NJ worker fired over Quran burning gets job back

A bit of good news and sanity for a change. 

FROM TBO.COM:

TBO.com > News > AP
Apr 22, 8:24 AM EDT

NJ worker fired over Quran burning gets job back

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) -- The New Jersey Transit employee fired for publicly burning pages of the Quran on the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is getting his job back.

A settlement obtained by The Star-Ledger Newark shows Derek Fenton will receive $25,000 for pain and suffering when he resumes his $86,110-a-year job. He'll also receive back pay equal to $331.20 for every day since his firing on Sept. 13, 2010.

Story continues HERE.

Daniel Greenfield addresses the outrageous intentions of Senators Lindsey Graham and Harry Reid and Justice Stephen Breyer to restrict the right of free speech in America over the recent burning of a Koran in Florida.  No matter how repugnant the burning may be to some, any restriction of free speech diminishes all of America and is the first step to the fall of freedom. We cannot allow Political Correctness and raw fear to stop us from the full exercise of our Freedom of Speech.

FROM SULTANKNISH.BLOGSPOT.COM:
Muslims and Moral Handicaps

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants an investigation into Koran burning. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that this form of free speech could be banned.  Senator Lindsey Graham is also looking for ways to limit free speech, saying, "Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war".

Free speech is more than a great idea, it's a fundamental freedom untouchable by legislators. But all it takes is a few Muslim murders-- and Reid, Breyer and Graham eagerly hold up their lighters to the Constitution. Free speech has been curtailed before in the United States during a time of war-- but only free speech sympathetic to the enemy. During WW1 a suspected German propagandist filmmaker was jailed. But could anyone have imagined anti-German propagandists being jailed? The Wilson administration was behaving unconstitutionally, but not insanely.

Today we aren't jailing filmmakers who traffic in anti-American propaganda in wartime. If we did that half of Hollywood would be  behind bars. Instead Democratic and Republican Senators are discussing banning speech offensive to the enemy. Because even though they're killing us already-- we had better not provoke them or who knows how much worse it will become.

Traditionally it's the victors who give their laws to the defeated. But massive immigration at home and nation building occupations abroad mean that the defeated of failed states are imposing their Sharia law on us. We're asked to trade in our Constitutional freedoms out of fear of Muslim violence. And so the murderers impose the terms of peace on us. And then don't abide by them.

Violence in the Muslim world is a constant. We have been fighting Muslim violence since George Washington's time. And we have been subject to it even longer. Whether it's Muslims killing Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians or any and every religion under the sun-- there is a pattern here. It's a story as old as time. And it's not one that we can stop by ladling out honeyed words of appeasement.

Story continues HERE.

Anti-Islam decals improperly banned at Camp Lejeune, judge rules

A small victory against Political Correctness.
VLADTEPESBLOG.COM:

Anti-Islam decals improperly banned at Camp Lejeune, judge rules
By Eeyore | April 1, 2010

From NewsOK.com

Jesse Nieto’s stickers included one that said “ISLAM (equals) TERRORISM” and another with a threat to defecate on the Quran. He also had a decal to commemorate the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, in which 17 shipmates died including Nieto’s youngest son.

“His vehicle is a way to express his mourning and anger,” said Nieto’s attorney, Robert Muise. Nieto has been driving a different vehicle to his on-base job since the summer of 2008, but Muise said he plans to return with his decals next week. He has worked at Lejeune since 1994 and previously served 25 years in the Marine Corps, including two combat tours as an infantryman in Vietnam.

U.S. District Judge Malcolm J. Howard said in a ruling posted Wednesday that a Lejeune regulation targeting inflammatory speech on base was improperly applied to Nieto’s decals and not to pro-Islamic messages that may be just as incendiary. Howard concluded that the application of the rule violated Nieto’s free speech.

“While military officials are entitled to great deference in restricting speech to further the military’s needs, they may not do so in a manner that discriminates against a particular point of view,” Howard wrote in his decision.

Nieto did not seek monetary damages in his lawsuit. Camp Lejeune officials did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

One of Nieto’s decals showed a picture of the cartoon character Calvin urinating on an illustration of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Another declared, “WE DIED, THEY REJOICED.” Another said “Disgrace My Countries Flag And I will (defecate) On Your Quran.”

