Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

23 January 2015

So, There Are No 'No-Go Zones' In Europe? Reality Begs To Differ

Leave it to the Left, whose preoccupation with semantics results in an inability to see the forest for the trees.  Of course there are NGZs in Europe.  Tower Hamlets, where the Shari'ah Patrol enforces the rules shown in the above photo, has long been a NGZ for me. 

But, since I am a white woman, who is not a member of the Cult of Multi-Kulti, I'll throw it to Darcus Howe, an immigrant to Britain from Trinidad, who is also a civil rights activist, was an editor of Race Today in the 1970s, and is the documentary filmmaker of flicks like 'Who You Callin' A N1gger?' and Racial Tensions in Multicultural Britain.  He said this in 2004, eleven years ago:

'My journey takes me to the Hollow Croft Road in Birmingham for Eid, the end of Ramadan, the Muslim month of fast, but underlying the celebrations of this religious festival is a tense atmosphere.  Outsiders feel threatened...

Now, Noah Feldman thought he had a brilliant piece on why Paris has a cause of action against Fox News, but as the esteemed Harvard constitutional and international law professor surely knows, truth is an absolute defence in defamation cases.  Marine Le Pen wrote in the New York Times only a few days ago that NGZs existed in France.  If she is too 'extreme right-wing' for Mr Feldman, then how about Monsieur Manuel Valls, the Prime Minister of France and a member in good standing of the Socialist Party?  What did he have to say about the existence of these types of geographical areas?  Well, interestingly enough, he made this comment recently:

'The 2005 riots? Who remembers them today? And yet, the stigmas are still present.  The relegation of the suburbs, the ghettos., what I had already spoken about back in 2005, a territorial, social and ethnic apartheid that has taken hold in our country.'

- Manuel Valls, Prime Minister of France and Member of the Socialist Party

And, then there's this:

And. this...

And, this...

And, this...

Then, Mark Steyn said this:

'A couple of years ago on Holocaust Memorial Day, a group of Jews were touring the old Jewish West End, where fellows like Lionel Bart, the composer of Oliver!, came from. And they were greeted by youths of a certain persuasion who pelted them with stones, and a Canadian tourist and an American tourist wound up being taken to the hospital. That’s Jews stoned on Holocaust Memorial Day in the East End of London. Likewise, there are no-go zones in parts of Birmingham in the Midlands, where in nothing flat, a city that was 0% Muslim 50 years ago now is 22% Muslim. They’re the demographic energy in the city. A senior British police officer was talking about this. He was saying, he wasn’t calling them ‘no-go zones’. He was putting it in a sort of positive way, that these communities ‘prefer to police themselves’, as it were. ‘And that’s why we just leave them to get on with it’. And one consequence of that is that nobody who isn’t a member of those ‘communities’ likes to go there… Those no-go zones are not as advanced as they are in France, but they are real and they are growing in British cities.' 

- Mark Steyn. 23 January 2015

'Case in point: One of the most painful scenes in recent days was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on CNN insisting that no-go zones existed in some form in the U.K., and struggling to redefine those zones so he wouldn’t seem like a liar.'

- Professor Noah Feldman

Still not convinced, Mr Feldman?  Here's the far from right-wing Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, a Pakistani by birth, who argued 'that some British streets have become off-limits to non-Muslims' which may be a view associated with the far-right, but as the BBC noted, 'when a Pakistani-born Anglican bishop publicly agrees, it re-opens the debate.'  Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, the Bishop of Rochester wrote this in 2008:

In fewer than 50 years, Britain has changed from being a society with an acknowledged Christian basis to one which is increasingly described by politicians and the media as "multifaith". 
Bishop warns of no-go zones for non-Muslims 
One reason for this is the arrival of large numbers of people of other faiths to these shores. Their arrival has coincided with the end of the Empire which brought about a widespread questioning of Britain's role. 
On the one hand, the British were losing confidence in the Christian vision which underlay most of the achievements and values of the culture and, on the other, they sought to accommodate the newer arrivals on the basis of a novel philosophy of "multiculturalism".
This required that people should be facilitated in living as separate communities, continuing to communicate in their own languages and having minimum need for building healthy relationships with the majority. Alongside these developments, there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into "no-go" areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability. 
Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them and even the risk of violence. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-Right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an "Islamic" character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer. 
Such amplification was, of course, unknown throughout most of history and its use raises all sorts of questions about noise levels and whether non-Muslims wish to be told the creed of a particular faith five times a day on the loudspeaker. 
This is happening here even though some Muslim-majority communities are trying to reduce noise levels from multiple mosques announcing this call, one after the other, over quite a small geographical area. 
There is pressure already to relate aspects of the sharia to civil law in Britain. 
To some extent this is already true of arrangements for sharia-compliant banking but have the far-reaching implications of this been fully considered? 
It is now less possible for Christianity to be the public faith in Britain. 
The existence of chapels and chaplaincies in places such as hospitals, prisons and institutions of further and higher education is in jeopardy either because of financial cuts or because the authorities want "multifaith" provision, without regard to the distinctively Christian character of the nation's laws, values, customs and culture. 
Not only locally, but at the national level also the establishment of the Church of England is being eroded. My fear is, in the end, nothing will be left but the smile of the Cheshire Cat. 
In the past, I have supported the establishment of the Church, but now I have to ask if it is only the forms that are left and the substance rapidly disappearing. If such is the case, is it worth persevering with the trappings of establishment? 
Much of this has come about because of a "neutral" secularist approach which refuses to privilege any faith. In fact, secularism has its own agenda and it is certainly not neutral. It is perfectly possible for Britain to welcome people on the basis of its Christian heritage.
Christian chaplains can arrange for people of other faiths to have access to their own spiritual leaders without compromising the Christian basis of their own ministry. 
Instead of this, the multifaith "mish mash" is producing a new, de facto, establishment as the Government attempts to bring particular communities on to its agenda for integration and cohesion, an agenda which still lacks the underpinning of a moral and spiritual vision. 
If it had not been for the black majority churches and the recent arrival of people from central and eastern Europe, the Christian cause in many of our cities would have looked a lost one. 
At last it seems the Government may be waking up to the situation; to the importance of English as a means of communication, to greater integration in housing, schools, and leisure pursuits and in citizenship education. 
But none of this will be of any avail if Britain does not recover that vision of its destiny which made it great. That has to do with the Bible's teaching that we have equal dignity and freedom because we are all made in God's image. 
It has to do with a prophetic passion for justice and compassion and it has to do with the teaching and example of Jesus Christ regarding humility, service and sacrifice. Let us pledge in this New Year to restore this noble vision to the centre of our national life.

As I said, Tower Hamlets has long been a No-Go Zone for me, but, again, don't take my word for it.  Look at what else has happened in Europe (from my post Hitler's Ghost Haunts Europe, 25 July 2011):

London, the 13th-biggest Jewish city in the world has an aging Jewish population. There are less than 200,000 Jews in Britain and 100,000 Brits convert to Islam every year. Lord Ahmed only has to threaten and the country kowtows. The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for shar'ia law to be introduced. 
British schools are removing the Holocaust and the Crusades from GCSE coursework for fear of offending Muslims. 
I think that I've told many of you about Anjem Choudary. He is the firebrand radical imam, who was interviewed on ABC's “This Week” with Christiane Amanpour. While Ms Amanpour neglected to confront him when he claimed: “one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House”, she also conveniently forgot to inform the audience that Choudary has told the Royal Family "to convert or else" (and has threatened to decapitate the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry), has posted photographs of Buckingham Palace, Nelson's Column, St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey, The Tower, Windsor Castle and many other historic landmarks after Islamification. He has also said that all homosexuals will be executed when Shari'a becomes the Law of the Realm. You should also know that Choudary and his fellow radical imams danced in the streets following 09.11.01. 
While Ground Zero was still smouldering, a Jewish yeshiva student reading the Psalms was stabbed 27 times on a London bus. 
The cover of the New Statesman, a left-wing magazine, depicted a large Star of David stabbing the Union Jack. Oxford professor Tom Paulin, a noted poet, told an Egyptian interviewer that American Jews, who move to the West Bank and Gaza, "should be shot dead." 

