This video shows an anti-Islamization demonstration in Sydney, Australia, which reveals useful strategies for activists by watching it.
If you watch the video starting at about 3:40, you see a protester being asked questions by a bystander, but the protestor isn’t quite prepared to answer his questions off the top of her head to her frustration, despite her fears being justified. (See the following articles which clarify what she is concerned about: “Creeping Sharia”, “Muslim Demographics”, “The Grand Deception”, and “Hitler Embraced Islam”.)
A good way for activist groups to avoid such problems while protesting is for all involved to coordinate in order to identify and memorize certain “core points” that they are protesting, including the most “big picture” concerns like she was being asked about, all of which should also be printed on flyers which can be handed out as well.
If people still have questions that a particular activist doesn’t know the answer to, more well informed activists should be made available to answer those questions, and also on-the-spot internet access should ideally be available to the activists.
Activists should also make a note of all of the questions they are asked so they can be better prepared to answer those questions in the future.
Additionally, activists should “practice” while protesting during moments when they are not actually talking to people from the public, by quizzing each other about key topics and videotaping how they respond.
(Note the audio on this video clip is set to a very low volume)
This video shows Muslims commenting about demonstrations which are protesting about new religious blasphemy laws in Sydney, Australia.
A Muslim man is shown saying: “The message is very simple: Freedom of expression has some limits. You cannot simply spread the message of hate and say ‘This is the freedom of expression’! You know, it has to be condemned on all levels, whether it is Australia or it is the United States [(but he never mentions any Islamic countries)]. … Freedom of expression doesn’t mean that you can insult people.”
A Muslim woman is then shown saying: “Freedom of expression means you don’t hurt other ones. And these kinds of words [people protesting anti-free speech laws] hurt Muslims, so this is not right. If you are going within your limits, it’s all right.”
The Muslim man then says, “People are being outrageous about this and this is not correct, freedom of expression has to be within the context but this is totally out of the context.”
Kirralie Smith, who is running for Senate in Australia, speaks out about a “religious vilification law” which was recently passed in the ACT Australian government that she explains is an unfair “blasphemy law.” She mentions that Victoria, Australia has had similar laws implemented since 2002, and she explains some of the disturbing issues that have arisen because of those laws.
Following are points that she mentions:
— The previous Victorian legislation which the new ACT legislation is based upon says that “A person must not, on the grounds of religious activity or belief of a person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of that person or class of persons.”
— Violence must never be incited, but people should be concerned that the law says that it is illegal to “incite serious contempt or revulsion for a class of people.” It is important that people should be able to do so, citing many disturbing aspects of Islam which should be criticized.
— In a well know case against two men in Victoria, being one of the first cases taken to court under the new blasphemy laws, the complaint stated that Daniel Scott and Danny Nalliah had “vilified Islam” in a private seminar in 2002 when they were lecturing about the differences between Christianity and Islam. The men had lived under Sharia law in Saudi Arabia where they witnessed three beheadings. They quoted from the Quran during the seminar to demonstrate what some Muslims believe, but in the eyes of the law it wasn’t a matter of whether the men told the truth, but rather the fact that they made Muslims “feel bad” by what they said. The Islamic Council barrister even put into record: “Your honor, may I put in record, under the new law, truth is not a defense.”
— She says, “The truth is that the Islamic ideology is hate filled and it does incite violence but somehow that is irrelevant … The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission website states: ‘Vilification is about what we say or do, it is about the words we choose when we speak to others and it is about our behavior. Hateful words and behavior can hurt, isolate, and disconnect people from each other. They can diminish our dignity, sense of self, create fear and lead to anxiety and depression.’ Actually, the hateful words in the Quran and Hadiths do more than hurt, isolate, or disconnect people— they incite hatred and violence to the point of rape, enslavement, and murder. Will preaching from the Quran and Hadiths now be outlawed in Victoria and the ACT? I doubt it. Vilification is not the most serious issue we face as a nation. Our security, safety and freedoms which have been hard fought and won are far more important. If someone is going to have hurt feelings because a hate speech in the Quran is highlighted, than so be it.”
— The legislation allows criticism of Islam, but it does not allow the criticism of anyone who chooses to obey Islam’s ideology. She reiterates again that she does not advocate being violent, but she certainly encourages people to look at what Islam teaches and to expose it. She doesn’t see how it is possible to highlight and expose Islam’s violent hate speech in the Quran and the Hadiths without also being allowed to mention specific examples, and she explains the fact that there are many Muslims who obey the most violent and extreme commands.
— Christians and Jews are constantly vilified in the media, but the blasphemy laws were not implemented with those religions in mind. The proponents of the laws said that hatred and intolerance toward Muslims was one of the biggest intolerance issues in Australia today, but Smith points out that actually the biggest intolerance issues are from the countless Islamic governments and movements who literally obey the commands in the Quran and Hadith.
— She says, “The largest source is intolerance if from the Muslims who insist that Islam is superior to everything else, and they try to impose it on everyone else. … [Another source] of intolerance is the political class and the media elite who hound, harass, mock, and vilify anyone who dares to highlight the facts about Islamic theology.”
— Sonya Kruyger spoke out about Nazism in Germany in the 1930’s when it was illegal to do so, and today’s situation in Australia is walking down the same path as Nazism.
— Islam as an Ideology has seriously dangerous flaws within the Quran and Hadith that are not compatible with freedom, democracy, or equality, and it is essential that everyone continues to stand up and speak out about it.
View footage of a Christian man being attacked by Muslims for distributing pamphlets in a public park in Turkey. A Muslim approaches the man and says “Who gave you permission to stand here? You have to ask permission from us first. The streets belong to us! You will remove this in five minutes, or you will pay with your life!” Soon afterwards a group of men come and hit the man, kicking over his table.
Manfred Hauser, the deputy head of Germany’s spy agency, has confirmed that ISIS has been successfully importing hit squads and sleeper cells into Germany thanks to Angela Merkel’s immigration politics, and also Dr. Mudar Zahran, a leader of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition who is a Muslim himself has warned to “keep Muslims out of Europe.”
The Sun newspaper said “ISIS hit squads and ‘sleeper cells’ intent on waging war on Europe have entered Germany disguised as refugees, a leading spy chief [Hauser] has confirmed. Intelligence agencies also have ‘irrefutable’ evidence that they are following a command structure, meaning a coordinated attack like those seen in Paris and Brussels is ‘likely’.”
On an appearance on the BBC show Today, Hauser said “We have substantial reports that among the refugees there are hit squads. There are hundreds of these reports, some from refugees themselves. We are still following up on these, and we haven’t investigated all of them fully. We have to accept that we have hit squads and sleeper cells in Germany.”
The problem exists wherever Muslims are migrating to, including Mexico where an Islamic State Jihadist revealed that he has “brothers” operating who can easily infiltrate the U.S., according to the Gateway Pundit:
“Earlier this year a top ranking Homeland Security official acknowledged that Mexican drug cartels were helping ISIS sneak across the southern border to scope out targets for terrorist attacks.
ISIS operative Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir has reportedly been training militants near the US border near Ciudad Juarez for the past year.
Khabir actually brags in an Italian newspaper article published last week that the border region is so open that he ‘could get in with a handful of men, and kill thousands of people in Texas or in Arizona in the space of a few hours.’”
Of course this would not even be necessary though due to the Obama Administration bringing Muslim immigrants directly into the United States anyway. More Muslims have come to the US since 9/11 than have been here before then.
We know for certain that Jihadists lurk among the immigrants due to the fact that there is no way to properly vet them, as the FBI and other members of the U.S. intelligence community have affirmed. Also the Greek government has said the same, and a New York City Syrian community leader has made similar statements, adding that perhaps 20 percent of the migrants likely have IS links.
Migrants can’t be vetted because war-torn countries don’t have Western-style databases providing accurate information on their citizens, but even if such a system would exist, corruption is so widespread in such countries that it is only a matter of paying a bribe to get government documents saying you are whoever you want to be.
Dr. Mudar Zahran, a leader of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition who is a Muslim himself had a message on a 2015 segment of the Glazov Gang to “Keep the Muslims out of Europe.”
… In the above video Zahran calls the migrant wave “the soft Islamic conquest of the West,” also saying that most Muslim migrants claim to be Syrian so they can get refugee status, as reported last October:
“Seventy-five percent of those arriving from Syria come from safe area[s]; actually, the ones in disaster areas cannot … leave. So, actually, as much as there’s a disaster in Syria, most of those people arriving do in fact do not need the protection; they arrive from Turkey, they arrive from Jordan, they arrive from other places which are safe. In addition, those people are … bypassing poor European countries; they’re going to Turkey, Hungary, and other places like Bulgaria and settling in Germany, where there is a rich nation with a generous welfare system.”
…
“What Muslims ‘couldn’t do in the last 20 years,’ says Zahran, ‘now the West is doing for us for free — and even paying for it.’ … I have to be honest, you read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers; they are talking about, ‘Good job! Now we’re going to conquest [sic] Europe.’ So it’s not even a secret.’”
…
“I can authoritatively confirm [terrorists coming with the migrant]— I have photos, I have images, I have pictures, I have names of terrorists who actually are already in Europe posting their photos in Europe on Facebook.”
As he explains, we are witnessing a “leadership crisis” rather than a “refugee crisis.”
The most ideal solution would be for the refugees to be relocated as close to their native lands as possible, in particular in rich Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Also, the idea of refugee resettlement is that they should return to their native lands once danger has subsided, but instead it is taken for granted that they will permanently resettle.
Common sense dictates that if a nation admits one million Muslims and only one-tenth of one percent are terrorists, then that is still 1,000 violent jihadists.
The Sun reports that 820 people had “left Germany to fight alongside jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq, according to estimates by German secret services” — and one-third of them having since returned. But the West’s only response to this is a proposal to take away theses Jihadist fighters’ German citizenship.
[Note: March 15, 2020— I have revamped the text of this article and posted a correction.]
Greta Zimmer Friedman, who eventually had been identified as the woman in the iconic World War II photo of a couple kissing during a celebration in New York’s Times Square, has died in Virginia at age 92. The photograph had become controversial due to her recollection of abruptly being grabbed and kissed by a random drunken sailor against her will, and despite her explaining what happened most media outlets refuse to acknowledge that situation.
As an example, a CNN article at this link talks about her death, but it doesn’t mention the fact that she was assaulted or any of the controversy surrounding it.
A Breitbart article describes a situation of feminists demanding that a statue of the couple be removed from Normandy in Northern France. [Note: March 15, 2020— Previously I said that the article portrayed the feminists as “overreacting,” however actually the article was more unbiased than that, saying in the last paragraph “if both parties are comfortable with the situation then no offense has taken place, as a result it is unlikely a court would uphold the feminists claims about the original incident.”]
The following excerpts are from the article “The Kissing Sailor, or ‘The Selective Blindness of Rape Culture’,” commenting about how mainstream news reports failed to comment on the fact that Freidman was sexually assaulted despite her clearly explaining what had happened:
For a long time, the identity of the pair remained a mystery. It certainly looks passionate and romantic enough, with many speculating that they were a couple – a sailor and a nurse, celebrating and sharing their joy. This year, however, historians have finally confirmed that the woman is Greta Zimmer Friedman, a dental nurse at the time, and George Mendonsa, a sailor.
Have a look at some articles about it. Do you get the feeling that something is not quite right?
A few facts have come to light. Far from being a kiss between a loving couple, we learn that George and Greta were perfect strangers. We learn that George was drunk, and that Greta had no idea of his presence, until she was in his arms, with his lips on hers.
The articles even give us Greta’s own words:
“It wasn’t my choice to be kissed. The guy just came over and grabbed!”
“I did not see him approaching, and before I knew it, I was in this vice grip. [sic]”
“You don’t forget this guy grabbing you.”
“That man was very strong. I wasn’t kissing him. He was kissing me.”
It seems pretty clear, then, that what George had committed would be considered sexual assault by modern standards. Yet, in an amazing feat of willful blindness, none of the articles comment on this, even as they reproduce Greta’s words for us. Without a single acknowledgement of the problematic nature of the photo that her comments reveal, they continue to talk about the picture in a whimsical, reverent manner, “still mesmerized by his timeless kiss.” George’s actions are romanticized and glorified; it is almost as if Greta had never spoken.
As members of Texas Task Force 1, Bretagne and her mom/handler Denise Corliss had an intense first deployment. They joined nearly 100 other search and rescue dogs to find and save people trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center after 9/11. They’ve had an unshakable bond ever since.
After hearing Bretagne’s story and learning that her 16th birthday was coming up, there was no question in our minds that she deserved a Dog’s Best Day for the ages.
To celebrate her birthday and thank her for her incredible service, we were honored to team up with the dog-lovers at 1 Hotels to bring this New York City hero and her mom back to the city for the ultimate Dog’s Best Day.
From the video: “Should offensive speech be banned? Where should we, as a society, draw the line where permitted speech is on one side, and forbidden speech is on the other? Should we even have that line? And should free speech be limited by things like trigger warnings and punishments for microaggressions? Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, answers these questions and more.”
The office of the first Muslim mayor of London Sadiq Khan has set aside millions of pounds to fund police operated “online hate crime hubs” which will work with social media providers to criminalize “trolls” who “target… individuals and communities.”
The London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) will spend £1,730,726 of taxpayer funds to police online speech, as announced in a recent statement.
The program is described as “involving a dedicated police team [backed by] volunteers,” who will be collaborating with social media providers for filtering and identifying online infractions, identifying the locations of the perpetrators, and then allocating “the appropriate force.”
Earlier this year, the EU announced that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Microsoft have “committed” to working more closely with each countries’ national governments and law enforcement agencies to help them “criminalize” supposed “illegal hate speech online.”
Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 in the UK is used to prosecute “internet trolls” who “[use a] public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” and it can result in a six month prison term or a fine up to £5,000. Convictions for such crimes have increased tenfold in the past decade, where 1,209 people were found guilty compared with 143 in 2004, according to the Ministry of Justice.
Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent, explained“Pure rants, very childish [people online] are increasingly criminalized, and as a result of that the police is becoming more and more involved in controlling our morality. … [The police are] almost playing the role of a moral police. And instead of dealing with real crime in the offline world, [the police] find its very convenient to ‘send the message’ in the online world because it’s a relatively easy thing to do. … And what I’m really worried about, is that the whole freedom of speech becomes compromised whenever people have to think twice about what they say.”
Section 127 was the law used to prosecute the Northern Irish Pastor James McConnel who made “grossly offensive” remarks about Islam during a sermon which was broadcast online in 2014. He was subjected to an 18 month police investigation and criminal prosecution, and eventually he was found not guilty.
Also in 2011, a Scottish football fan was sentenced to eight months in prison under section 127 for insulting Celtic fans, Catholics and the Pope on a Facebook page. Also, during his sentencing, the sheriff told him that “the right-thinking people of Glasgow and Scotland” would not tolerate his views being expressed on the internet.
.jpg){kind=link}