A few of the stickers were removed after a traffic court hearing in 2008. He then added another decal with a line striking through the Islamic crescent moon and start, with the words “No Quarter” and “Islamic Terrorist” on it. Nieto was then ordered to remove all of his decals, but he refused.

Camp Lejeune’s rules say that vehicles cannot display messages of “extremist, indecent, sexist or racist” nature. Muise said the base was picking and choosing which messages to restrict.

“It’s political correctness run amok,” he said

Wilders: "Our enemies should know:

FROM JIHADWATCH.ORG:

Wilders: "Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left"
Here is Geert Wilders' speech at the Four Seasons in New York on February 23:

Thank you.

Thank you very much for inviting me. And – to the immigration authorities – thank you for letting me into this country. It is always a pleasure to cross a border without being sent back on the first plane.

Today, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to battle for.
As you might know, I will be prosecuted, because of my film Fitna, my remarks regarding Islam, and my view concerning what some call a ‘religion of peace’. A few years from now, I might be a criminal.

Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue; I gave up my freedom four years ago. I am under full-time police protection ever since. The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe’s children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca, Teheran and Gaza?

This is what video blogger Pat Condell said in one of his latest you tube appearances. He says: “If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech.” Now, Mr Condell is a stand-up comedian, but in the video he is dead serious and the joke is on us. Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West – in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.

Today, I come before you to warn of a great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, slavery of women, the end of democracy. It is NOT a religion, it is an political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is built on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never alter. First, there is the Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect. Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. It’s fact.

This is Europe 2009. Muslim settlers calling for our destruction, and free speech on trial. All this is the outcome of a sick and evil ideology, the ideology that is weakening us, the surrender ideology of cultural relativism. It believes that all cultures are equal, and therefore Islam deserves an equal place in the West. It is their duty, the left thinks, to facilitate Islam. This way the cultural relativists paradise comes within reach and we will all be happy, and sing kumbaya.
The forces of Islam couldn’t agree more. Islam being facilitated by government is their agenda too. But they see it as jizya, the money dhimmis pay in order not to be killed or raped by their Muslim masters. Therefore, they happily accept the welfare cheque or the subsidies for their mosque or the money governments donate to their organizations.

This is just one example of cultural relativists and Muslim settlers having the same agenda. There is another. Islam considers itself a religion and therefore we are not permitted to criticize it. The left agrees. Although it hated Christianity for decades, now that Islam appears on the scene, they suddenly change course and demand ‘respect’ for something they call a religion.
Again we see the left and Islam having the same agenda: it is a religion, so shut up.
This all culminates in a third coming-together: nor the left nor Islam is in favor of criticism. In fact, given the opportunity, they would simply outlaw it. Multiculturalism is the left’s pet project. It is actually their religion. Their love of it is so great, if you oppose it, it must be hate. And if you say it, it is labeled hate speech. Now here is something the Islam can agree on.
This is the essence of my short introduction today: where the left and Islam come together, freedom will suffer.

My friends, make no mistake, my prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the left on freedom of speech in order to please Muslims. It was started by a member of the Dutch Labour party, and the entire legal proceeding is done by well-to-do liberals, the radical chic of Dutch society, the snobbish left. Too much money, too much time, too little love of liberty. If you read what the court of Amsterdam has written about me, you read the same texts that cultural relativists produce.
How low can we go in the Netherlands? About my prosecution, The Wall Street Journal noted: “this is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside”. The Journal concluded that by The Netherlands accepting the free speech standards of, “Saudi-Arabia”, I stand correct in my observation that - I quote - “Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties”.

Now, if the Wall Street Journal has the moral clarity to see that my prosecution is the logical outcome of our disastrous, self-hating, multiculturalists immigration policies, then why can’t the European liberal establishment see the same thing? Why aren’t they getting at least a little bit scared by the latest news out of, for example, the UK. News that tells that the Muslim population in Britain is growing ten times as fast as the rest of society. Why don’t they care?