The Islamist Lutfur Rhaman was recently elected as the first executive mayor of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets could offer us a harrowing glimpse into Europe's Eurabian future. He belongs to the Islamic Forum of Europe, an organisation which has expressed contempt for democracy and support for jihad and the imposition of shari'a law on British society. Azad Ali, the IFE's community affairs coordinator in London, was quoted declaring:
"Democracy...if it means at the expense of not implementing the sharia, of course no one agrees with that." 
A 2009 recruitment manual for the group states its programme in unequivocal language: 
"Our goal is not simply to invite people and give da'wah [call to the faith]. Our goal is to create the True Believer, to then mobilise those believers into an organised force for change who will carry out da'wah, hisbah [enforcement of Islamic law] and jihad [struggle]. This will lead to social change and iqamatud-Deen [an Islamic social, economic and political order]." 
The organisation maintains close ties with the East London Mosque in which Jammat al Islami -- a fundamentalist Bangladeshi Islamic party, holds sway. 
The rise of a politically active class of Islamic fundamentalists has long been expected in Europe but few thought their rise would be so swift and sudden in Britain. Due to some recent voter approved structural changes in the political organisation of the Borough, the new mayor of the town has almost sole authority over a nearly U.S.D. 1 billion budget. His authority to effect change to Borough rules and regulations is without precedent in the history of local British government. 
What, then, can the non-Muslim denizens of Tower Hamlets now expect? 

Construction projects for one -- such as the so-called 'Hijab Gates' -- huge arches in the shape of the Muslim veil at either end of the area's famous Brick Lane. Community libraries filled, as they have been over the past two years, with extremist Islamic literature. Streets renamed with Islamic motifs (many street signs already appear in English and Bengali). Major community thoroughfares blocked and closed down in celebration of the Eid Festival. And the increasing harassment of Muslim and non- Muslim women who dress immodestly (as was witnessed during the mayoral election campaign). 
Antisemitism, wrote a columnist in The Spectator, "has become respectable . . . at London dinner tables." She quoted one member of the House of Lords: "The Jews have been asking for it and now, thank G-d, we can say what we think at last." 
In Malmö, Sweden, a surge in anti-Semitic violence from, ahem, "certain quarters" (Muslim) has led Jewish residents to abandon the city in fear for Stockholm and beyond. 
In Odense, Denmark, last year superintendent Olav Nielsen announced he would no longer admit Jewish children to the local school because of complaints from Muslims. 
In Belgium, thugs beat up the chief rabbi, kicking him in the face and calling him "a dirty Jew." Two synagogues in Brussels were firebombed; a third, in Charleroi, was sprayed with automatic weapons fire. 
In Italy, the daily paper La Stampa published a Page 1 cartoon: A tank emblazoned with a Jewish star points its gun at the baby Jesus, who pleads, "Surely they don't want to kill me again?" In Corriere Della Sera, another cartoon showed Jesus trapped in his tomb, unable to rise, because Ariel Sharon, with rifle in hand, is sitting on the sepulchre. The caption: "Non resurrexit." 
In Amsterdam, mayor Lodewijk Asscher is considering using police offcers posing as Jews in an attempt to stamp out anti-semitic violence. And, secret recordings have been shown that display young Muslim men shouting and making Nazi salutes in different areas of the city. 
The Norwegian government, cheered on by the Socialists, named Mahdi Hasan as the 2009 Role Model of the Year. Hasan has publicly called for a ban on homosexuality enforced by execution, if necessary. Was he condemned? No. He was applauded. 
The police in the Norwegian capital Oslo revealed that 2009 set yet another record: compared to 2008, there were twice as many cases of assault rapes. In each and every case, not only in 2008 and 2009 but also in 2007, the offender was a non-Western immigrant. 
Muslim-Arab schoolchildren in primary school started the custom of using separate taps, one for the "muslims" and the other for the "French". Muslims leaders requested separate changing rooms for the students "since circumcised males cannot undress alongside the unclean". (Antisemitism in French Schools: Turmoil of a Republic, Georges Bensoussan). How do you say "Jim Crow" in French? 
According to French-government statistics, rapes in the housing projects have risen between 15 and 20% every year since 1999. In these neighbourhoods, women, including non-Muslims, have indeed begun veiling only to escape harassment and violence. In the suburb of La Courneuve, 77% of veiled women report that they wear the veil to avoid the wrath of Islamic morality patrols. 
In Spain, Muslims use Article 525 of the Spanish Penal Code, which makes it a crime to offend the feelings of the members of a religious confession, to sue people like teachers that have the unmitigated gall to discuss issues like Serrano ham. Many banks are abandoning the so-called piggy banks, because they are afraid of losing Muslim customers. Muslims regard the pig as an unclean animal. 
In Germany, a rabbinical student was beaten up in downtown Berlin and a grenade was thrown into a Jewish cemetery. Thousands of neo-Nazis held a rally, marching near a synagogue on the Jewish sabbath. Graffiti appeared on a synagogue in the western town of Herford: "Six million were not enough." 
German butchers who sell pork are targeted by Muslim extremists. Muslims occasionally spit on sausages on sale at open-air markets. 
In some European cities Muslim taxi drivers refuse to transport dogs, even blind persons with guide dogs.

