest those who are politically inconvenient or at odds with those in power. In Muslim majority countries, even those considered secular, blaspheming the Muslim Prophet Mohammad is quite problematic. The consequences can range from community threats and out-casting to jail, flogging and even execution.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that in recent years, there has been momentum building in the West for the silencing of speech which is critical of Islam. Whether it takes the form of UN Resolutions to combat “defamation of religions” (i.e. Islam), hate speech legislation, or politically correct policy enactments, speech critical of Islam or its Messenger has become increasingly verboten in Europe and Canada.<br />
<br />
The question now is, in the last bastion of freedom known as this great United States of America, will man continue to be free to express his ideas, even if unpopular, or will the government join the rank and file by retaliating against those whose speech it dislikes, under the pretext of probation violation technicalities?<br />
<br />
<hr />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a freelance writer and co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).<br />
<br />
</i>
</span>dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-59666167236226032072012-08-26T11:25:00.001-05:002012-08-26T11:25:34.632-05:00This Ain't Star Trek<a href="http://www.hearusnowusa.com/commentary/442-no-prime-directive-here.html">This Ain't Star Trek</a><br />
<br />
<br />
EyesOnlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10747917547940394787noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-34779922494277009042012-06-27T17:15:00.001-05:002012-06-27T17:15:27.162-05:00Islamically correct counterterrorism<span class="fullpost">By Deborah Weiss<br />
<br />
The Department of Justice and the FBI are revising their counterterrorism training material to remove “inaccurate and biased information” at the direction of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller. The Department of Homeland Security, which uses the most funding for counterterrorism training, recently issued new guidelines on “countering violent extremism.” Why the sudden need for drastic change?<br />
<br />
On Nov. 15, 2011, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) National launched a coordinated campaign across the country, with its various chapters requesting records from local, state and federal agencies on their use of taxpayer dollars to fund “Islamophobic training.” The campaign involves 87 filings for records requests across 15 cities nationwide.<br />
<br />
CAIR-Michigan’s civil rights director claims CAIR wants these records to ensure that law enforcement is using trainers who provide “objective and unbiased information” to protect Americans from “violent extremists.” CAIR expressed particular concern that tax dollars are being “wasted” on “agenda-driven, inaccurate, or Islamophobic” training and materials.<br />
<br />
For years, CAIR has led an aggressive campaign against “Islamophobia.” In the past, its targets have included individuals and corporations whose words, actions or package designs smack of insults to Muslims, as seen through the eyes of CAIR.<br />
<br />
Now CAIR’s target is national security. CAIR’s professed goal is to wipe out bigotry, insensitivity and “unfair” bias. So what’s wrong with that?<br />
<br />
CAIR, which presents itself as the country’s leading American-Muslim civil rights organization, is, in fact, a radical Islamist organization that is extreme in its goals and tactics. It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror-funding trial in the history of the United States.<br />
<br />
Though it is expert in public relations, it cannot escape the fact that its roots stem from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Association of Palestine and that it has close ties to Hamas. Several of its former leadership members have been arrested and convicted on terrorism-related charges or other felonies, and numerous others are being monitored by the FBI. Despite its claims of representing “mainstream Muslim Americans,” the FBI finally has wised up and cut all ties with CAIR.<br />
<br />
One of CAIR’s main goals is to “protect Islam” from “defamation,” using, of course, the Islamic definition of defamation rather than that of American constitutional law.<br />
<br />
American law allows free speech, with certain limited exceptions. One cannot incite imminent violence, shout “fire” in a crowded theater unless there’s a fire, or spew forth defamatory comments about others.<br />
<br />
Defamation in American law consists of a false statement of fact made with negligent or reckless disregard for the truth, which results in a pecuniary harm or harm to one’s reputation.<br />
<br />
By contrast, defamation under Islamic law is not limited to people, but is applied to the religion of Islam as well. In other words, it gives protection normally afforded only to people to a religion - in this case, Islam. Furthermore, the criticism doesn’t have to be a false statement. It can be any true statement that is critical of Islam or any Islam-related topic. This includes, but is not limited to, the topics of gender apartheid, forced marriages of young girls, human rights violations under Shariah law, and Islamic terrorism.<br />
<br />
Under the threat doctrine, famously set forth in Sun Tzu’s “Art of War,” in order to win a war, it is imperative to know one’s enemy, be able to name him, and to know oneself. The absence of any of these elements drastically increases the odds that one will lose the war. Further, to understand the enemy, it is critical to understand his goals, ideology and tactics.<br />
<br />
Though America claims it is in a war on terror, this is a misnomer. Terrorism is a tactic; it fails to state who the enemy is. Moreover, it is but one tactic out of many designed to achieve the same goal.<br />
<br />
In total contravention to the constitutional understanding of free speech, CAIR has used numerous tactics to pressure others to comply with the Islamic notion of free speech, which excludes any expression critical of Islam, even if true.<br />
<br />
CAIR has employed a wide repertoire of methods to force such compliance, including, but not limited to letter-writing campaigns, negative publicity, protests, lawsuits and boycotts. Now, CAIR’s document requests and demands for “investigations” not only pressure conformance in wiping out alleged “Islamophobia,” but hinder national security procedures. The document reproduction, litigation preparation, replies to letter and phone campaigns, and constant barrage of pressure constitute the true waste of taxpayer resources.<br />
<br />
Whether out of political correctness or this administration’s love affair with political-Islamist organizations, a multitude of government agencies across the country on local, state and federal levels is cleansing themselves of any mention of Islamic terrorism.<br />
<br />
Expert trainers in counterterrorism who have worked for years with the CIA, FBI, National Counterterrorism Center and local police departments are suddenly being told to stay home. Counterterrorism training material is being rewritten, as are the underlying facts.<br />
<br />
Sometimes, the truth hurts. Although mention of Islamic terrorism should not serve to indict all Muslims, it is equally false to believe that Islamic terrorism is nonexistent.<br />
<br />
It is somewhat understandable that individuals and corporations have capitulated to CAIR in the face of severe financial or existential threats, but there is no excuse for the government to succumb. To pretend that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all playing an equal role in the global terrorist network and the movement to undermine Western freedom from within does not constitute “fairness.” Rather, it’s flat-out false. What’s fair is placing fault where it belongs. To do otherwise is not only foolhardy, it constitutes a national security threat.<br />
<br />
The most recent moves by this administration seemingly in capitulation to a terror-affiliated entity are unprecedented and must be stopped. Those who truly care about national security should keep these facts in mind when election time rolls around in November.<br />
<br />
<i>Deborah Weiss is a freelance writer and co-author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamist Terrorist Network” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).<br />
<br />