The answer is: they don’t care because they are blinded by their cultural relativism. Their disdain of the West is so much greater than the appreciation of our many liberties. And therefore, they are willing to sacrifice everything. The left once stood for women rights, gay rights, equality, democracy. Now, they favour immigration policies that will end all this. Many even lost their decency. Elite politicians have no problem to participate in or finance demonstrations where settlers shout “Death to the Jews”. Seventy years after Auschwitz they know of no shame.

Two weeks ago, I tried to get into Britain, a fellow EU country. I was invited to give a speech in Parliament. However, upon arrival at London airport, I was refused entry into the UK, and sent back on the first plane to Holland. I would have loved to have reminded the audience of a great man who once spoke in the House of Commons. In 1982 President Reagan gave a speech there very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

So, what should we do? Is this a good moment for freedom-loving people to give in or to change course? To all-of-a-sudden start singing praise of Islam, or proclaiming there is such a thing as a moderate Islam? Will we now accept the continuation of Muslim mass immigration to the West? Will we appease sharia and jihad? Should we sacrifice gay rights and women rights? Or democracy? Should we sell out Israel, our dearest ally, and a frontline state of Islam?
Well, my humble opinion is: No way, Jose!

I suggest to defend freedom in general and freedom of speech in particular. I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe. I propose a European First Amendment. In Europe we should defend freedom of speech like you Americans do. In Europe freedom of speech should be extended, instead of restricted. Of course, calling for violence or unjustly yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre have to be punished, but the right to criticize ideologies or religions are necessary conditions for a vital democracry. As George Orwell once said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Let us defend freedom of speech and let us gain strength and work hard to become even stronger. Millions think just like you and me. Millions think liberty is precious. That democracy is better than sharia. And after all, why should we be afraid? Our many freedoms and our prosperity are the result of centuries of endeavour. Centuries of hard work and sacrifice. We do not stand alone, and we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Late December 1944 the American army was suddenly faced with a last-ditch effort by the Germans. In the Ardennes, in the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler and his national-socialists fought for their last chance. And they were very successful. Americans faced defeat, and death.

In the darkest of winter, in the freezing cold, in a lonely forest with snow and ice as even fiercer enemies than the Nazi war machine itself, the American army was told to surrender. That might be their only chance to survive. But General McAuliffe thought otherwise. He gave the Germans a short message. This message contained just four letters. Four letters only, but never in the history of freedom was a desire for liberty and perseverance in the face of evil expressed more eloquently than in that message. It spelled N – U – T – S. “Nuts”.
My friends, the national-socialists got the message. Because it left no room for interpretation!

I suggest we walk in the tradition of giants like General McAuliffe and the American soldiers who fought and died for the freedom of my country and for a secular and democratic Europe, and we tell the enemies of freedom just that. NUTS! Because that’s all there is to it. No explanations. No beating around the bush. No caveats.

Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left. And we will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all man.

Too Christian for Academia? A four-volume encyclopedia gets pulped in the name of political correctness.

Another scholarly book destroyed by whining, whinging Jihad waging Muslims who demand to edit every publication they deem to be offensive to some aspect of Islam. The really sad part of this is that another publisher has knuckled under to Islamic terrorism.

"This is probably the first instance of mass book-burning in the 21st century."

Where will you be when the Jihad hits the street?

FROM VIRTUEONLINE.ORG:

Too Christian for Academia? A four-volume encyclopedia gets pulped in the name of political correctness.

By Edward Feser

February 11, 2009

Wiley-Blackwell, a major academic press, was set to release its four-volume Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization this month. According to the encyclopedia's editor, George Thomas Kurian, the set had been copy-edited, fact-checked, proofread, publisher-approved, printed, bound, and formally launched (to high praise) at the recent American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature conference.

But protests from a small group of scholars associated with the project have led the press to postpone publication, recall all copies already distributed, and destroy the existing print run. The scholars' complaint? The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, they have reportedly argued, is "too Christian." "They also object to historical references to the persecution and massacres of Christians by Muslims," Kurian says, "but at the same time want references favorable to Islam."