Finally, since I didn't comment on the blog about the idiotic threat made by Mayor Hildago then, let me repeat what I have written elsewhere:

Sooo, Paris is going to sue News Corporation? A Delaware corporation? With its principal place of business in New York? For what? Defamation? Really? 

Does Paris not realised that there exists no cause of action here? 

Does Paris understand that the venue will be Delaware, not Paris? 

Does Paris not understand that the controlling law will be American and Delaware law, not French law? 

Does Paris not understand that News Corporation is protected under the First Amendment? 

Does Paris realise that, IF a group could sue a news outlet for defamation, the Tea Party would have successfully sued the Democratic Party and MSNBC already? 

Such a complaint will – or should, if the court is following precedent and constitutional and statutory law – be dismissed out of hand. Even if we were to assume that there exists some loophole for Paris to sneak through, does Paris understand that, pursuant to New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), it will have to prove ACTUAL MALICE

In this case, GOOD. LUCK. WITH. THAT.

21 January 2015

Um, No, ProMo Cartoons Aren't 'Fighting Words'

This must be addressed.  According to USAToday's  DeWayne Wickam, Mocking Mohammed Crosses The Line:

The French, of course, are no more bound to accept the findings of the bishop of Rome than they are to be guided by the Supreme Court’s rulings on our Constitution’s free speech guarantee. But given the possible ripple effects of Charlie Hebdo’s mistreatment of Islam’s most sacred religious figure, at least people in this country should understand the limits America’s highest court has placed on free speech. 
In 1919, the Supreme Court ruled speech that presents a “clear and present danger” is not protected by the First Amendment. Crying “fire” in a quiet, uninhabited place is one thing, the court said. But “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” 

Um, no, the 'clear and present danger' standard was rejected by the Court in Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

Held: Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute violated the First Amendment, as applied to the state through the Fourteenth, because it broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence rather than the constitutionally unprotected incitement to imminent lawless action.

Twenty-two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that forms of expression that “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are fighting words that are not protected by the First Amendment.
If Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn’t thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper’s continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo’s free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.

Chaplinsky had to do with the issue of whether statutes criminalising certain 'fighting words' uttered IN THE FACE/CLOSE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER IN REAL TIME , such as a police officer, which thereby resulted in a 'disturbance of the peace' were constitutional. The case did not set apart classes of speech that could never be constitutional, per se.  The rule has to do more with time and place restrictions than the lack of protection given to certain types of speech.