</i></span>dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-84547921590348097412011-12-01T16:57:00.008-05:002011-12-01T17:23:55.580-05:00Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist NetworkFrontPage’s Interview’s guest today is Deborah Weiss, an attorney, freelance writer and public speaker. A 9/11 survivor of WTC attacks in NYC, she formerly worked for the Committee on House Oversight in Congress and the Office of the Corporation Counsel under Giuliani. She is currently President of Vigilance, Inc., and is an expert in OIC UN resolutions. She has written a chapter in the new book, Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace. She can be scheduled for speaking engagements or interviews through info@vigilancenow.org<br /><br /><span class="fullpost">FP: Welcome Deborah. Glad you could join FPM today.<br /><br />Weiss: Thank you for inviting me.<br /><br />FP: Let’s begin with you telling us a about Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network.<br /><br />Weiss: Thanks, Jamie.<br /><br />As you know, Western petro-dollars have made Saudi Arabia a rich country. The Saudis use the money in part to export a radical Islamist ideology into the West. The ideology is antithetical to the Western values of freedom, equality and human rights.<br /><br />The book was put together and edited by Sarah Stern, President of Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET). It has chapters by various experts and well-known authors, including James Woolsey, Steve Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Rachel Ehrenfeld and others. Your readers are probably familiar with many of the authors.<br /><br />For decades now, the West and America in particular, has been pretending that Saudi Arabia is our ally. This book lifts the veil off that myth by demonstrating the various ways that Saudi ideology has infiltrated America and the West, posing a threat to our freedom and way of life. It includes chapters on Saudi penetration into American NGO’s, American so-called “mainstream Muslim” organizations, the American school curriculum, finances, and more. The point is to illustrate the negative impact our addiction to oil will ultimately have on our society. It’s really about the stealth jihad.<br /><br />FP: How did you got involved in the book?<br /><br />Weiss: I am a 9/11 survivor from NYC, and have been working on the issues of non-violent radical Islam for years, as you know, Jamie. Every year, there is an event on Capitol Hill, timed to coincide around the time of 9/11, that showcases speakers and experts on the topic of Saudi infiltration. I was one of the speakers the last two years. So when Sarah asked me if I’d be willing to contribute a chapter on the same subject, of course I said yes. <br /><br />FP: What is your chapter about?<br /><br />Weiss: My chapter is titled, “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Defamation of Religions, and Islamophobia.” The OIC is the largest Islamic organization in the world, comprised of 56 member states plus the Palestinian authority. Its members tend to vote together as a bloc in the UN, so they hold quite a lot of power and sway. Yet, most people have never heard of them.<br /><br />They are an Islamist organization, which seeks to make Islam a victorious political power and to deny freedom to anyone who doesn’t want to live under Sharia law, including Muslims who don’t want to live under Sharia law. One of its main goals is to eventually internationally criminalize free speech on any Islam-related topic, including Islamic theocracies, Muslims, Islamic terrorism, Islamic human rights violations, and Sharia law. I know it sounds crazy, but partly because the public is not paying attention to this issue, and partly because the OIC’s strategy is to achieve its goal in small increments, it is actually making significant inroads. The OIC has successfully targeted various UN bodies with resolutions on this issue, called “Defamation of Religions” and it has targeted several EU Parliaments as well. The language is presented in a watered down form, so instead of asking for speech to be criminalized, the OIC will ask for states “to take effective action” or “condemn” the speech or discourage the speech. It has also presented Muslims as the victims of so-called “Islamophobia” in order to win more support for their cause.<br /><br />FP: What exactly is the Defamation of Religions?<br /><br />Weiss: Well, in America we have the concept of defamation of individuals or groups. Generally, defamation in the U.S. has to be a false statement and with negligent or reckless disregard of the truth, depending on whether you’re defaming a public figure or a private citizen. And it has to be a statement that is likely to result in either a pecuniary harm or harm to that person’s reputation. In America, truth is a complete defense. And I might add that in our system, defamation only applies to statements of fact. The First Amendment gives us protection to express any opinion we desire, no matter how negative it might be.<br /><br />Defamation of Religions by contrast, gives protection to an idea, in this case a religion, as opposed to protecting a person or group. Also, it constitutes protection from criticism, even if the statement is true. And to boot, the way it is applied in countries that implement it, and the way the OIC interprets it, it is really only applied to Islam. In fact, the original title was called Defamation of Islam, but in order to get more support for it, the OIC changed the title. Still, Islam is the only religion mentioned in the text, and in practice it is only Islam that is afforded protection from criticism. Believe me, the OIC is totally fine with Defamation of Judaism and Defamation of Christianity. Additionally, the Muslim countries that have these types of laws usually impose a harsh criminal penalty for its violation, rather than a civil penalty. People who “defame Islam” are often jailed, flogged, sometimes even executed.<br /><br />FP: Implementing Defamation of Religions laws obviously harms people.<br /><br />Weiss: Yes, Jamie, it does. What’s ironic about it is that the OIC wants to make “Defamation of Religions” a human right. But in reality, it constitutes the very opposite of a human right. In countries that have this law, there are gross human rights violations. Not only are the penalties very harsh, but it also has the effect of oppressing those with minority religions. For example, if you are Christian and you say, “I believe Jesus is the Son of G-d”, that is not only blasphemy, but could be considered Defamation of Religions. Saying this could have dire consequences. This law even hurts Muslims who have a minority interpretation of Islam that differs from the official interpretation of the government. For example, in Pakistan it is illegal to be an Ahmadiyya Muslim. Ahamadiyyas are peaceful, loving, egalitarian-minded Muslims. But because they believe in a Prophet after Mohammad (named Ahmad), the Pakistani government considers them heretics and openly practicing their faith is a crime.<br /><br />FP: Defamation of Religions is clearly harmful to religious freedom and human rights. What are some other negative implications?<br /><br />Weiss: The ramifications also include the hampering of national security and terrorism prevention efforts. If you know anything about war, the threat doctrine dictates that the first rule of war is that you must know your enemy and be able to name it by name. Unfortunately, to the degree that the West censors discussion of Islam and Islamic terrorism, it hamstrings the ability of intelligence professionals to come up with strategies to defeat the problem.<br /><br />FP: Here in America, we are still allowed to discuss these things, right?<br /><br />Weiss: So far, America is the last bastion of freedom in terms of free speech. Unlike Europe, we do not have hate speech laws – yet. However, we have moved from self-censorship to having our government and other institutions issue restrictive guidelines on speech. For example, DHS, the State Department and the NCTC have all issued memos to their professional employees discouraging them from using words such as Islamic terrorism. The National Security Strategy Memo, which guides our whole US national security policy, also has had all references to Islamic terrorism deleted. There have been various other measures taken, especially in this administration, to cleanse all official and unofficial policy from discussion, mention, or even acknowledgement of Islamic terrorism.<br /><br />FP: Why would our government do this?<br /><br />Weiss: That’s a good question, Jamie. But first let me tell you why the OIC countries want this. The OIC countries want this because in their interpretation of Islam, it is considered blasphemy to say anything negative about Islam. They want to impose this rule on everyone else. Many of the Muslim majority countries have blasphemy laws in one form or another, even if it’s informal. The OIC has a big push to gradually move the West in this direction. Part of it is due to their ideological belief system. The other part of it is that they really have a political agenda. To the degree that they can obfuscate, confuse, or prevent us from knowing what they are doing, that gives them the upper hand in winning the war.<br /><br />We are not really in a War on Terror; terrorism is a tactic. We are in a war against – not all Islam – but certainly radical Islam, and nobody wants to acknowledge that. The OIC doesn’t want to acknowledge that because going back to the threat doctrine, if we don’t know our enemy, it gives them an edge. Our government doesn’t want to acknowledge it for other reasons. One is political correctness. Two is if one has a political ideology but cloaks it in the language of religion, nobody wants to sound like they are criticizing a religion. Plus we have freedom of religion in America. Third, I hate to say it, but in this administration, I also think Obama is politically sympathetic to the OIC. If you recall during his speech in CAIRO, he said that it was his job as President to combat negative stereotypes of Islam wherever he finds them. Notice he said Islam, not Muslims. Anyway, I don’t remember learning in law school that this was one of the President’s functions. Maybe I was absent that day, but it’s certainly not in the enumerated powers. There are other reasons we don’t discuss this as well.<br /><br />It poses a big problem because intelligence professionals are now being told to focus on terrorist behavior and disregard the underlying ideology that motivates it. If we are going to win the WOT, it is the ideology that needs to be addressed, not just the terrorism. Terrorism is just a symptom. Additionally, those who adhere to this radical ideology are not always terrorists. Many have a non-violent strategy to undermine our freedoms from within. As I said, it’s a stealth jihad and it’s not being adequately addressed.<br /><br />FP: Where is the West on the issue of stifling free speech on Islam-related topics?