Political correctness in academic publishing is nothing new, but it would be unusual, to say the least, for ideological pressure to lead a publisher to reverse itself so late in the process, especially given the significant financial losses involved in pulping a print run of a gigantic four-volume encyclopedia. As Kurian puts it, "This is probably the first instance of mass book-burning in the 21st century."
READ IT ALL:

Muslims offended by bare nipple

Lots of laughs here for a change. It's always amusing to watch fanatics freak out over what are to sane people, trivial events.

FROM THELONDONPAPER.COM:

London News: A sexually explicit art work depicting a Burkha-clad woman exposing a nipple sparked outrage among some Muslims Friday, 12 December 2008

A SEXUALLY explicit art work depicting a Burkha-clad woman sparked outrage today after it went on on display at a London gallery.

The image shows a woman in a full-length burkha – but instead of having a cut-out for the eyes, the cut-out exposes one of her nipples.

The artwork has already been condemned by the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland (UMO) as "blasphemous, cheap porn".

A spokesman said: "At a time when tensions are already heightened, gallery owners shouldn't be exhibiting artwork like this - it's offensive, inflammatory. and degrading to Muslim women."

Photographer Yeon Lee, defended her image, titled Seeing is Believing, claiming it "highlights the ways women are categorised in male-dominated societies".

But the UMO said the image could spark similar angry scenes to those in Denmark in September 2005 when a newspaper printed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed portraying him as a terrorist.

He said: "People will protest. It's blasphemous – the artist just wants to make some money – and it's not helpful in this current climate."

Gallery owner James Freeman, who is exhibiting the image as part of a wider collection, called Five Years, from emerging international artists in North London", agreed the image had "shock value". But he denied it was blasphemous.

He said: "It's not ridiculing, or ironic, or degrading or perjorative. I don't think you could perceive any blasphemy in this.

"On the one hand the image conveys the idea of religious conservatism, but on the other hand, it expresses the idea of Western sexuality."

A spokeswoman for the Metropolitan police said they had not yet received any complaints.

Hanover Sun Setting on West? Charisse's Charade

The islamists and their dhimmis can't silence the internet and the myriad of bloggers who are defending Western Civilization. It's time for the coordinated efforts of thousands of bloggers to cross post work from our best reporters in an organized way. Since the MSM is in the bag for all that would destroy our way of life, an electronic samizdat is needed to respectfully and gently inform and educate our liberal friends. Reach out to your friends and associates and keep up the momentum started by folks like Diana West, Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders and Atlas et al who shine the light of truth on the jihad tsunami that will surely crush our freedom if not stopped.

If you have a blog, send your posts directly to those you know. If you don't blog, send selected writings of the great conservative writers. And if it pisses off your friends, at least they have the information.

To paraphrase: Ye Shall Know the Truth, and the Truth Shall Set Us ALL Free.

FROM ATLASSHRUGS:

Hanover Sun Setting on West? Charisse's Charade

What started out slowly, is increasing with disturbing speed. The leading lights of the West - those brave, beleaguered, tenacious truth warriors (Steyn, Levant, Spencer, Bostom et al) are being put upon with fascist force. This is what the leftists do.


This is how thugs operate.

West does the work. She investigates and reports the story even when it's "off message" or because it's off message I suspect (it's why I do what I do when no one else will). The zombies don't like that and notice how they never respond with intellectual debate or discourse. Never. Ad hominem attacks, name calling and smears are their MO. The objective? Kill the messenger.
My respected colleague over at The Washington Times, Diana West, is being smeared http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/591/Default.aspx
and perhaps silenced because she reports the truth, something the media has refused to do. Now it appears that wasn't enough. Now they will crush it, silence it - eliminate it. G-d save us.
Here is West's response to this:

To the Editor:

I am responding to Editor Marc Charisse’s column about my work, a column I found striking for its mud-slinging crudity. In Charisse’s words, my work, the product of careful research and reporting, may be summed up thus: West “never met a Muslim she didn’t hate.” There is no more apt word than “grotesque” to describe such an irresponsible and flippant mischaracterization of my weekly column, which very often grapples with the terrible, largely unspoken reality that Western liberties—freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, equality before the law, including women’s rights and the rights of non-Muslims—are increasingly threatened by a growing deference to the laws of Islam. To underscore my point, I don’t write about “Muslims.” I write about Islam, the supremacist ideology constructed on laws (sharia) that justify censorship, repression, violence, inequality, and even maiming and murder of those whom the sharia leaves voiceless and powerless: dissenters, Muslim apostates, non-Muslims and women. I write about its agents—violent jihadists as well as soft jihadists, all of whom are working to extend the rule of this law across the non-Muslim world. And I write about politically correct non-Muslims who, as a public point of what is hailed as tolerance and inclusiveness have surrendered their common sense, their courage and, increasingly, their countries to the advance of this Islamic law.

