British Multiculturalism & Its Arbitrators

From Andrew Walden:

''Without the internet skills and the service of hundreds of Western writers and intellectuals, the Islamists would have much greater difficulty spreading their propaganda to gain the submission of American and European leftist audiences. How important is the left’s servitude to radical Islam?''

''Under the Jihad US masthead, one side contains “mainstream news” consisting of Western media reports and opinion useful to the jihadi cause. On the other side is “uncensored news” consisting of reports such as, “The Islamic State Of Iraq News Report For The City Of Baghdad” –fifty after action reports on operations allegedly carried out against US forces and Shia civilians in Iraq. Other jihadi after action reports come from Afghanistan, Palestine, Pakistan and Chechnya. A report titled, “Al-Qaeda Fighters Versus The Soldiers Of “Freedom And Democracy” features New Yorker magazine writer Seymour Hersh claiming Iraqi prisoners were sodomized at Abu-Ghraib. An article condemns Hamas for considering the possibility of peace talks with Israel. Jihad US also promulgates the false story of “Fatima” an imaginary female Iraqi prisoner at Abu-Ghraib. Her fake story is a key propaganda device in recruiting assistance for foreign jihadis in Iraq.

''American leftists including Cindy Sheehan in August met in Jordan with Iraqi leaders of minor parties some affiliated with the armed resistance. This was their second such meeting.

''It is not only left-wing pro-surrender activists who are featured stars of the Islamist propaganda war on the West. Former Reform Party presidential candidate and current CNN commentator Pat Buchanan’s article, “Whose War?” (his answer: the Jews’) is front and center setting the tone on the anti-Semitic, pro-terror website www.NoWarForIsrael.com . There it fits perfectly alongside links to articles from the Holocaust-deniers of the mis-named Institute of Historical Review, and propaganda pieces from “electronic intifada”, JihadUS, the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency, and numerous articles asserting that Israeli agents conducted the 9-11 attacks, not those poor misunderstood Muslims from al-Qaeda.

''Another site, Islam Daily is almost entirely constructed of articles by non-Muslim westerners making the arguments which serve the current needs of Islamism. Islam Daily features dozens of western media commentaries including: • Bush as Bad as bin Laden? In Some Ways, Worse, • the latest anti-Semitic ramblings of Justin Raimondo (Israel is more dangerous than Iran) from anti-war.com, • analysis of the “Angus Reid World Poll” which announces that “People in 13 countries believe the United States is the greatest threat to global stability, and residents of eight countries consider American foreign policy as the most menacing issue to the world…” • An article by Kay Guinane of “OMB Watch” who shares this piece of genius: “Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, U.S.-based (Muslim) charities have become targets in the government’s war on terror financing. This development makes little sense. U.S. charities support efforts to stop the violence of terrorism, and financing terror is contrary to the sector’s mission of promoting the public good, providing humanitarian relief, protecting human rights and assisting with conflict resolution around the world.” <<Read a good article>>

Andrew Walden is editor and publisher of the Hawai`i Free Press.
hfpeditor@email.com
 

The Blunders of Multiculturalism in Germany

Sanaz Raji reports: Recently I read of a court decision regarding Nisha, a 26 year old Moroccan living in Germany. Nisha filed for an early divorce on the grounds that her husband was beating her. However, the court decision produced a shocking surprise– the female judge, following the logic of multiculturalism, said that Nisha (and other Muslim women residing with their Muslim spouses in Germany) should “expect” to be beaten, citing what I believe is a poor translation of the Qu’ran stating that a man has the right to “corporal punishment”. This absolute reading of Sura 4, verse 34, as allowed for Muslim women to be treated as Johannas Hari puts “reduced to third-class citizens stripped of core legal protections - because of the doctrine of multiculturalism, which says a society should be divided into separate cultures with different norms according to ethnic origin.” <<Quick read>>

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 01:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the desk of Cato: 