<br /><br />Weiss: Well, Europe has been much more Islamized than America. Additionally, many of the EU countries have hate speech laws of one sort or another. Canada has Human Rights Commissions that regularly fine people for defaming Islam even if they didn’t defame a person. If a Muslim or Muslim group files a complaint and it is found that they said something that is “likely to cause hatred” against that group, they will most likely be fined. That is true even if there is no intent to cause hatred, and no result of hatred. Not to mention that hatred is an emotion, so we’re not limiting this to the prevention of violence or legal discrimination.<br /><br />In other countries, one can also get fined for negative speech on Islam or Muslims. Also as you know, recently in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders was actually criminally prosecuted for expressing his views on Islam. He was acquitted, but the mere prosecution has a chilling effect on free speech. And that is in a country where there’s only about 5% Muslims. The whole thing is rather scary.<br /><br />FP: What is the status of the Defamation of Religions resolutions now?<br /><br />Weiss: It has been passed in numerous UN bodies year after year starting in 1999. This year, 2011, is the first time that the OIC did not introduce that resolution.<br /><br />FP: Why not?<br /><br />Weiss: It has gotten declining support in the last few years. So this year Secretary Hillary Clinton contacted the OIC and the EU to join together with the US and draft a resolution that would hopefully address the West’s concerns about free speech, while still addressing the OIC’s concerns about alleged Islamophobia. <br /><br />FP: Tell us about the new resolution.<br /><br />Weiss: The new resolution is titled, Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance based on Religion or Belief. It passed in March of this year and the State Department is touting it as a big success. The State Department is under the impression that the resolution will move from protecting ideas from defamation to protecting individuals. But the OIC has made it very clear in other documents and statements that it has not dropped its goal of achieving the concept of Defamation of Religions.<br /><br />FP: So the State Department is wrong about this resolution?<br /><br />Weiss: Well, the whole issue comes down to how the words in the resolution are interpreted and implemented. On its face it seems that the State Department is interpreting the resolution one way, while the OIC is interpreting it another. The new resolution certainly omits the word “defamation” but instead, it replaces it with European hate-speech type language. There is no question that the language embodied in the new resolution can still be manipulated to achieve a Defamation of Religions concept. And that is exactly how the OIC intends to interpret it.<br /><br />FP: But UN resolutions aren’t binding, so is there still cause for concern?<br /><br />Weiss: Unfortunately, there is Jamie. First, if the resolutions keep passing and EU parliament implement similar language, eventually it can be considered “customary international law” and the US would be pressured to adhere to it. Second, the State Department has called a series of meetings with the OIC in order to move this last resolution to implementation. The first meeting is in December.<br /><br />FP: What do you think will take place at the meeting?<br /><br />Weiss: The OIC will use this as an opportunity to pressure Western governments to regulate speech on Islam-related topics. We’ll have to see exactly how this plays out. Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration have already shown a willingness to “shame” people who talk about these topics in a critical manner. Merely having this meeting with the OIC gives the OIC legitimacy and is cause for concern. As I explain in my chapter, America’s values and the OIC’s values are not in sync. It is futile to try to work with the OIC to show “respect” because the OIC’s definition of respect is that we should just shut if we’re saying anything it doesn’t like, and instead submit to its religiously-based speech codes.<br /><br />Contrary to the popular belief that restricting our free speech on Islam will show “sensitivity” and win over the affection of Islamic countries, in reality, it will hamper our ability to protect our freedom and national security. It is a slippery slope and it is vital that we remain vigilant in order to keep America free. I hope people will buy the book. Becoming informed is the first step.<br /><br />FP: Deborah Weiss, thank you for joining us.<br /><br />For more, see www.vigilancenow.org<br />http://archive.frontpagemag.com/bioAuthor.aspx?AUTHID=3577<br />http://www.ascfusa.org/authors/view/80<br />as well as Human Events, American Thinker, Washington Times<br /><br /></span>dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-66532515375714839802011-09-13T18:54:00.000-05:002011-09-13T18:54:48.939-05:00NYC 9/11 Screening Tour Succeeds! | Christian Action Network<a href="http://www.christianaction.org/node/311">NYC 9/11 Screening Tour Succeeds! | Christian Action Network</a><br /><br />FIRST PARAGRAPH GOES HERE<span class="fullpost">REST OF THE ARTICLE GOES HERE</span>EyesOnlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10747917547940394787noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-24215493312947124932011-08-12T21:58:00.006-05:002011-08-12T22:11:11.313-05:00Gender Equality in Sharia Courts?By Deborah Weiss
<br />
<br />The treatment of women under Islamic Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women. Alarmed by the suffering of Muslim women at the hands of Sharia Courts in Britain, Baroness Cox recently introduced legislation into parliament which would ensure gender equality in Britain’s Sharia Courts.<span class="fullpost">
<br />
<br />Pursuant to the Arbitration Act of 1996, litigating parties are permitted to forgo the British court system and have their cases heard in an arbitral tribunal if both parties agree on the tribunal, are willing to relinquish their rights to a judge and jury, and voluntarily consent to the arbitration. Sharia Courts have operated informally in Britain for quite some time. However, in 2007 Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered a clause in the Arbitration Act which rightly made him realize Sharia Courts could be classified as arbitration tribunals. Subsequently, he began heading up the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal to oversee the Sharia Courts. Once classified as arbitration tribunals, the British government began enforcing Sharia judgments with the full force of law.
<br />
<br />According to a report by the Civitas think tank in England, as of two years ago there were approximately 85 Sharia Courts operating in Britain. The Arbitration Act of 1996 permits tribunals to rule on financial and property issues. However, the report asserted that many of the Sharia Courts exceeded permissible jurisdictional boundaries by advising on matters of marriage, divorce, child custody and domestic violence. By law, family and criminal matters are not arbitrable. This illegal expansion of jurisdiction has been dubbed “jurisdiction creep.”
<br />
<br />The arbitral rulings and advisory opinions issued by Sharia Courts mandate the disparate treatment of women. Under Sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, she is awarded half the inheritance of her male counterparts, custody laws grossly shortshrift women, and property laws provide unequal rights based on gender.
<br />
<br />In terms of mediation efforts, Sharia Courts often merely hand the parties pre-determined outcomes that comport with the laws of Sharia and request both parties to sign consent forms. Then, the forms are submitted to the Family Court on the false premise that the terms were truly negotiated by the parties involved.
<br />
<br />To make matters worse, many Muslim marriages take place solely under religious ceremonies and are not registered with the state as required by the Marriage Act of 1949. Thus, these “marriages” are not civilly recognized and the “wives” are not afforded any legal protections. Interestingly, the problem of non-registration appears only in the Muslim community. Jews and Christians always register their marriages civilly even when the wedding ceremony is religious in nature.
<br />
<br />Unfortunately, there are Muslim women who fled their homelands to escape the oppression of Sharia law, only to find they are facing a similar situation in the UK. Because many Muslim immigrants are illiterate, the women are unaware of their rights under British law. It is legal to consent to arbitration if the acquiescence is voluntary. However, often in Muslim communities women are threatened, intimidated or otherwise coerced into submitting to Sharia Courts. Thus, it is not truly voluntary.
<br />
<br />Baroness Cox finds the injustice to Muslim women and the discriminatory judgments being handed down by Sharia Courts to be disconcerting. In addition, many British judges have begun questioning whether Sharia rulings comply with the UK’s obligations to ensure gender equality under the Human Rights Act.
<br />
<br />Accordingly, Baroness Cox’s bill, titled “The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill,” if passed into law, makes it clear that sex discrimination laws apply to arbitration tribunals as well as civil courts. It would prohibit unequal treatment of testimony, uneven-handedness of property, inheritance distribution, and financial rulings. It would also make it a crime punishable by up to five years in jail to falsely assert jurisdiction over family and criminal matters. Finally, the bill mandates that in unregistered marriages, public authorities must inform the parties that they are required to register their marriages in order to secure legal rights.
<br />
<br />In other words, the bill requires Sharia Courts to acknowledge the priority of British law over Sharia law when the two conflict, and to preserve the British values of human rights and equality for women.
<br />
<br />The bill does not mention Islam or Sharia by name. However, both the Baroness’ comments, as well as the Explanatory Note attached to the bill, make it clear that the legislation was prompted by concerns of the inequality executed in Sharia Courts and the fact that Sharia Courts have regularly, gradually, and illegally expanded their jurisdiction.
<br />
<br />Various secular, Christian and Iranian-Kurdish women’s rights groups support the Baroness’ bill.
<br />
<br />It comes on the foot-heels of the Home Secretary’s admission that Britain’s anti-terrorism program failed to recognize the extent of radical Islamist ideology and its influence in Britain, and an acknowledgment of Britain’s continuing problems of lack of integration and assimilation by the Islamic community. It is therefore no surprise that some Muslims are complaining about this legislation.
<br />
<br />Turning a blind eye to the lack of consent, their ignorance of the law, the cries of suffering women, and the failure of Sharia Courts to inform Muslim women of their rights, Khurshid Drabu, constitutional adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain argued, “[B]ills of this kind don’t help anybody.” He accused lawmakers of failing to understand the “freedom” that Britain ensures whereby Muslim women should be permitted to submit to Sharia rulings.
<br />
<br />_____________________________________________________________________________________<em> Deborah Weiss is an attorney, freelance writer and public speaker. She works for vigilancenow.org and is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the American Security Council Foundation.</em> </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-75889200484852851732011-06-24T14:12:00.004-05:002011-06-24T14:18:59.618-05:00The Importance of Being (Peter) KingBy Deborah Weiss<br />FrontPage Magazine<br />June 24, 2011<br /><br />Poor Peter. The burdens that come with exposing the problem of radical Islam in America are falling squarely on Congressman Peter King’s shoulders. This is because he, almost single-handedly, has taken up the mantle of leadership on this issue in the form of congressional hearings. This is a daunting task no doubt, and he is to be commended for both his efforts and his courage.<span class="fullpost">It was therefore a grave disappointment when last week’s hearing, titled “The threat of Muslim-American radicalization in U.S. Prisons” fell flat. Indeed, it left the observer wondering what the goal of the hearing was. If it was to educate the public, it utterly failed. If it was to raise awareness, it did no such thing. To the contrary, an objective observer uneducated on this topic would likely walk away believing that the trend of Islamist radicalization in U.S prisons is minute, perhaps irrelevant, and certainly not a serious threat. It might reasonably have been concluded that prison gang violence, discrimination against poor black men, a lack of rehabilitation and social injustice should have been the subject of the hearing. After all, why is Poor Peter picking on radical Muslims and not radical Jews or radical Christians? It just doesn’t seem fair. And without further explanation, it doesn’t even seem constitutional. <br /><br />Confining their answers to the questions being asked by the committee’s congressmen, the witnesses were able to eke out bits and pieces of useful information. Yes, some people become radical Muslims in prison; yes, some Muslims in prison have formed or joined terrorist cells, and yes there are some inmates who want to supplant the U.S. government with Sharia law.<br /><br />But without context and a clear purpose of what the hearing was intended to achieve, the viewer was left at the mercy of information elicited by congressmen who might not know much more about this subject than they do. It is conceivable that some congressmen might even have had a contrary political agenda.<br /><br />This is the inevitable result when committee staff selects witnesses who are apologists for Islamism or who are unable to explain the relevance of the issue at hand. The first witness, Patrick Dunleavy, former Inspector General of the New York State Department of Corrections and author of “Fertile Soil of Jihad” (a book about Islamic radicalization in prisons) did his best to explain the problem in the five minutes allotted. The other three witnesses gave testimony counter to the conclusion that Chairman King presumably wanted the audience to conclude. Sociology Professor Bert Useem from Purdue University (the Democrats’ witness) insisted that it is impossible for prisoners to be inculcated with extremist literature in jail because such literature is prohibited (ignoring other witness testimony that this literature abounds in jails anyway). Kevin Smith, former Assistant U.S. Attorney from California, told the audience about some specific cases of terrorist cells forming in prison, but they sounded like isolated incidents. And, Michael Downing from the L.A. Police Department praised Islam as “one of the most peaceful religions in the world but it has been hijacked.” He insisted that working with the Muslim community is the best defense to countering terrorism. Additionally, he asserted that the Islamic ummah would likely be “shocked” and not proud to learn about the extremist interpretations of Islam that inmates are learning in prison. Yet, he emphasized that California jails examine “suspicious activity” and made no mention of monitoring the underlying ideology.<br /><br />During the question and answer period, several congressmen used their allotted time to grandstand rather than extract information from the witnesses. Some of the performances were quite impressive. Congressman Hansen Clarke (D-Michigan) was practically in tears as he shouted that discrimination against poor black men constituted the real problem with jails and that the focus on Islamic radicalization is merely a “distraction”. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) seemed certain that criminal gangs are more of a threat to America than Islamists. Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D-CA) and others insisted that radical Christians and radical Asians and radical every-other-group are all equal threats. Further, Richardson professed that singling out radical Muslims constitutes discrimination “based on race or religion.”<br /><br />Undoubtedly, Peter King’s staff realized that criticism for holding hearings on radical Islam would be inevitable. They knew too, that there are people on both sides of this issue whose positions are fixed and cannot be swayed by congressional hearings. Their target audience should have been those in the middle who are uninformed but open-minded. Their goal should have been to educate the public and raise awareness, to present testimony that would rightly demonstrate why the Chairman’s concerns are founded. Ideally, the three witnesses selected by the Republicans would have provided facts within a framework that could have served as the basis for concurring with the Chairman’s conclusions.<br /><br />The selected witnesses should have incorporated the following information into their initial presentations:<br /><br />■What is the definition of radical? Is it just violence or the underlying ideology?<br />■Is there a difference between prisoners who might become “radical Christians” or “radical Jews” and those who become radical Muslims? Which is the largest national security threat and why?<br />■Is Islamic radicalism a religion as the west understands it or is it more of a political ideology? Does it make sense to single out the radicalization of Muslims as opposed to other religions?<br />■Can you be specific about how radical Islamist ideology is a threat to national security and freedom including freedom of religion?<br />■How is Islamist radicalism different from gangs and thugs? Can you place this in a national security context and tie it to the War on Terror?<br />■Is it possible that “credentialed Imams” are radicals as they are in the military program, established by now-jailed Alamoudi?<br />■Why did the 9/11 Commission single out Imams as problematic rather than all jail clergy?<br />■Though the number of radicalized Muslims in jail might be small, as were the 19 hijackers from 9/11, what is the risk of ignoring this problem?<br />■What is the process of radicalization and what can be done to prevent it?<br />■Is the radical Islamic ideology a problem when prisoners are released from jail?<br />■Can the problems that the EU is having with radical Muslims happen here in the U.S.?<br />Little of this was confronted in the original testimony. Of course it was appropriate for the Democrats to have a witness who does not believe that the radicalization of Muslims in prison is prevalent enough to pose a national security threat. After all, reasonable minds can differ. However, it was imperative for the Republican panel to include witnesses who would explain the dangers of radical Islam as a political ideology and to identify this underlying ideology as a threat to national security and American freedom. It was a mistake to allow Democrats to frame the issue as a prison problem rather than a national security threat. The Chairman pointed this out, but in order to have any impact, the witnesses needed to present facts and analysis that would lead the audience to the same conclusion. <br /><br />Congressman Peter King should be commended for raising issues critical to the national dialogue and for having the fortitude to withstand the onslaught of criticism that he bears.<br /><br />Let’s hope that in preparation for the next hearing in this series, Peter King’s staff does a better job in witness selection, obtaining subject matter expertise, and drawing out testimony that explains why Islamism is a problem in the U.S. Chairman King and the American public deserve no less.<br /><br /><em>Deborah Weiss, Esq. works for Vigilance and is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the American Security Council.</em><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-73825143164515890542011-06-17T12:56:00.003-05:002011-06-17T13:01:39.090-05:00Britain Admits Failure of Anti-terrorism ProgramBy Deborah Weiss<br />FrontPage Magazine<br />June 17, 2011<br /><br />After the 7/7 bombings on the London subway in 2005, the U.K. launched a 63 million pound program to combat terrorism. The program, named “PREVENT”, was recently reviewed. Subsequently, Britain’s Home Secretary, Theresa May, admitted that the program had failed. Here’s why: <span class="fullpost">The program’s strategy aimed to counter terrorist groups largely by funding so-called “moderate” Muslim organizations in an attempt to work jointly toward its goals. PREVENT also financed overseas operations that were allegedly designed to stem terrorist activity in the U.K. <br /><br />As it turned out, much of the program’s money went to support non-violent radical organizations that share the same hard-line Islamist ideology as Al-Qaeda and other terrorist entities. Further, the program’s emphasis on international projects merely wasted precious pounds and “diverted valuable resources” away from the prevention of home-grown terrorism, a growing concern in the U.K.<br /><br />Home Secretary May confessed that the PREVENT program clearly failed to recognize how terrorist groups make use of the extremist ideology promoted by non-violent radical organizations. Therefore, the program was unsuccessful in convincing some parts of the Muslim community that terrorism is unacceptable and wrong. Additionally, the program only targeted a small segment of the audience that is susceptible to terrorist propaganda.<br /><br />As a result of the review’s findings, there will be a significant shift in the program’s direction. PREVENT’s new strategy will tackle not only terrorism, but its underlying ideology. In so doing, it will focus on non-violent extremist organizations. It will also examine how schools, colleges, and mosques are addressing the problem of Islamic extremism. It will additionally evaluate the role of law enforcement as well as that of other government entities in combating the problem.<br /><br />To its credit, the U.K. government will withdraw financial support from more than twenty Muslim organizations to which it gave money in the last three years for the purpose of fighting extremism. No additional funds will be delivered to any Muslim organizations without properly vetting them first. Any Muslim organization found to oppose British values such as human rights and equality under the law, will be denied government money.<br /><br />PREVENT will now monitor the prison system looking for signs of radicalization, and target prisoners newly released from jail on terrorism charges. Additionally, the program will have a renewed focus on the internet, and is considering a “national blocking list” for violent websites. Computers in schools, libraries and colleges will be barred from access to these sites.<br /><br />The budget for the program’s new strategy will be 36 million pounds. The Home Secretary believes that the successful prevention of radicalism will also depend on integration of the Muslim community rather than segregation. She asserted that espousing fundamental British values and denouncing extremist ideology can also help. <br /><br />Although the government will continue to arrest suspects as necessary, the emphasis of the program will be on preventing radicalization in its early stages.<br /><br />The U.K. government has finally realized – perhaps too late – that it is the underlying radical ideology that must be tackled in order to get at the root cause of terrorism. When will the U.S. government learn this same lesson?<br />____________________________________________________________________________________<br /><em>Deborah Weiss is an attorney, writer and public speaker. She works for vigilancenow.org and is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the American Security Council Foundation.</em></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-3108639898992879562011-06-17T12:48:00.004-05:002011-06-17T12:56:42.262-05:00Israel: Standing Alone?By, Deborah Weiss<br />American Security Council<br />June 2, 2011<br /><br />Israel celebrated her sixty-third anniversary of independence on Saturday, May 14th, 2011. The following day, May 15th, constituted the holiday Palestinians refer to as “Nakba”, which means “the catastrophe” in Arabic. It is the day in which Palestinians mourn the creation of Israel. <span class="fullpost">Prior to Israel’s anniversary, 350,000 organizations and individuals signed onto a facebook page calling for a third intifada against Israel, at which time facebook finally took the page down. During the first two intifadas, Palestinians had thrown rockets across the borders into Israel, terrorizing Israeli citizens. Fatah, which had previously worked to prevent terrorism along the West Bank, announced that it if a third intifada were to occur, it could not do anything to stop it. As it turned out, the protests did not rise to the level of an intifada this year. However, Israel was still invaded with violent demonstrations from all sides – Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Gaza and the West Bank.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now, Hamas and Fatah are reconciling to form a “unity government”. It has been established that once a Palestinian unity government is formed, it will go to the UN demanding unilateral recognition of Palestine as a nation state, henceforth bypassing the peace process. In other words, Palestine would not have to negotiate with Israel regarding borders and Hamas would not withdraw its charter-required commitment to destroy Israel. If the UN grants this request, then Palestine will be able to sign onto the International Criminal Court and file criminal complaints against “Israeli aggression”. This is a legal strategy to achieve the destruction of Israel at the same time Palestinians have a strategy on the ground to attain Israel’s destruction through terrorism.<br /><br /> <br /><br />President Obama’s speech on May 19, 2011 was additional bad news for Israel. For the first time in American history, a sitting U.S. President referred to parts of Israel as “occupied territory” despite the fact that there had never been a pre-existing Palestinian state to occupy. President Obama also told Israel that she should go back to the 1967 borders. If Israel were to comply, she would be only 9 miles wide at her narrowest point and Jerusalem would be split in half. Israel would no longer control the land with the Wailing Wall of the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest of sites. Moreover, such borders would give the Palestinians land that is geographically higher than that of Israel’s. This would provide Palestine with a military advantage, making it easier to proceed with maneuvers toward Israel’s destruction. Indeed, the President’s speech raises the question of whether Israel’s one friend in the world --- the U.S. --- is abandoning her in her greatest time of need.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Undoubtedly, Israel is in big trouble. In the Middle East, anti-Semitism combined with anti-Israel sentiment is the one unifying force that fractioned groups active in the “Arab Spring” have in common. Though they may differ on other issues, they are united in their hatred of Israel. Unfortunately, this sentiment is increasingly shared around the globe including Europe, where anti-Semitism is at its highest rate since World War II. And Obama isn’t helping. Nor are college campuses in the U.S. which are indoctrinating their students with anti-Israel propaganda. For example, Columbia University recently announced that it started a “Palestinian Studies” department. Apparently it wasn’t enough that Columbia already employed a professor with known terrorist ties – Khalid Rashidi. Now, he is the head of the university’s Center for Palestinian Studies.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Currently, the United States provides Fatah, the alleged "moderate Palestinian party" with approximately half a billion dollars of funding per year. However, Hamas has been designated a terrorist organization by both the U.S. and the European Union. And, it is illegal to donate money to a terrorist organization. Indeed, there are people sitting in American prisons today for donating money to Hamas.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Accordingly, Democrats and Republicans in Congress are deliberating the idea of passing legislation stop funding to the unity government until Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist and promises to work to stop Palestinian terrorism against Israel. However, political appointees at the State Department urge continued funding of the Palestinians. They want to take a “wait and see” attitude, claiming it is too soon to form a conclusion about how the new unity government will act.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Despite the State Department’s inclinations, the Hamas Charter is clear that it is dedicated to the total destruction of Israel -- not merely to regain what some in the west refer to as "occupied territories”. Hamas considers ALL of Israel to constitute "occupied territory". Hamas has been equally clear that its position on this will not change with the formation of the new unity government. On the contrary, Fatah is already showing signs that it is acquiescing to Hamas, by refusing to stop Palestinian invasions of Israel along the West bank during Nakba.<br /><br /> <br /><br />All this sounds like a conspiracy theory against Israel, right? If only it were. Prosecutors will tell you that some conspiracies are theories and others are fact. The existential threat against Israel could not be more real. Funding a terrorist entity is against the law. There is no exception for the U.S. government. Please contact your congressmen and senators to let them know that you do not want your tax-payer money going to support Hamas, a U.S-designated terrorist organization.<br /><br />____________________________________________________________________________________<br /><em>Deborah Weiss is an attorney, writer and public speaker. She works for Vigilancenow.org and is a regular contributor to the American Security Council Foundation, FrontPage Magazine and The Washington Times.</em></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-30921333804138413582010-10-22T12:49:00.003-05:002010-10-22T13:30:38.718-05:00Today's Sun Sentinel has an article <a href="http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2010/10/wasserman_schultz_protests_wes_1.html">http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2010/10/wasserman_schultz_protests_wes_1.html</a> about an attack by democratic congresswomen <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wasserman</span> Schultz attacking Col Allen West as being dangerous to women supporting their sexual abuse. The protest is being organized in a desperate attempt to save the campaign of Ron Klein who is running behind Col West in the polls.<br /><br />She had no problem with Bill Clinton's sexual abuse of an intern, no problem of his rape of a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">latina</span> employee, no problem with Senator Kennedy killing a woman he had an affair with, no problem with Senator Edwards affair with employee's but Allen West she has a problem with.<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />Clearly she cares nothing for the issue and is just trying to make a political point. And she endangers women with this type of false charges because by crying wolf she risks the public becoming so cynical that they ignore real abuse of women.<br /><br />Oh wait these were white men so its OK for them to abuse women. But an African American like Col West is a danger. Shame on the Ron Klein campaign for pushing this racist attack on an American hero, Rather than focusing on the issues Ron Klein has chosen to use stereotypical attacks on his opponent as a dangerous black man who is a sexual predator.<br /><br />These racist stereotypes of African Americans were supposed to end with the success of the civil rights movement. Shame on Ron Klein and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Wasserman</span> Schultz for using the race card in this election. As a Jew I am ashamed of all the attacks I here from Klein's activists attacking the "<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">shvartze</span>"<br /><br />Hopefully the public will ignore these racist attacks. Its nothing short of disgusting that politicians are resorting to them this election.</span>mordechaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15029402870184185148noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-83829670144496045462010-06-21T18:13:00.003-05:002010-06-21T18:19:48.440-05:00Lipstick RevolutionLIPSTICK REVOLUTION<br />40 lashes for throwing a sweet 16 party<br /><br />By Deborah Weiss<br />Published in The Washington Times<br />June 18, 2010<br /><br />In the early years of the Islamic Revolution, wearing red lipstick was considered "an insult to the blood of the martyrs." Indeed, when the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979, the lives of women changed drastically, as they were forced to adhere to Shariah law, including its stringent dress code. Now, some protesters are fighting for their fashion freedom.<span class="fullpost">Tala Raassi is a 27-year-old fashion designer residing in Washington. However, it wasn't always the case that she was able to wear clothes that made her feel sexy or feminine. She grew up in Iran, where the government gave her 40 lashes for her 16th birthday for the crime of wearing "indecent clothes."<br /><br />Tala's friends had decided to throw her a Sweet 16 party. Thirty boys and girls gathered at one of her friend's houses. Once inside the privacy of the home, Tala wore only a miniskirt and T-shirt. The teens enjoyed some innocent fun, listening to music and chatting. There were no drugs or liquor at the party.<br /><br />A boy who had not been invited reported the party to the religious police. Without warning, the police barged into the house and started screaming. Tala ran out the back door. The religious police ran after her, threatening, "Stop or we'll shoot you!" Realizing that they meant it, Tala stopped running. One policeman shoved his gun into Tala's back so hard that she fell to the ground. Then he dragged her back to the house and handcuffed her. The teens were rounded up, pushed into a van and carted off to jail.<br /><br />Once there, the boys and girls were separated. Tala and the other girls were thrown into a rat-infested, barren room. There were no beds, just cement. Already there was one pregnant woman lying on the ground, another woman with her baby and a third who had been dragged to jail straight from her wedding. Tala was informed that one of the women had been raped with a Coke bottle by the other prisoners. She watched the rats run around and listened to the screams of other prisoners being tortured down the hall. She wondered what her future would portend. She slept there overnight and was provided no food or water.<br /><br />The next day, during the "adhan," or call to prayer, which occurs three times a day in Iran, the guards ordered the prisoners to line up for their lashes. After the prisoners had stood for 40 minutes with no lashes executed, they were told to return to their cells. This routine continued for days.<br /><br />On the fifth day, Tala and her friends were brought to court. They were not permitted to have an attorney or defend themselves. The court sentenced the boys to 50 lashes each and the girls to 40 lashes each. They were convicted of breaking Islamic rules by wearing "indecent clothes," mingling with the opposite sex and listening to Western music.<br /><br />Once back in jail, Tala and her friend were called in for their lashes by two middle-aged female guards dressed in black chadors. They were ordered to lie face down on mattresses. The girls were to keep their T-shirts on so that the material would dig into their wounds when bloody and burn even more than if the girls had been bare. The guards dipped their leather whips into water to ensure the maximum sting. Though the lashings seemed to take forever, in reality it was over in 10 minutes. Tala's parents heard her screams down the hall.<br /><br />Tala graduated a few months later, but she remained depressed and rarely left the house. The experience of being lashed changed her forever. Her parents decided it would be good for her to leave Iran. She came to America and decided to become a clothing designer because, to her, fashion equals freedom.<br /><br />After arriving in the United States, Tala took a job at a boutique and began designing her own clothes. Five years later, at a party, a gentleman complimented her on her self-made shirt. He liked it so much that he became her first investor and helped her get her business off the ground. <br /><br />Now Tala has her own line of clothes, called Dar be Dar, which means "door to door" in Persian. She specializes in bikinis and sells her designs to stores in the U.S. and Dubai and also through the Internet. She also had a show at Miami Fashion Week, an event many designers would covet.<br /><br />Tala is planning to launch a new T-shirt line called Lipstick Revolution. It's inspired by the new revolutionary movement in Iran. It specifically honors women around the world who are fighting for freedom.<br /><br />Before 1979, women enjoyed a fair amount of freedom in Iran, but after the Islamic Revolution, Shariah law was implemented. The value of women's lives was reduced to half that of a man's; women were stoned for adultery, married at age 13 and held criminally responsible at the same age. It's nearly impossible for women to obtain divorces, though men can do so arbitrarily. Custody and inheritance laws strongly favor men, and gender apartheid is in effect. Women are required to dress covered from head to toe.<br /><br />Now, after 30 years of Islamic rule, a recently rigged election and massive riots, the protests in Iran continue. Some of the protesters include women who literally are dying for their fashion freedom. Tala Raassi's Lipstick Revolution does pay homage to them.<br /><br /><em>Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the American Security Council Foundation.</em><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-12746295763116795542010-06-21T18:12:00.001-05:002010-06-21T18:13:26.578-05:00In Defense of FreedomBy Deborah Weiss<br />Published in FrontPage Magazine<br />June 10, 2010<br /><br />Last week, The Heritage Foundation’s second annual “Protect America Month” came to a close. The program was designed to express commitment to America’s national security, advocate for increased defense spending, point out the constitutional basis for government’s role in protecting America, and to examine the threats to the United States. John Ashcroft, former Attorney General of the United States, delivered the closing speech.<span class="fullpost">Attorney General Ashcroft began by asserting his belief that “the defense of America is tantamount to the defense of freedom. And freedom is worth defending.” He astutely reviewed his understanding of the definition of freedom, and how American exceptionalism plays a vital role in contributing and sustaining freedom around the globe.<br /><br />He rejected the common argument that freedom and national security must be balanced. Rather, freedom is the highest value with no parallel. However, in order to maintain it, it must be secured. Therefore, the two are not counterweights to each other. Rather, national security protects America’s freedom, and ensures that freedom stays intact.<br /><br />Ashcroft explained that the ability to engage in the pursuit of happiness increases freedom, while the provision of happiness by the government impairs freedom, and often comes at a high cost. In other words, when needs are converted into rights, freedom shrinks. Most importantly, the imposition of that which is not wanted constitutes the denial of freedom regardless of the virtue of that which is being imposed.<br /><br />Freedom is under attack. Nine years after September 11, 2001, Americans have become complacent. Many have a false sense of security. But the former Attorney General encouraged the audience not to surrender to the terrorist threat, and always be mindful of those who sacrificed their lives for the cause of freedom.<br /><br />Ashcroft believes that the number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect its citizens. The way he believes national security is enforced is through the rule of law, so that people are on notice of what they can and cannot do.<br /><br />In analyzing habeas corpus doctrine, the use of military tribunals and indefinite detention, Ashcroft reviewed numerous Supreme Court cases including Hamdi, Quirin, and Eisentrager. He also discussed the DC Court of Appeals case, titled Maqaleh v Gates.<br /><br />When asked about his positions on specific policy and legal matters, he emphasized the reasoning process that should support these decisions. They included the following:<br /><br />■Be aware that policies send a message that can deter behavior or invite behavior;<br />■Determine if the conduct in question constitutes a war crime or merely violates a domestic criminal statute;<br />■Ensure that all three branches of government are acting within their appropriate constitutional limits;<br />■Know that the executive branch can make faster decisions to ensure the protection of America’s national security than can the legislative branch;<br />■Acknowledge the fact that military tribunals, while operating under different rules than federal courts, still result in outcomes that are fair and respect the true facts;<br />■In deciding whether a defendant should be tried in a military tribunal versus a federal court, determine your objective. If national security information in involved, minimize the release of this information to our enemies;<br />■If a person with US citizen status is fighting against the US with America’s enemies, perhaps he should be treated as an enemy;<br />■Laws should be clear and certain. If the geographical location of the occurrence doesn’t provide clear rules, then look to the circumstances surrounding the case;<br />■America should make sure that she runs prisons only in locations where she can maintain control of what occurs within them;<br />■Finally, Americans should distinguish between detention for the purpose of punishment and detention for the purpose of removing enemy combatants from the stream of battle.<br />The former Attorney General also noted that America’s reckless financial conduct will have grave national security implications for future generations who might be unable to finance their defense. Moreover, if America reveals a lack of self-sufficiency to the world by becoming a debtor to the world, it signals America’s weakness. Funding national security should be one of government’s main priorities.<br /><br />America’s current Attorney General, Eric Holder, appears to have no clear rules guiding his decisions in reference to which defendants go to a military tribunal versus a federal court. His decisions appear to be arbitrary and capricious. Though he is the head of the Department of Justice, national security does not seem to be his paramount priority. He refuses to acknowledge the Islamist ideological threat, favors the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, opposes the Patriot Act (responsible for disrupting numerous terrorist plots in the US) and is critical of enhanced interrogation techniques. Instead, he has stated that engagement in “dialogue” with the Muslim community is a priority for his Department, as is the prosecution of so-called “hate crimes.” Though he is not an expert in Islamic theology, he nevertheless asserts with seeming authority the claim that that those who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam behave in a way that is “un-Islamic” and contrary to Islam’s actual teachings.<br /><br />By contrast, John Ashcroft led America through its toughest times after the largest terrorist attack on US soil following September 11, 2001. He made fighting terrorism his number one priority. He reorganized DOJ to ensure that suspected terrorists were prosecuted when the evidence warranted it. Under his leadership, DOJ dismantled numerous terrorist cells throughout the US and over 150 plots throughout the world. Ashcroft’s role in the execution of the War on Terror was one of the most difficult of any cabinet member.<br /><br />Ashcroft’s speech at the Heritage Foundation expressed a love of freedom, an appreciation of American exceptionalism, an understanding of the threats to liberty, respect for the law, Judeo-Christian values, and a deference to “we the people.” The Left, of course, has consistently expressed its venom toward John Ashcroft and the entire War on Terror. But Ashcroft’s speech reminded me of the time after September 11, 2001, when, however briefly, the country came together to face our common enemies. Our government united us in the cause for freedom and our shared American values. My, how things have changed.<br /><br /><em>Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the American Security Council Foundation. She delivers speeches on the methods radicals use to stifle free speech.</em><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-89154398244417966162010-05-18T23:50:00.004-05:002010-05-19T00:12:57.459-05:00No Such Thing As Islamic Terrorism?<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">By Deborah Weiss</span></span> American Security Council Foundation: May 18, 2010<br /><br />Against President Obama’s backdrop of bowing to the Saudi King, berating Israel, Mirandizing terrorists, and voluntarily reducing US nuclear capabilities, the United States Administration has now made a decision to ban words such as “jihad” and “Islamic extremism” from the US National Security Strategy. But will this cleansing of national security vocabulary be effective in making America safer?<br /><br />Last month it was announced that President Obama’s advisors will remove all religious terms from the central National Security Strategy document, an instructive document on preventive war strategy. The purpose of the removal of these terms is to send a message to Muslim nations that America does not view them through the eyes of terrorism. The change constitutes a significant shift in US strategy. Under President Bush, the same document expressed the view that “militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the 21st century.” Now however, it appears that in the context of US national security, any discussion of Islam is verboten.<br /><br />Instead of addressing radical Islam head-on, Obama has teamed up with the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to fight polio. The OIC is an organization of 57 Muslim majority states that vote as a block on the UN Human Rights Council, rendering it unable to address human rights abuses in the Muslim world. Obama also held an Entrepreneur Summit encouraging US investment in Muslim businesses, some of which were owned by Muslim Brotherhood types. Additionally, the President’s administration collaborated with Egypt to introduce a resolution into the UN Human Rights Council encouraging all nations to “take effective action” against those who “defame Islam.” In other words, the resolution seeks to provide an ideology (rather than people) with protection from criticism, and aspires to penalize those who make such criticism.<br /><br />Part of the Administration’s apprehension in using accurate terminology might be attributable to political correctness. Though the push toward political correctness has been building for decades, the momentum greatly accelerated since 2009 when Obama took office. Indeed, documents such as the 9/11 Commission Report, which repeatedly mentioned Islamic terrorism, could likely not have been written in today’s politically correct environment. Thus, despite overwhelming evidence that the Fort Hood shootings constituted an Islamist terrorist attack, the Pentagon report failed to entertain this possibility. Instead, it speculated that Major Hassan was somehow suffering from “PTSD” or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, despite the fact that he never went to war.<br /><br />Obama’s new national security strategy turns a blind eye toward Islamist supremacist ideology and its adherents’ abhorrent treatment of infidels around the globe. The elimination of words from the national security lexicon not only changes how the US can talk to Muslim majority countries, but what America talks to them about. Instead of focusing on terrorism – in other words national security concerns, officials will now be discussing issues like the environment, poverty and education. This is based on the false premise that terrorism is caused solely or primarily by legitimate geo-political complaints, rather than a radical political ideology masking itself in the name of religion.<br /><br />The question is, will the elimination of offensive words eliminate the underlying threat conveyed by these words? History, global politics, and the study of human psychology will answer this question with a resounding “no!” Denial has never made any problem disappear. To the contrary, traditional threat doctrine mandates that in order to defeat an enemy, one must be able to accurately identify it and name it by name.<br /><br />Though the President might score some political points with those whose true agenda is to destroy America’s freedom from within, the strategy of omitting language offensive to America’s enemies comes at a cost. Appeasement of terrorists and Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers will only serve to embolden them. By contrast, truly moderate Muslims should have no reason to feel offended if the US takes aim at radicals who in addition to putting Jews, Christians and atheists in danger, equally threaten the lives and freedoms of moderate Muslims.<br /><br />To be sure, radical Islam - both violent and stealth, constitutes today’s greatest threat to freedom around the globe. One needs only to look at the incremental Islamization of Canada and Europe to see what forebodes America. Dictators have always known that the first step to gaining power and implementing tyranny is through censorship. And, there is no better way to relinquish power than to use self-censorship in discussion or identification of Freedom’s ideological enemies. Despite this, when President Obama visits Indonesia in June, he is determined to reiterate the themes of appeasement that he delivered in his Cairo speech.<br /><br />Words represent ideas and thoughts. The removal of language identifying America’s threats also necessarily precludes discussion of strategies to defeat such threats. It is tantamount to removing tools of war from America’s national security professionals, hindering their ability to keep America safe.<br /><br />President Reagan understood the power of words. By identifying evil for what it was, he gave hope to those around the world who suffered under its tyranny. In part, his speeches set the stage for the collapse of the “Evil Empire”. But under Obama’s leadership, what was heretofore considered Freedom’s greatest ideological enemy can no longer even be mentioned. Traditional threat doctrine, critical to winning any military war as well as the war of ideas, is now being replaced with the official policy of Denial.<br /><br />_____________________________________________________________________________________<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to the American Security Council Foundation and a columnist with FrontPage Magazine. She works for www.vigilancenow.org and delivers speeches on the instruments radicals use to stifle free speech.</span>dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29541007.post-11978582616755684972010-05-18T23:36:00.004-05:002010-05-19T00:16:29.552-05:00During International Crisis, Which Law Reigns Supreme?<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">By Deborah Weiss</span></span><br /><br />American Security Council Foundation: April 13, 2010<br /> <br /><br />At this critical juncture in history, the West is engaged in a long, unconventional war with radical Islam. Freedom hangs in the balance. The international community connives, seduces and pressures the US to work in “cooperation” with the rest of the world on matters of utmost importance. In the debate between internationalists and nationalists, which laws should govern, those of the international community or American law? Which law reigns supreme? America’s answer to this question may determine the future of her existence and that of the entire Free World.<br /><br />American nationalists believe in American sovereignty. Sovereignty is the trait of having supreme, independent and sole authority over one owns land, and it stems from the right of a nation to self-determination. Some sovereign states operate as dictatorships, where the government is self-determinative, but the people are not free. But the American system of government is based on the notion that individual rights are endowed by their Creator, not the government. Rather, the government derives its power in the form of limited, enumerated powers conveyed to it through the constitution. Critical to this concept is the notion that the people consent to this governmental power. The government of the United States works for its citizens, not the other way around. The constitution creates a private domain in which the individual is free from government interference.<br /><br /> <br />The plain text of the constitution states that the constitution is the “supreme law of the land”. Of course, the constitution itself can be amended through the procedures stated within it. Indeed, it was through those procedures that the Bill of Rights was created. Additionally, the US can choose to bind herself to an international agreement by signing and ratifying a treaty (requiring a 2/3 Senate vote). However, such treaties must be entered with caution because unintended consequences cannot be corrected through the domestic legislative process.<br /><br /> <br />Internationalists believe that international law should take priority over the constitution and American law. In other words, they do not believe in US sovereignty, but rather that America should cede her power to external authorities. Though treaties may require the relinquishment of American authority, at least they are self-imposed. The larger problem stems from years of non-binding resolutions by international bodies, the assertion of authority by international organizations and conferences, and the establishment of “traditional and customary international law”, all of which gradually erode America’s right to make her own laws and decisions. The decision to yield to these authorities is political, not legal. Much of the world desires that nation states “share sovereignty.” In reality, this means that states will relinquish their national sovereignty in favor of some internationally recognized authority.<br /><br /> <br />In the worldview of internationalists, no nation or nations would hold a balance of power over the others. Countries like the US and Israel that stand up as the beacon of freedom and human rights would hold no sway over countries that are tyrannical and oppressive in nature. American internationalists reject the notion of American exceptionalism. They refuse to believe that America holds a special place in the world by setting an example of freedom, equality and prosperity. Instead, they believe that America is and should be just one of the 192 member nation states of the United Nations, no different from any other.<br /> <br /><br />The danger in this worldview is it cedes irrevocable authority to unelected, unaccountable international decision-makers who often do not have America’s best interest at heart (and oft-times nor of their own citizens). There is no consent by Americans to yield this power, no oversight after it is transferred, and no check on external power to keep it from being abused. Even when American officials bind themselves voluntarily to international agreements, the agreements are often flawed. In effect, they often constitute legislation without representation, and are used as a surrogate for the domestic legislative process. To the extent that politicians sign treaties on otherwise domestic issues, or issues circumventing the constitutional rights of citizens, that agreement constitutes a misuse of power.<br /><br /> <br />American internationalists deny human nature. Their view is based on the false premise that there is no evil in the world, and that people from all cultures, countries and religions hold the same values, beliefs, interests and goals. It is this false premise that leads some in the west to espouse the merits of global governance. At a time when the world is at war with radical Islamists who believe in Islamist supremacy, and reject the concept of equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, between men and women, and between heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is important to understand that cultural relativism and tolerance for the intolerant cannot sustain the underpinnings of freedom and human rights. Appeasing enemies with contrary values and anti-freedom ideologies will not make our enemies like us more. It is tantamount to surrender.<br /><br /> <br />It is likely that foreign countries which advocate for the ultimate authority of international bodies such as the International Criminal Court and expanded UN powers have the de-legitimization of US power as one of their goals. A world dominated by “global governance” drastically increases the threats to American sovereignty. The undermining of sovereignty progresses slowly over time so as to go under-noticed by the public as well as government officials. Included amongst the threats are:<br /><br /><br />• international bodies whose authority would supplant US authority. Some of these bodies would put America in a position where she has to request permission to defend herself via national security efforts;<br /><br />• binding treaties that are under-examined by the officials who ratify them. Many of these circumvent domestic legislation and impact issues should remain internal, such as gun control, racism, and energy use;<br /><br />• non-binding UN resolutions and international conventions which are eventually deemed “international and customary law”, “tradition,” or the “established norm.” They are then used to pressure the US to comply with that to which she never agreed;<br /><br />• multilateral taxes. Under the guise of producing a unified solution to climate change, internet control, and banking failures, the UN is attempting to impose taxes on the US for which American citizens never voted and will have no representation. Once American dollars and resources are confiscated by non-US entities, she will have relinquished her sovereignty and will likely never get it back.<br /><br /> <br />Little attention is paid to sovereignty issues because the subject may seem boring or academic. There is a lack of understanding of the implications of sovereignty, and a gross devaluation of its importance. Currently, America appears to have its first internationalist President whose ideology breaks from a long line of both Republican and Democrat Presidents who fundamentally believed in US sovereignty. President Obama’s past comments eschewed the notion of American exceptionalism. His foreign policy and national security goals aggressively advocate, increase, and lead in multi-lateral “cooperative” efforts. The President fantasizes about the reality of a nuclear-free world, Iran’s voluntary cessation of building nuclear capabilities following America’s example of unilateral disarmament, and has introduced along with Egypt, a UN resolution aspiring to outlaw free speech on radical Islam. There is no better time than now to heed the warning of the Founding Fathers regarding the limits of federal power and the importance of maintaining national sovereignty.<br /><br /> <br />So, what is wrong if the rest of the world thinks that America should abolish the death penalty, reduce her carbon footprint or ban nuclear missile tests? If they are right, those holding these viewpoints should win the debate in the marketplace of ideas.<br /><br /> <br />The real question is who will decide these issues? Will it be Americans who speak with the power of their votes? Or will foreign entities steal America’s freedom by imposing the false notion that America is bound by the “customs and traditions” of countries whose values lead them to have less freedom, less equality and less prosperity than the US?<br /><br /><br />As former Ambassador John Bolton so astutely worded it, “in secular terms, there is no superior authority” to the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers laid out in the constitution that it is “we the people” of the United States who are sovereign. We must maintain that position against all political pressure if America is to remain free.<br />_____________________________________________________________________________________<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Deborah Weiss, Esq. works for www.vigilancenow.org. She is a regular contributor to the American Security Council Foundation, American Thinker, and FrontPage Magazine. She also delivers speeches and seminars on the various methods that radicals are using to stifle free speech in the west.</span>dwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07810976989187859984noreply@blogger.com0