“Pull the plug” on me if you like. But do not slander me or my work as a manifestation of hatred toward individuals. If anything, it is a manifestation of fear—fear that our liberties are not just under assault but have already been diminished, and are destined for still more restriction in that “sharp new subtext” Charisse says the recent presidential election has added “to the subject of Muslims.” Whatever that means.

I’ll take Charisse’s assessment of my work as “confrontational” as a compliment, even if he didn’t mean it that way. After all, what columnist worth his space, from Paul Krugman to Pat Buchanan, isn’t confrontational? But as for branding my ideas as “inappropriate” and “out of place”—well, isn’t that less the language of an American newsroom than an old Soviet politbureau?

Diana West

Lawsuit filed in defense of Marine vet’s anti-Islam decals

This is terrible. It's un-American and an affront to every American. I just don't understand how a military JAG officer has the authority, much less the ability to judge what is "offensive" or not when it comes to political expression. If anything, government property, especially military bases should be the bastion of free speech.

I would expect the lawsuit filed in this case will carry the day and give the overzealous officers at Camp Lejeune a lesson in freedom and democracy. With the islamic jihad assaulting the free world, we should be proud that a former Marine is standing up for America.

Muslims trying to suppress free speech in the West is bad enough, but when the U.S. military does it, then we are bowing to the forces of evil and this cannot be tolerated.

FROM CATHOLICNEWSAGENCY.COM:

Lawsuit filed in defense of Marine vet’s anti-Islam decals
Ann Arbor, Nov 13, 2008 / 06:56 am (CNA).

A Marine veteran whose anti-terrorist and anti-Islam vehicle decals hindered him in visiting the grave of his fallen son at Arlington National Cemetery has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the military order which rebuked his display of the decals.

Jesse Nieto, a 25-year Marine veteran, served two combat tours in Vietnam. His youngest son, Marc, was one of the seventeen sailors killed in the terrorist bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October of 2000.
Since 1994 Nieto has been a civilian employee at the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. In 2001 he began displaying various decals on his vehicle expressing sentiments such as “Remember the Cole, 12 Oct 2000,” “Islam=Terrorism” and “We Died, They Rejoiced.”
On July 31, 2008, two military police officers ticketed Nieto for displaying “offensive material.”

After Nieto refused to remove all allegedly offending decals from his vehicle, the Base Magistrate issued a written order ordering Nieto to remove his vehicle from the base until all decals were removed. The order banned his vehicle from all other federal installations, and reportedly prevented him from driving onto the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.

The Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center filed a federal civil rights lawsuit this week on Nieto’s behalf against the Camp Lejeune Commanding Officer and the Base Magistrate in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The lawsuit claims that the military’s ban on Nieto’s vehicle decals violates his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the equal protection of the law.
“The banning of these decals is political correctness run amuck in the military,” charged Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center. “Our troops are being killed by Islamic terrorists, 9/11 was caused by Islamic terrorists, these terrorists want to destroy America, the Islamic countries persecute Christians, and now the military is victimizing a father whose son was killed by Islamic terrorists while serving our nation.”
Thompson speculated that the Marine command would have to eliminate the Marine’s Hymn because “the phrase ‘to the shores of Tripoli’ celebrates the Marine victory over Islamic forces in the Barbary Coast War and the Battle of Derne.”
The lawsuit alleges that military officials engaged in viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment and violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by allowing some messages to be displayed but prohibiting others.

Further, the suit charges that the military’s ban on “offensive” speech is impermissible because there are no objective standards guiding government officials’ decisions, thus granting them “unbridled discretion” to determine the acceptability or the unacceptability of speech, a statement from the Thomas More Law Center reports.