''After generations of living in Britain, British Muslims still simply don't get that not everything is about their religion. When Britain and the USA acted to overthrow Saddam Hussein (rightly or wrongly), it was because it was believed that he was a threat to Middle Eastern stability. It was not, as Muslims perpetually claim, an attack on Islam, any more than the Allied War effort against Germany and Italy in the middle of the last century was an attack on Christianity just because Germany and Italy were Christian countries. When British schools demand that pupils expose their faces in the classroom, and are not to be permitted to attend classes showing only their eyes through a small slit, this again has nothing to do with an attack on Islam, and everything to do with a perfectly reasonable belief that it is entirely unhealthy for schoolchildren to interact in an environment where they depersonalise themselves by hiding their bodies and, in particular, that most expressive part of the body, the face. And when a knighthood is conferred on a writer for the totality of his works, one of which may happen to be viewed by some as disrespectful to Islam and indeed other religions, such an honour has nothing necessary to do with insulting Islam. It is alas increasingly obvious that British Muslims simply do not "get" what it means to live in a democratic, plural society where not everything is about religion (as it is in Saudi Arabia, and increasingly in Pakistan too, whence a great many British Muslim families hail).

''The United Kingdom has to face the stark truth that unless something radical is down to change attitudes amongst a large number of British Muslim families, we shall be storing up an explosive powder keg of trouble that may one day lead to serious unrest. It is essential that steps are taken to inculcate a sense of Britishness in all our citizens, in order that everyone appreciate that living in a plural society means that one often has to accept things of which one does not approve. It is also essential for immigrant communities to learn that, just because they may view the world through the single prism of their religion, not everyone shares that world view and not all actions should thus be interpreted in a religious light. British Christians have long since learned this truth, as have British Jews, Hindus and many other religious groups. It is time that the followers of Mohammed realised this truth too. Vile demonstrations by the intolerant, such as that today, should not be tolerated, either legally or socially.'' <<Quick Read>>

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 03:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

''Something is rotten in the state of England. A series of recent decisions and proclamations by prestigious English institutions reveals an indifference to its own English way of life and a submission to brazen demands made by domestic Islamic groups which could forever diminish the historic English culture. In addition, British organizations are issuing alarming statements telegraphing an official loathing of America and Israel. In fact, a German author has aptly entitled a recent book warning of the pervasive obsequiousness weakening today’s England and Europe: "Hurray, We are Capitulating."

''A highly vocal Islamic group in England is demanding that British public schools reshape entire curricula and school activities to conform to Islamic beliefs and attitudes so that Moslem students feel comfortable. In effect, English schools may begin looking and acting more like Islamic schools than what has been the traditional English one. Infected by political correctness and multiculturalism, many top British officials and its Department of Education seem ready to begin testing the "plan", though it will probably result in the discomfort of the millions of majority students who are not Moslem and impose behaviors that effectively sideline British ways in Britain itself.

''Schools may soon be required to have separate swimming for boys and girls and require that girls and boys wear swimsuits covering from the neck to the knee. If such a request had come from the Church of England it would have, for certain, been summarily shot down. Certain sports, such as tennis, alien to many Islamic countries, as well as other recreational activities may soon be prohibited. There will be times set aside for prayer, with designated Islamic prayer rooms and rugs; no meat will be served during the month of Ramadan and pork will be prohibited in school throughout the entire year. There are many more demands.'' <<Read Here>>

Where are the feminists, when you need them?

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 10:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Reports from the Malibu conference:

''We did not come here to declare the demise of Europe, whose strength is vital to the future of Western civilization," said Avi Davis, coordinator of the June 10-11 meeting and executive director of the recently founded American Freedom Alliance, which seeks to promote freedom of conscience among people of faith. However, Davis and most of the speakers clearly meant "to raise a red flag that in its present state, Europe is too exhausted, too uncertain of its future and too unwilling to defend its basic values against Islamic insurgency."

''Describing the conference as the most concerted intellectual effort to address this perceived danger, Davis said that the venue on the U.S. West Coast indicated that "Europeans either think there is no problem or are fearful of addressing it." Instead, impressive numbers of European writers and thinkers from Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland and Austria, who seek to "awaken" their countrymen, traveled to Malibu to join their like-minded American colleagues.'' <<READ FULL REPORT>>

E: Attention Islamists – Get Over Yourselves

''The question facing a post-colonial Britain is one of great import – How do you encourage your Islamist citizens to embrace secular democracy when their religion recognizes no separation of church and state? I don't know the answer to that question. Who the hell does? But I have a nifty theory on how Britain and the rest of the civilized world can start to deal with radical Muslim immigrants/citizens living in Western societies – stop treating the religion of Islam as sacred.

''If Western culture is going to stand for free expression and free inquiry, it has to stop making excuses for Islamist indignation. When Jack Straw condemned the Danish cartoons, he legitimized the Islamist belief that the cartoons were indecent. In fact, the cartoons were relatively benign – there are more incendiary cartoons about George W. Bush on a weekly basis and I don't see Dubya getting his panties in a wad over it. After this Rushdie flap, the minister of religious affairs in Pakistan said that the appropriate response to Rushdie's knighthood would be – wait for it – suicide bombings. Shocking! And the British Foreign Office responded in its typically flaccid manner by saying it was "deeply concerned" about the Pakistani minister's comments.

''Enough of this deep concern rubbish. It's time for the Western world to stop treating Islam as if it is above reproach. If Jews can cope with the worldwide derision that their faith is routinely subjected to without resorting to suicide bomb threats or setting things on fire, then we should expect no less of Muslims. Hell, I've seen relatively harsh criticism of Christianity in The Simpsons over the years, and never once did Lutherans or Methodists consider flying planes into skyscrapers over it. By and large, the vast majority of Christians and Jews living in secular societies don't become homicidal when something offends their religious sensibilities, and part of the reason is Western Christians and Jews are used to having their religions mocked. For them, it's boring, passé, nothing to be enraged over. Not so with most of the Muslim world, where ridicule of Islam is against the law. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Once Muslims are used to having their religion criticized, the extreme Islamist element will eventually stop threatening to blow things up. Those of us in the Western world have a duty, for the sake of cultural advancement, to make fun of Islam. Which I'm now about to do.'' <<Quick Read>>

John Reid defends Salman Rushdie

Britain's Queen Elizabeth announced the award for the Indian-born British writer last week for services to literature. "We have a set of values that accords people honors when they contribute to literature even if we don't agree with their point of view," Home Secretary John Reid said, responding to a question at a lecture on counter-terrorism in New York.

Fred Siegel has this to say on the new debate in Europe:

''Sarkozy’s road to the Elysee Palace was paved not only by the mini-Intifada in the Paris banlieues, but also by a memorable public exchange about Islam. An intellectually confident Sarkozy, then the interior minister, debated suave, articulate Tariq Ramadan, the grandson and heir of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. With 6 million viewers watching, Sarkozy asked Ramadan, famed as an Islamic version of a Euro-Communist, if he agreed with his brother Hani Ramadan—who had argued, in line with Muslim law, that adulterous women should be stoned to death. Pressed to agree or disagree without obfuscation, Ramadan, his Western facade crumbling, said he favored a “moratorium” on such stoning. Sarkozy responded with anger, “A moratorium?” He went on to mock the Islamists’ leftist apologists. “If it is regressive not to want to stone women, I avow that I am a regressive.”

''Across the channel, the British elites went even further than did the French in abasing themselves before Islamic extremists. In the wake of the 7/7 London bombings, Prime Minister Tony Blair named the same Tariq Ramadan—hailed as a moderate by supposed liberals like Oxford’s Timothy Garton Ash—as an advisor on Islamic matters. In a similar vein, London’s mayor, Ken Livingstone, praised Sheik Quaradawi as a moderate and treated him as an honored guest. Many British intellectuals and pols had once rallied to the defense of Salman Rushdie when the Iranians issued a fatwa for his death, but in more recent years they’ve ignored or downplayed his plight. Similarly, the Danish cartoon affair, which raised the most fundamental issues of freedom of speech, produced a cowed response from the British press and pols about the importance of not offending Muslims.''

''The British have tried multiculturalism; the tolerant Dutch have allowed Muslims to create a separate “pillar” within their society; the French insist on the model of Jacobin uniformity; the Spanish have been merely craven. All have failed. But as Hutton argues, the best route for the West is to be true to its own heritage. If, like the courageous Danish prime minister Anders Rasmussen, Europeans unambiguously stand up to the Islamists, they will flush out double dealers like Ramadan while allowing the Ed Husains of the world to directly engage the extremists.''<<Read More>>

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the desk of Peter Whittle:

''Following the reports of the disgusting statements made by members of Pakistan's government on the knighting of Salman Rushdie (read more here), there was a depressingly flaccid discussion on Newsnight last night, during which the fundamental issues at stake - the need to protect western freedom of speech and artistic freedom - were barely broached. The Labour peer Lord Ahmed displayed an astounding stupidity in suggesting that while the likes of J K Rowling should be celebrated for basically being nice and spreading 'harmony', Rushdie should not because he had been 'divisive.' The only non-Muslim on the panel, the Labour MP Anne Cryer, brought on presumably to give an opposing view, was unequal to the task, her line being that while she didn't care about honours herself, and hadn't read any of Rushdie's books, she didn't think we should take orders from the Pakistan government, thus missing the point entirely that there was a UK Labour peer there in the studio who was essentially supporting what it had said.

Whether or not one rates Rushdie is utterly beside the point. Many of us find some of the statements and speeches made by Harold Pinter pretty loathsome and divisive too, but none of us are for a moment suggesting that he should be silenced. The fact is that this is a question of standing up for the basic values of our civilisation, and should be treated deadly seriously. Unfortunately, when The Satanic Verses was published back in 1989, it was not. Then, the reaction of much of the British establishment to scenes of demonstrations and book-burning was utterly craven. Not one person who called for Rushdie to be killed - and there were many - was prosecuted for incitement to murder. Lord Dacre, the historian, went so far to say that he 'would not shed a tear if some British Muslims, deploring Mr Rushdie's manners, were to waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them.' The Labour MP Keith Vaz led a demonstration through the streets of Leicester at which banners were carried depicting the author as a dog.'' <<Read More>>

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the Desk of Denis Schulz:

''Winston Churchill said he would fight the enemy on the beaches and in the fields and in the streets—he would never give up. Blair is fighting England’s enemies in the universities. It’s a tougher job than Churchill had. There were more moderate Nazis in Germany in the l930s than there are moderate Muslims in 21st Century England. And where did Blair find an entire conference of them? The moderate Muslims is a rare breed—almost as rare as a unicorn. You want satyrs? Try Piccadilly Circus. Big Foot left tracks. They have pictures of the Loch Ness Monster. But a moderate Muslim—try to find one.''

''Blair is a generation late and a trillions pounds short. One of every four Muslims residing in England believes the British government was responsible for the London bombings and just as many approve of suicide bombings to achieve religious ends. A half-century of political correctness and run-amok multiculturalism has destroyed England. There will be no Alamo, no Rorke’s Drift, only an abject and miserable surrender. The next King of England will be a Muslim. Henry of Navarre said a Kingdom was worth a Mass. He said his mass, got his Kingdom and then did damned well what he pleased. Times have changed. Prince Charles is no Henry of Navarre. He already has one foot in Mecca and is no more reliable than George Costanza. He visited Pakistan, was overjoyed by what he saw; praised the Mad-Rats-Asses schools. He said England was fortunate to have so many immigrants from Pakistan—the country where most of the London bombers came from and where the rest were trained.''<<Complete Story>>

The true colours of Pakistan are on show for all

It does not surprise me; does it surprise you? Pakistan's Religious Affairs Minister Ejaz-ul-Haq has the audacity to ask the British government to withdraw Knighthood to Salman Rushdie. Haq is the son of Pakistani dictator General Zia ul Haq. He told the Pakistani parliament that suicide attacks on Salman Rushdie will be justified -- and thanks to Musharraf's enlightened Islam the minister continues to hold his chair.

His exact statement is: ''If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act is justified." He said also warned, ''If Britain doesn't withdraw the award, all Muslim countries should break off diplomatic relations."<<BBC NEWS>> Ejaz-ul-Haq's statement is strong, given the fact that it comes form a government minister. If General Musharraf believes in enlightened moderation, he should sack the minister immeidately. This minister's statement justififying suicide attack on Sir Salman Rushdie is symptomic of the spiritual malaise that Pakistanis have got into.

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 07:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Alasdair Palmer in The Sunday Telegraph:

The commission was set up on June 28, 2006, nearly one year after the 7/7 bombings: by then, it had become clear that the bombers were native-born Britons who hated almost everything about the tolerant, secular society in which they were raised. The commission's remit was "to consider how local areas can respond to the tensions [increased diversity] can sometimes cause", and to "develop practical approaches... to prevent problems, including those caused by the dissemination of extremist ideologies".

And what is there in the report about that? Practically nothing. You search in vain for insights into the nature and dissemination of extremist ideologies, let alone for any form of practical solution to the dangers those ideologies present. There is just a lot of blather about the definitions of integration and cohesion, the difficulty of achieving either of them in practice, and the complexity of the various government agencies supposed to be involved in promoting them.<<Read More>>

Jan Moir: Where is the honour in killing your daughter?

Certainly, in the dock at the Old Bailey this week, Mahmod showed no emotion when he was found guilty of ordering his daughter's murder, but why would he? His family's honour was more important to him than Banaz Mahmod's 20-year-old life, so he arranged to have her killed to restore his good standing in his south London Kurdish community.

His daughter's crime? To leave the husband - from her arranged marriage - whom she claimed was abusive, and then to fall in love with someone else; someone who was not of the family tribe, nor a strict Muslim. Even though Banaz grew up here, her decision to act as an individual of free will, like the rest of us, was like signing a medieval death warrant. Strangled with a bootlace, stuffed into a suitcase, then buried 10ft deep in a suburban garden on her father's wishes? What a terrible way for a young woman to die.

Honour killings are on the increase here and in Europe, the inevitable result of migrant movement and a tectonic clash of ancient and modern cultures. In societies dominated by patriarchal and religious values, a woman's honour can be regarded as a family commodity, something that confers status and respect. <<Required Reading>>

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From Minnet Marrin in The Times:

The number of genuine asylum seekers is limitless and the number of EU migrants, with incontestable rights to settle here, is as good as limitless. Surely it follows that the group that morally or legally has less right to come here is therefore the immigrants who are neither EU nationals nor spouses of Britons. So, no immigrants except asylum seekers and Europeans? <<Quick Read>>

From the National Press Officer of BNP:

Edmund Burke, the MP for Bristol back in the 1700s, said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing adding,  “He must be turning in his grave at our apathy.” The real triumph of evil is because the British people have been too cowardly to tackle the onward march of multiculturalism and Marxism in our institutions since the War – I think that’s what Burke – a true Briton – would have made of it. <<Quick Read>>

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 07:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I happened to read this late from Martin Amis:

Islamism has received a great boost from its rejection of reason and its embrace of death, both of which are hugely energising, as Lenin and Hitler well understood. But Islamism is simply too poisonous to survive for very long. What happened within Islam was not a civil war (between the moderates and the radicals); it was more like a revolution - a revolution which is already starting to devour its children. We won't "win", exactly. But there will come an end to the Age of Vanished Normalcy. <<Quick Read>>

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 10:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the desk of Michael Hill:

''If the idea that America is indeed a mere proposition nation is to be realized, then the narrowly defined “posterity” of our forefathers must be broadened to include the whole of Emma Lazarus’s “wretched refuse.” The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 and subsequent legislation and judicial edicts have turned America’s immigration policy inside out by allowing for the influx of millions upon millions of non-Europeans while largely closing the “Golden Door” to European immigrants. Both Third World legals and illegals are encouraged to maintain their own cultures and languages while partaking of the largesse available to them at the expense of taxpaying citizens.

''Our situation is reminiscent of the latter days of the Roman Empire when the frontiers were overrun by Germanic tribes who wished to avail themselves of Roman lands and produce. But there was no deep-rooted racial or cultural antagonism between Roman and German. In fact, the German tribesmen had great respect and admiration for Roman civilization, as far as they understood it. They did not wish to destroy Rome; however, they did not know how to save it for the simple reason that they had not created it and thus did not understand what made it work.'' <<Quick Read>>

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 10:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From JonQuixoteWorld on how to fight multiculturalism:

''This principle is especially apt when one group of people becomes intent on imposing their totalitarian edicts on a school, town, city, state or an entire nation. It does not matter whether this imposition occurs all at once, or gradually, by degree --- by the thousands of little, seemingly inconsequential surrenders that escape notice or scrutiny by journalists and educators, often because they themselves are either supportive of this transformation, or are unwittingly facilitating it. But eventually, all those little surrenders add up, especially when one is faced with a patient, determined and resourceful opponent, acting on what they believe to be unimpeachable principles, regardless of whether they are the polar opposite of those underlying the host cultures.''<<READ A GOOD REPORT>>

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 12:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a sign of enhanced need for understanding the ideology of multiculturalism, oD has brought together a collection of critical write-ups on the subject. From David Hayes: 

 ''This question lies behind a new debate on openDemocracy. It is led by one of Britain’s foremost theorists of multiculturalism, Tariq Modood. In his new book, Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea and openDemocracy article Multiculturalism, citizenship and national identity, Modood develops the understanding of multiculturalism to accommodate two concerns that have come to the forefront in recent years: its particular association with British Muslim experience, and its connection with national identity.

''Modood’s careful, subtle argument for a “dynamic, internally differentiated multiculturalism within the context of democratic citizenship” has provoked a wide range of responses. Nick Johnson of the Commission for Racial Equality is broadly in agreement with Tariq’s analysis; Sunny Hundal of PickledPolitics questions its reinforcement of the tendency to see communities as static entities; Nick Pearce of ippr and Paul Kelly of the LSE question its implications for liberalism; Nira Wickramasinghe, Abdul-Rehman Malik and Yahya Birt refreshingly extended the argument’s terms of reference to Sri Lanka, Canada and global cosmopolitanism respectively.''

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 03:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Douglas Murray's response to Time Out's Is London's Future Islamic:

''In ‘Is London’s Future Islamic?’ the author (one ‘Michael Hodges’) begins with a heavy-handed parody of what he thinks critics of Islamism think an Islamic Britain might look like. But stick with it, because it’s only after the attempt at parody that the real hilarity gets under-way....''

''All in all, the serious part of the article is closer to satire than the ‘satire’ with which the article tries to open. Additionally, the author seems unaware that even as he lambastes the ‘reactionary and often ill-informed press’ which he claims portrays Islam negatively, his own ill-informed ideas have led him into supporting laws and ideas of the most reactionary kind imaginable.

''As he dreams of public gardens as green as those in the Middle East, and public schooling as developed as that in North Africa, it becomes noticeable that the author has failed to consider what Islamic London’s press might look like. Perhaps we might imagine for him.

''There will be fewer listings in Time Out. The ‘gay’ section in particular will thin. After a while the listings of straight all-male juice-bars won’t appeal to enough readers. Sales will slump. A desperate rebrand will be launched. ‘Time In’ will flop, and after a while the whole enterprise will close.

''No Time Out magazine? Perhaps Islamic London would have certain upsides after all…''

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 03:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

''Quotas and employment based on sex, religion, race or any criteria other than meritocracy, the rule of merit, where individuals are chosen through competition on the basis of demonstrated ability and competence, interfere with private property rights. This violates basic human rights of the employer. Historical experience indicates that respect for private property, along with respect for freedom of speech, are the hallmarks of true liberty. Abandoning these principles inhibits the creation of wealth.

''Perhaps the new frontier of liberty in the 21st century consists of battling for national sovereignty in legislation, for a nation’s right to decide how much immigration it wants to accept, if any, and the fight against the imposition of quotas, hate speech laws, hate crime legislation and other threats to the individual’s right to free speech and to defense of his own property, the yardstick against which liberty should always be measured.

''I’ve heard Multiculturalists state specifically that our societies should be based on the principle of Multiculturalism and various ethnic groups only tied together by “human rights.” But human rights are a weak glue for a society, to say the least. What’s more: Once you decide that your society should be founded upon human rights and nothing but human rights, you give away power to those defining human rights to decide the future of your society and your country, for instance in managing your immigration policies. This is no doubt why so many hardened Leftists support “international law.” They hope to become the self-appointed and unelected vanguard to run this transnational, Multicultural Utopia, just as they wanted to become a part of the vanguard in the Communist Utopia.''

Posted by Tufail Ahmad at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)