If Mr Chaplinsky had published an article making the same statements, he could not have faced criminal persecution (and, I use that word intentionally, as you will see).  Allegedly, it was his 'offencive speech' in the face of a cop that led to the charges.  Does anyone think that screaming the words 'Fvck ya Momma!' is unprotected speech?  Really?

The truth of the matter as it pertains to Chaplinsky is that it is far from probable that the Court would come to the same decision today.  Recall that utterances like:

1. 'President Wilson ought to be killed. It is a wonder some one has not done it already. If I had an opportunity, I would do it myself', United States v Stickrath, 242 F. 151 (SD Ohio 1917);

2.  'Wilson is a wooden-headed son of a bItch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power I would put him there', Clark v United States, 250 F. 449 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1918); and, 

3. Posters demanding people 'Hang Roosevelt', United States v Apel, 44 F. Supp. 592, 593 (D.C. N. D. Ill. 1942),  

...all resulted in convictions, BUT the conviction for saying this: 

'They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ!'

... was OVERTURNED, Watts v United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).

In other words, the Court has moved towards MORE free speech, not less. 

I'd love to get Mr Wickam's opinion on Hustler Magazine, Inc. v Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), an 8-0 decision. 

If cartoons depicting a non-living ProMo can be construed as 'fighting words', then surely one depicting a famous, living person (at the time) having sex with his mum in an outhouse surely would be, too, right

Of course, Jerry Falwell LOST that case at the Supreme Court.

I wonder if Mr Wickham and others would agree with the conviction of Mr Chaplinsky if they knew what had given rise to the arrest...

Per UCLA professor Gary Blasi: 

While preaching, Chaplinsky was surrounded by men who mocked Jehovah's Witnesses members' objections to saluting the flag. One man attempted to hit Chaplinsky in full view of the town marshal, who warned Chaplinsky that he was in danger but did not arrest his assailant. After the marshal left, another man produced a flagpole and attempted to impale Chaplinsky; while Chaplinsky was pinned against a car by the pole, other members of the crowd struck him. A police officer arrived and, rather than dispersing the crowd, took Chaplinsky into custody.
En route to the station, the officer, as well as members of the crowd, insulted Chaplinsky and his religion. Chaplinsky responded by calling the town marshal, who had returned to assist the officer, a "damn fascist and a racketeer" and was arrested for the use of offensive language in public.

Be careful what you wish for because a whole lot of Occupy and #BlackLivesMatter protesters could wind up in jail.

True, crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre is not protected by the First Amendment, but the rule only applies to FALSELY screaming fire in a crowded theatre, which too many in the media, especially, neglect to mention. Reasonable people would fear for their lives and rush to get out of danger if 'Fire!' was screamed in a crowded theatre that was or was not on fire.  But, yelling 'Fire!', would not only be protected speech, one could easily assert that there is, at the very least, a moral DUTY to scream such in a crowded theatre THAT IS ACTUALLY ON FIRE.  

And, herein lies the problem with arguing that mocking or criticising Islam is a 'clear and present danger' that may result in violence and, thereby, should be prohibited:  Many people believe that their criticism of Islam IS a moral duty.  They may be trying to warn about the treatment of women, girls, and homosexuals in the Muslim world.  They maybe speaking what is actually in the Qur'an.  Undoubtedly, there are many Muslims around the world who would be highly offended not only by mockery, but criticism.  A whole lot of Muslims refuse to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.  Would a cartoon mocking such beliefs be incitement even though it is true?  Probably, but so what?  How Far Are You Willing To Go In Order Not To Offend?

In Europe, speaking the TRUTH about Islam or Islamic regimes can get one a prison sentence.  Under the brainchild of Hillary Clinton and the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation, UN Resolution 16/18 and the Rabat Plan of Action, even truthful criticism of Islam would be criminalised.  Only the 'feelings' of Muslims would be considered.  How much freedom must we give up because some Special Little Snowflakes cannot control themselves, Mr Wickam? Sorry, but it is they who are just gonna have to get over it, not me.

Related: Bust Pallywood In A Fraud...And Get Sued For Defamation In France