With demonstrations banned Saudi activists launch online home-based hunger strike

There is a small crack in the Saudi reign of terror known as wahhabism. These are some very brave folks indeed to go up against the House of Saud. I expect the authorities to react quickly to squash this internet hunger strike to promote judicial reform. The Saudis react quickly against the threat public demonstration, so they must be going ballistic over something that can go "viral" on the internet.

Iran just passed a law that makes any use of the internet for "subversive" purposes subject to the death penalty. Will the Saudis follow suit?

Despite these brave peoples protest, reform isn't likely as "law" in Saudi Arabia consists of an interpretation of Sharia by islamic wahhabi fanatics.

FROM ASIANEWS.IT:

With demonstrations banned Saudi activists launch online home-based hunger strike

The group calls for a reform of the legal system, changes to the constitution and the release of 11 reformers held in prison without trial. Students and intellectuals join the protest campaign via Facebook.

Riyadh (AsiaNews/Agencies) – A group of Saudi activists began a rare public hunger strike on Thursday 6 November, demanding reforms to the judiciary and drawing attention to the issue of detention without trial of 11 political reformists. Since public protests are banned in Saudi Arabia they have opted instead to hold their strike in their homes. The 65 men and women protesters plan to continue the strike today.
Mohammad Al Qah'tani, one of the 13 activists who called for the protest, said “we don't want a confrontation with security forces,” for this reason they chose to go on a hunger strike at home.
The activists sent a letter to the government demanding the release of political prisoners, the improvement of prison conditions and a reform to the legal system, but failed to get a response.
“We used all legal means to make our voice heard, but we were ignored,” said Al Qah'tani, a college professor.
He added that that the protest will not turn to the streets because we “don't want to have problems with security forces that would not lead to any results.”
The leaders of the virtual revolt posted a statement on the social networking site Facebook, an online community frequented especially by the young, announcing the strike and urging other Saudis to join the political struggle. So far writers, lawyers and college students have joined in.
Human rights activist Matrook Al Faleh is among the 11 political prisoners. He was detained in May for advocating constitutional reforms and an end to the inhuman conditions in prison. Along with him, ten other activists were jailed in Jeddah in 2007.

Islamists are attacking freedom of speech

A succinct look at the ways islamists are suppressing free speech in the West.

FROM SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWD SERVICE

Islamists are attacking freedom of speech
Submitted by SHNS on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 15:53.

By CLIFFORD D. MAY, Scripps Howard News Service

Freedom of speech is under attack. Let us count the ways.
The first and most obvious: Those who criticize militant Islamists -- from novelist Salman Rushdie to Danish cartoonists to memoirist Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- are routinely threatened with deadly violence. It would be black humor to say this is having a chilling effect.
The second is "political correctness." On campuses and within Western governments it is increasingly taboo to label terrorists who slaughter in the name of Islam "Islamist terrorists." In Canada, "human rights commissions" attempt to enforce this taboo by putting such writers as Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant on trial for the "crime" of expressing opinions that offend Islamic grievance groups -- and also for quoting Islamists accurately and thereby casting them in an unfavorable light. If that's not Orwellian, what is?

But it is the third approach that could be most consequential for Americans. It's known as "libel tourism" and here's how it works: A book published in the United States names an individual abroad who supports terrorist groups. That individual -- for the sake of discussion, let's say he's a Saudi petro-billionaire with a home in London -- goes online and orders a few copies, which arrive in the mail. He takes those books to a British attorney who files a lawsuit complaining that his client has been libeled.

The billionaire knows it will be much easier to prevail in the U.K. than it would be in an American court, where the First Amendment and decades of case law provide free speech protections. (Under English law, by contrast, the burden in a libel case is on the defendant to prove his innocence -- which can be impossible if he's been using confidential sources or even just sources who don't want to cross an ocean and take part in a courtroom battle.)
The legal costs are chump change for the billionaire, while few nonfiction writers command similar resources. If the writer chooses not to spend months living in a hotel and fighting it out in court, the case will be forfeited and he will be hit with a "default judgment." If he doesn't pay, he'll never again be able to set foot in the U.K. and other countries that enforce British court judgments.

But more important is this: The message gets sent, loud and clear, to journalists, scholars and publishers, that researching and writing about terrorists and those who enable them is verboten -- even in America.

Publisher Roger Kimball has noted that when he was about to publish "Andy McCarthy's Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad," he received a message from a distributor working in the U.K. and Canada asking if there were "any references to Saudis and terrorist(s) in the book" as that "could potentially create libel lawsuits as it could offend Saudis living in England and this has happened with many other U.S. publications and we do not want to be jeopardized in selling this book." No, no -- we wouldn't want that, would we?
Kimball was not intimidated but some writers, no doubt, have been, and other publishers have not just turned down "risky" books but pulled volumes from shelves and destroyed them following threats of legal action.

What can be done to protect Americans from having our speech restricted by foreign terrorist financiers, foreign lawyers, foreign judges and their toadies?
Representatives Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, which would give Americans who find themselves in the situation described above a "federal cause of action" to sue right back -- and to claim legal fees, costs and significant damage awards as well if a U.S. court concludes that the foreign suit was "a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights."

What's more, the bill would provide "expedited discovery": The plaintiff would be compelled to disclose information and documents relevant to the charges -- something few investors in terrorist enterprises are eager to do.
On the Senate side, the bill is being shepherded by Senators Joseph Lieberman, (DI-Conn.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). What obstacles are preventing this bill from being passed into law? Let us count them.
First, although there is bipartisan support for this approach, not enough backers -- so far at least -- are from the majority party: Of ten sponsors on the House side, only one is a Democrat. Second, we're deep into the presidential campaign season, a time when very little moves on Capitol Hill. Third, never underestimate the ability of the Saudis, their lobbyists, their allies and their courtiers, to kill that which interferes with their interests.

You Still Can't Write About Muhammad

NO MORE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN AMERICA. Random House has cowered in fear of muslim threats. THIS IS COWARDICE, PURE COWARDICE. This is the worst thing any American or American company could do. There can be NO accommodation to the religion of terror. Each and every accommodation only encourages more. America is on the way down the shit hole of islam.

FROM ONLINE.WSJ.COM:

You Still Can't Write About Muhammad
By ASRA Q. NOMANI
August 6, 2008; Page A15
Starting in 2002, Spokane, Wash., journalist Sherry Jones toiled weekends on a racy historical novel about Aisha, the young wife of the prophet Muhammad. Ms. Jones learned Arabic, studied scholarly works about Aisha's life, and came to admire her protagonist as a woman of courage. When Random House bought her novel last year in a $100,000, two-book deal, she was ecstatic. This past spring, she began plans for an eight-city book tour after the Aug. 12 publication date of "The Jewel of Medina" -- a tale of lust, love and intrigue in the prophet's harem.

It's not going to happen: In May, Random House abruptly called off publication of the book. The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world.
Random House feared the book would become a new "Satanic Verses," the Salman Rushdie novel of 1988 that led to death threats, riots and the murder of the book's Japanese translator, among other horrors. In an interview about Ms. Jones's novel, Thomas Perry, deputy publisher at Random House Publishing Group, said that it "disturbs us that we feel we cannot publish it right now." He said that after sending out advance copies of the novel, the company received "from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."
READ IT ALL:

Fear of democracy

The UN continues to suppress free speech. Caroline B. Glick once again points out the steady dissolution of Western values by multi-culti dhimmis.
FROM JEWISHWORLDREVIEW.COM:

Fear of democracy
By Caroline B. Glick

The West stands by idly as its foundations are being rent asunder.
Last Friday the UN's Human Rights Council took a direct swipe at freedom of expression. In a unanimous 32-0 decision, the Council instructed its "expert on freedom of expression" to report to the Council on all instances in which individuals "abuse" their freedom of speech by giving expression to racial or religious bias.
The measure was proposed by paragons of freedom Egypt and Pakistan. It was supported by all Arab, Muslim and African countries - founts of liberty one and all. European states abstained from the vote.
The US, which is not a member of the Human Rights Council tried to oppose the measure. In a speech before the Council, US Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Warren Tichenor warned that the resolution's purpose is to undermine freedom of expression because it imposes, "restrictions on individuals rather than emphasiz[ing] the duty and responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect human rights."
By seeking to criminalize free speech, the resolution stands in breach of the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of that document states explicitly, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
The Europeans' decision to abstain rather than oppose the measure seems, at first glance rather surprising. Given that the EU member states are among the UN's most emphatic champions, it would have seemed normal for them to have opposed a resolution that works to undermine one of the UN's foundational documents, and indeed, one of the most basic tenets of Western civilization.
But then again, given the EU's stands in recent years against freedom of expression, there really is nothing to be surprised about. The EU's current bow to intellectual thuggery is of course found in its response to the Internet release of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders' film "Fitna."
The EU has gone out of its way to attack Wilders for daring to utilize his freedom of expression. The EU's presidency released a statement condemning the film for "inflaming hatred." Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenendeissued statements claiming that the film "serves no other purpose than to cause offense." Then too, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon blasted the film as "offensively anti-Islamic."
READ IT ALL:

EGYPT: Torturing Bloggers

Where is Code Pink and all their PC anti-American doo-doo gooders? When can we expect a protest march at UCLA? I'm sure Condi will be right there protesting in the most serious tones against one of Americas staunchest Arab "allies".
FROM ATLASSHRUGS:
EGYPT: Torturing Bloggers
Sandmonkey reports the latest atrocity out of our friends the Egyptians here;

KARIM AMER IS GETTING TORTURED IN PRISON
Abdel Karim Soliman, famously now known as Karim Amer, who got jailed for "disdain for religion" and "insulting the president" on his blog, is reportedly getting tortured by the Prison authorities.

Karim who is an Egyptian
blogger sentenced to prison for 4 years for 'vilifying religions' and
defaming the president was tortured & that was ordered and
supervised by an investigation officer in Borg Alarab prison. Karim was
also ordered into a solitary cell where he was assaulted again and had
one of his teeth broken; this assault's date came to mark one year
since Karim was sent to jail.
Karim reported his being tortured in prison to his lawyers in
the Arabic Network and Hisham Mubarak Center, the torture came at the
hand of another prisoner and a prison guard, ordered by Midhat Samir
one of the prison's investigations officers. This came to pass after
Karim has uncovered some corruption act in the prison. Karim was
punished and tortured severely which resulted in several injuries in
addition to a broken tooth. He was deprived from officially reporting
the incident against the accused officer as well as denying him the
right to document these injuries in a medical report.
The Arabic Network for Human Rights information and Hisham Mubarak
Centre for Law mentioned in their communiqué to the Prosecutor-General
that the assault on Karim is manifested in the following:
READ IT ALL:

Testing the Limits

Another update on Lars Vilks from Gates of Vienna. Great reading and an inspiration for all free men.
FROM GATESOFVIENNA:
Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Testing the Limits
by Baron Bodissey
One of the things that I have noticed about the Modoggie Crisis is that Lars Vilks — despite the rudimentary nature of his scrawled drawings and the manifest unseriousness of the artist’s statements — did not undertake his blasphemous task lightly or at random. There is a method in his madness.

And now he has made that fact clear. According to The Local:

Lars Vilks took part on Tuesday evening in a seminar in Stockholm organized by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Sweden and the Swedish Humanist Association.

Vilks reminded his audience that the drawing had been meant as a provocation. The art and culture communities in Sweden repeatedly criticize the United States and Israel, he said, whereas Muslim countries are rarely even questioned. The caricature of Muhammad as a ‘roundabout dog’ was his way of “testing the limits” of art.

“I suppose one could say that from that perspective I have been entirely successful,” said Vilks. [emphasis added]

Well, kudos to Lars Vilks!

The intentionality of his effort should give pause to the politicians who are now sweating bullets, hoping and praying that further escalation can be avoided, at least until the other party is in power.

It’s also evidence that he’s not going to quit provoking people with his drawings. He began this with full knowledge of what he what he was getting into, and a few piddling death threats are evidently not enough to deter him.
READ IT ALL: