The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

The homepage contains the basic 12-point list.  This forum elaborates all the points.
We have business cards with the 12PP and the 4F mission statement which you may like to use as an aide memoir.  The card images are attached to this forum so feel free to print off your own copies if you like.
The 12 points fall into 4 categories: Sedition, Crime, Family and Finance.

 

Sedition
1. Stop Abuse of the Armed Forces and Reinstate the Military Covenant
2. Stop Recognising No-Go Zones for Police & Fire Service
The Police and Fire Service should be able to enter any area of the country without fear of attack. Islamic enclaves should not be exempt (and should not even be recognised). (Note: this point is particularly true in France where there are now 750 government recognised no-go areas).
The Police and Fire Service should be able to enter any building in the country without any differences in the authorisation process or extra delays being enforced, or denial made to any of their equipment (including guard and sniffer dogs). Mosques should not be exempt.

3. Stop Discriminatory Citizen Exclusion from Public Areas
For example, Muslims seek to exclude other citizens from public streets (without authorisation), and from public swimming pools and shared prayer rooms.  No other religion makes this intolerant, divisive and insulting demand. We consider that no public organisation should be required to provide a separate prayer room just for Muslim use.

4. Stop Seditious Acts from within Government Institutions
Lord Achmed threatened the House of Lords with a violent mob of 10,000 Muslim men, and succeeded in forcing it to change its plans.  For this gangster style political intimidation, he should have been removed from the House.  
Anil Patani wasted a large amount of public money in an attempt to stop free speech and information provision by Channel 4.  He should have been fired from the police.
Shahid Malik preached for a Muslim ruled parliament and a Muslim Prime Minister for the UK. His actions form an assault on democracy, for which he should have been reprimanded by his party.

 

Crime
5. Stop Hate Crimes against Jews, Gays and Apostates
http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/EDL/forum/topics/antisemitism-is-ma...

6. Monitor and Stop Hate Speech in all Religious Assemblies or Books
Currently the government seems to think it is the job of the media to police centres of hate speech like the Finsbury Park mosque or the Regents Park mosque.  They are wrong, it is the governments job.  The media (particularly Channel 4) expose these illegal activites (via programs like "Undercover Mosque") as a public benefit, but it is up to the government to enforce the law; the broadcasting companies have neither the authority nor the resources for that.

7. Stop Face Covering in Public

 

Family
8. Stop Abuse of Women via Bigamy, Forced Marriage, Grooming and Under Age FGM
Bigamy should be made legal for everyone, or illegal for everyone. Muslims should not receive special treatment.
Forced marriage should be stopped, whether the woman is a minor or not. Many people ask that Honour Killings are added to the above list of crimes that the Police and Social Services are too scared to deal with.  But I think that Honour Killings are now on society's radar and with sufficient prodding, will continue to be pursued, so it is not a black-and-white issue of discrimination in favour of Islam.
We want to see the law equally applied to protect minors against abuse by their parents, by FGM for example.
Grooming of young girls is a growing problem in the North of England.

Community
9. Stop Immigration without Consultation
The implementation of a policy of mass immigration by the governments of Europe, is a violation of the democratic rights of the their people and a violation of the UN Charter on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  This mass immigration policy was also a form of electoral fraud perpetrated by the Socialist parties as a way of significantly increasing their share of the vote.  The government should consult with the people to determine what level of immigration is desired and beneficial for the country, without causing the suppression of the indigenous culture, lifestyle and beliefs.
Surveys have shown that 70% of the population want immigration cut by over 80%, as summarised here:

Finance
10. Stop Foreign Funding of Political Headquarters
The money trail behind the construction of all new religious buildings should be investigated.  Mosques are political centres.  It should not be allowed for foreign organisations to fund the construction of political centres in the UK, especially centres whose core texts advocate the end of our constitutional freedoms and democracy.

11. Stop Government Subsidy of Communities Implicated in Terrorism
Islamic communities have received £140m from the government because they bred the UK bombers. This is discrimination around carrot and stick. They give rewards only to the Islamic groups, but the do not give punishments only to them. Conversely, they do not give any rewards to non-Muslims for good beharviour or to help our communities with problems like child grooming, etc.

12. Stop Government Funding of Sectarian Diets in Public Services
Why should we all have to eat Halal Meat? In schools, hospitals even prisons. The government is not only forcing us into a socially divisive and politically motivated type of food, but is also making us pay for it. What about Sikhs for whom Halal meat is forbidden – don’t they have any rights? Would it help if they were to blow some people up and decapitate some others?  Prisoners especially, after committing crimes against society, should not have their ideological dictates pandered to.  And since there are 5 times more Muslims in prison then non-Muslims (proportional to their percentage of the population), making their lives comfortable there is not encouraging them to stop committing crimes.
http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/animallovers/forum/topics/daily-mai...

Tags: 12-Point, Civil, Equal, Plan, Rights, The, for

Views: 438

Attachments:

Replies to This Discussion

Why the 12-Point Plan (12PP)?

The 12-point plan is central to this struggle for 4 reasons as follows.

(1) Too much focus on the problems and not enough on the solutions
The 12-point plan lists 12 simply described, black and white problems, with their solutions.

(2) Reduce the Knowledge Burden
Beginners and intermediates are overwhelmed with the volume of information to read and remember. The 12-point plan can be summarised on the back of hand-out cards, and easily used and remembered by people newly starting.

Normal discussion in this area requires one to get involved with:
1400 years of history
the current affairs of the 57 countries of the OIC, plus Europe and the US
complex theological debates around the QSH (Quran, Sira, Hadith)
tricky secular concepts like 'Islamisation', Eurabia, and even 'Democracy v. Republicanism'
This is just not on. Instead, the 12-point plan simply focusses on 12 areas where Muslims have been given superior civil rights to the non-Muslims. This is a negation of our egalitarian principles and blatant racist discrimination against non-Muslims. Everyone can see it, everyone can feel it, and you don't need a degree in logic or history to argue it.

(3) Stop Displacement Activities and Showing Off
Even after acknowledging these points, it seems that the minds of some counter-jihadists are ineluctably drawn into discussions of:
abstract theological principles based on the QSH. We obviously need a few experts on this for tv debates and so on, but it does not belong in the mainstream movement.
obscure theories about Marxism, Frankfurt School, Post Modernist Hegelianism, etc. Now there is definately a place for this kind of historical and cultural analysis, but it is not in a mainstream political movement. Most people will just switch off at the first sentence.
conspiracy theories around Common Purpose, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, secret EU agendas, etc. Its not that these issues do not need to be raised and settled, its more that we haven't got time to deal with them. Consider this: even if they are settled in one way or another, what then? You are still left with the question of how to deal with the problems they have allegedly caused. Its better to simply tackle the known problems.
What these diversions seem to boil down to is a displacement activity from the real problem. People would rather discuss in these 3 areas than face the harder question of what positive actions can be taken, and even more challenging option of carrying out some of those actions.

It does also seem sometimes that people use these discussions as an opportunity to show off their knowledge. While it is good for the movement to have experts in these fields, it is a waste of everyone's time to discuss them in the mainstream. In fact, it is such a distraction and diversion as to be almost a form of sabotage.

(4) Pass the Lab Tests
When we talk about these things, its no good just talking with our conservative friends, as this does not give a stern enough test of their strength. I suggest we use 2 'lab tests' to see if our ideas pass muster:
(a) Can you sit with a 'moderate' Muslim that you are friendly with, perhaps in your workplace or a neighbour, look him in the eye, and explain what you stand for without embarrassment?
(b) Can you sit in front of a tv camera, explain what you stand for, then take the consequences afterwards when its viewed by tens of thousands of other people worldwide, from all kinds of backgrounds, with all kinds of knowledge levels?

I believe the 12-point plan survives these tests. You can look your Muslim friend in the eye and say "Look mate, this is simply not on, we are going to stop this". I have sometimes said these things to 'moderate' Muslims, and they have agreed with me! You cannot do that so easily with something like "Islamisation" and you certainly can't do it with Geert Wilders "Ban the Koran" without being somewhat embarrassed. Similarly, you can explain these points on tv and even someone with a limited background will understand what you are on about.

Please note, this is not the place to 'show off our knowledge' about Meccan/Medinan Suras, Abrogation, the hopelessness of the 'moderate Muslim' concept, global trends to Islamisation, historical trends to Fundamentalism, etc, etc, and therefore argue that one should not even try debating with Muslims anyway (since they will supposedly never change their opinion). This point is not about political/religious/ideological debate, its about human relationship. Can you relate to a normal, non-radical Muslim in a straightforward and natural way, can you say good morning, can you chat about normal things? If you can't do that, you'll find it hard to stay objective, and that will make it harder to persuade other people.

There will be emphasis on different points in the 12PP for different countries depending on the laws it has and its particular problems. For example, France is enforcing its anti-bigamy laws, so that issue does not need to be pursued in that country, but it has real problems with no-go zones, in fact it has 750 of them.
Reply by Floradeliza on April 25, 2010 at 10:11pm
The Police and Jews? Huh! I was going to synagogue,on the way back on the bus I get some dark bloke blurting out at me "we're watching you people" I looked like what I was as synagogue attire is formal/teacherlike. There was not enough in the threat to do a thing. Instead, a Police woman and a male one visited me "are you offended?" they asked. I was scared - so much for Police training!
PS before someone says I'm not supposed to be on a bus on Saturday my shul doesn't mind.


Reply by John Carlson on April 26, 2010 at 12:33am
All good steps, but even if they are achieved, they will all be overturned if muslim population growth is not halted and reversed.
You can't have ballooning muslim population combined with increasing restrictions on muslims. The dynamics of democracy will prevent that from happening.
Reply by Alan Lake on June 7, 2010 at 6:40pm
Hate Speech Laws applied to Scripture
The QSH contains illegal endorsements and prescriptions for the following activities:
anti-Semitism to the point of genocide
anti-gay
mis-treatment of and violence against non-Muslims
war on non-Muslims
disrespect of peace treaties
The way of handling these illegal phrases is to have a government warning affixed to the text saying:
"This teaching is no longer advocated by the Christian/Muslim/etc religion in the UK and you must not do what it instructs here."
We need to remove the special exemption (from Hate Speech and legal monitoring) for religion.
All those books will need reprinting.

Its not so bad: this only applies to prescriptions & proscriptions ie. What you are told to do & not to do. A story of a battle is ok, but if you are told its ok to take the women as war booty even now, that is not ok.

We need a parliamentary commission to investigate this whole issue, it will require a large budget and staff, and will take many years. A lot of people, non-muslims included, will get very annoyed, But the alternative is far worse.

Religionists can't have it both ways. Either the texts are meaningless old nonsense which every body ignores, in which case it shouldn't matter if we affix a government warning to them.
Or they are clear instructions which people are following, in which case it is all the more important that we affix government warnings to those texts.
Reply by quran59:2-8 on October 17, 2010 at 2:35pm
Alan Lake said:
Hate Speech Laws applied to Scripture
...... We need to remove the special exemption (from Hate Speech and legal monitoring) for religion.
All those books will need reprinting.

Religionists can't have it both ways. Either the texts are meaningless old nonsense which every body ignores, in which case it shouldn't matter if we affix a government warning to them.
Or they are clear instructions which people are following, in which case it is all the more important that we affix government warnings to those texts.


As I understand it there is no special exemption for "religious" texts, and no state authority has ever said that the Quran is legal or illegal. It's just being deliberately ignored (just as the proof of corrupt judges and war criminal prime ministers gets ignored).
I suspect that this could be challenged via a court application for what is known as a "declaratory judgement". That is you ask the court for a judgement on would it be legal for me to publish and promote a book that is called the Quran (in leading translations such as Pickthall or Al-Hilali) and contains such verses as "Kill all the unbelievers...." and so on. The legal system would then be put on the spot and some pretty embarassing publicity for the "religion of peace" would also generate itself, causing many Muslims of my acquaintance to want out anyway.
Before making the court application you would want to ensure the application is well-thought out, with all the choice quran quotes in key translations and a cooperative barrister and so on. Would want to be well-discussed in advance.
I would also include in the application the question of whether a warning notice could make it legal. The question of whether new legislation should be introduced for violence-inciting "religious" texts might have to be raised outside the legal system.
Reply by Alan Lake on October 17, 2010 at 3:47pm
You are absolutely right. Unfortunately this is a problem more thorny than rose bush.

There's 2 perspectives here: one is what is the absolutely correct ideological position for all time, and the other is, we are here now, what do we do?

Ultimately, a very serious issue of hate speech in scripture needs to be addressed by democratic society, and ultimately that should be by some seriously funded and manned parliamentary body which takes 3 to 5 years to deliver its conclusions. But thats a bridge too far right now. Its a concept pretty shocking to many people including Jews and Christians (ha ha, the Hindus and Buddhists have no worries!). You have to learn to walk before you can run, and there is a pedagogical role here, apart from the political and ideological one, in terms of gradually letting the population come to understand these issues. The exact same process happened with smoking by the way. Everyone now thinks its totally normal to be pushed out of a building when you want to smoke. Go back only 10 years and people would have thought you were crazy.

So, for that reason, in point 6, I focus on current books and videos, like the ones that Channel 4 has exposed being sold in the Finsbury Park and Regent's Park mosques. Thats an issue that everyone can relate to right now. Nobody should be printing new books which advocate the extinction of the Jewish race or the execution of Gay people. The deeper issues of what do we do about all those ancient 'holy' scriptures full of equally contentious instructions - well, let's leave that to some future, happier time.
Reply by quran59:2-8 on October 17, 2010 at 7:52pm

Alan Lake said:
...ultimately that should be by some seriously funded and manned parliamentary body which takes 3 to 5 years to deliver its conclusions. But thats a bridge too far right now....
what we do about all those ancient 'holy' scriptures full of equally contentious instructions - well, let's leave that to some future, happier time.


I don't see that we can't pursue multiple approaches concurrently (maybe I've posted to the wrong page here). I think people grossly overestimate the complexity of the scriptural questions approach, not least because they are misled by (a) the politically-correct fallacy that the Bible is just as bad, and (b) the Muslims' fallacies suggesting there is some ambiguity about the Quran such that it might reasonably be construed as peaceful -after all there's all those people who say it is, and "therefore" it's "controversial". My label for such pretence of controversy is "pseudocontroversy" and it collapses into nothingness as soon as you start examining the facts rather than the mere assertions.
Furthermore attacking the Quran is to attack the very central thing that holds Islam together - it has no popes and so on. The quran is the greatest weakness of Islam because (i) ALL muslims must accept it (unlike their other "sacred" texts), and (b) it is so stupidly arrogant, claiming to be the absolute last testament flawless word of god himself, and a god who is all-powerful and all-knowing, so therefore cannot have any communication difficulty. Immediately absurdities arise, such as why this god only sent such an important message in outdated Arabic, why only to one man, and why anyone would misunderstand or even want to misunderstand this god.
The declaratory judgment legal action would not be at all complex. It would merely need to cite a handful of quran verses, such as some of those commanding killing and warfare, and those proclaiming its being the perfect unchangeable word of god and the other verse that says you cannot pick and choose only the bits you like.
The court would then be put on the spot. It is clearly illegal to publish a book that makes out such sentences as "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" as being ongoing commands of god. And so the court would be forced to declare the quran as whole illegal too.
Contrary to the myths the bible does not have any equivalent commands to go out and wage wars against infidels. It's only Islam that was founded by a murderer revered as a murderer!
Once everyone knows that the very essence of Islam is utterly incompatible with ordinary decent laws, the cat will be out of the bag and won't be put back in.
Reply by Alan Lake on October 18, 2010 at 12:21am

Well, be my guest! By all means, take on this issue, and try promote it thru your MP or UKIP or whatever, and get the public prosecutor to take a case to court, or somehow get a case of your own together, or make a complaint to the police and try get them to raise a case. Please go ahead. My workload is already full, but I will cheer you on from the sidelines. Actually, if you really want to do this, there's an even shorter short cut to the end result. Simply take an electronic copy of the Quran or even better, Sahih al Bukhari, replace all occurrences of Infidel with Muslim and vica versa, then publish that. The state will go ballistic and you can expect to undergo a visit from the police armed response unit, have all your PCs stolen, etc, and get arraigned as a despicable individual in front of the courts and press. Somebody needs to do it, but I'm already very busy.

I can only work from my own situation, which may not be your situation. Yes, I thought the "hate speech in scripture" issue was pretty cut and dried, but I've not had a lot of joy in promulgating the concept. Well, there are many pressing problems, so I'm happy to leave that one to one side for now and come back to it later. But if someone else takes it on, thats great!

My personal goal is to get to a position where Islamists and their liberal apologists are clearly defeated in public debate in the media, and in the private discussions that people have all around the country, in pubs, homes and offices. With the 12 Point Plan I now feel that anyone who feels aggrieved about this topic can take it on without having a degree in Theology, Middle Eastern Studies, or Politics, and can make a convincing case about why there is a problem and why the government needs to act. Each of us in the counter-Sharia movements should take on one aspect of the struggle and run with that, so that's what my personal focus is.
Well, be my guest! By all means, take on this issue, and try promote it thru your MP or UKIP or whatever, and get the public prosecutor to take a case to court, or somehow get a case of your own together, or make a complaint to the police and try get them to raise a case. Please go ahead. My workload is already full, but I will cheer you on from the sidelines. Actually, if you really want to do this, there's an even shorter short cut to the end result. Simply take an electronic copy of the Quran or even better, Sahih al Bukhari, replace all occurrences of Infidel with Muslim and vica versa, then publish that. The state will go ballistic and you can expect to undergo a visit from the police armed response unit, have all your PCs stolen, etc, and get arraigned as a despicable individual in front of the courts and press. Somebody needs to do it, but I'm already very busy.

I can only work from my own situation, which may not be your situation. Yes, I thought the "hate speech in scripture" issue was pretty cut and dried, but I've not had a lot of joy in promulgating the concept. Well, there are many pressing problems, so I'm happy to leave that one to one side for now and come back to it later. But if someone else takes it on, thats great!

My personal goal is to get to a position where Islamists and their liberal apologists are clearly defeated in public debate in the media, and in the private discussions that people have all around the country, in pubs, homes and offices. With the 12 Point Plan I now feel that anyone who feels aggrieved about this topic can take it on without having a degree in Theology, Middle Eastern Studies, or Politics, and can make a convincing case about why there is a problem and why the government needs to act. Each of us in the counter-Sharia movements should take on one aspect of the struggle and run with that, so that's what my personal focus is.
Cancel
Reply by quran59:2-8 on October 18, 2010 at 1:27am

Agreed Alan, though it doesnt depend on public prosecutor or police. One just files one's legal application for declaratory judgment or whatever. And of course also with infidel/muslim reversed to expose the hypocrisy! I'll look into it further and let you know in due course.
Great!

I'm wondering why the plan doesn't include "Stop Muslim immigration into Europe."

It seems to me that the plan mainly addresses symptoms rather than the root cause: too many muslims coming into Europe.

Rather than address symptoms by banning minarets or burkhas, wouldn't it be better to just cut to the chase and keep Muslims out of Europe?

Thanks for looking the Plan over. As regards 'symptoms' and 'causes', I believe we've had the discussion before and I haven't changed my views. As regards immigration, you raise a good point, so I will have to look at sacrificing one of the other points since 12 is the max for a human list IMO.

 

When looking  at the construction of a state, you can make it on a Theocratic basis or a Secular basis.  If you make it Theocratic like Iran or Pakistan, then its fine to create laws which name and victimise particular religions (or all except one which is the same application of the discrimination principle and negates the Golden Rule).  So you have the famous Section 295C in Pakistan and all the persecuted, murdered and raped Christians in Pakistan which the Fascist UAF are too illiterate to read about.

 

But if you make a state on a secular basis, it is not (or should not be - British Government please take note) permissible to name any particular religion or grouping in your laws for either positive or negative discrimination.  Therefore, it is not permissible to make a law excluding all Muslims from immigration.

 

However, you are obviously saying this because they are the ones blowing people up and wanting to overthrow the state.  This is a non-trivial question in the US, but in the UK and much of Europe, it is actually a trivial question.

  1. We are already full up, particularly Britain and the Netherlands, for example.  We should not be taking anymore people in this country, in fact, I'd like to see the population drop back to 50 million, which was a much more comfortable number to have knocking about in this small island.
  2. We should stop stealing the skilled workers - doctors, nurses, engineers - from underdeveloped countries. What, do we think they don't need them or don't deserve them?  What kind of self-centred act is this, masquerading under the cloak of 'humanitarian action'?

So if we are going to put halting immigration on the list, it has to be put as a case of redressing an inequitable distortion of civil rights, or of one of the 4 freedoms.  Well, I think it distorts the "Freedom of Election" idea, because it is allowing the Labour Party to import voters to boost its standing in the polls.  Its a kind of Gerrymandering.  And as regards Civil Rights, nobody was ever asked if they'd like to have immigration, so that new immigrant that comes in has been given privileges that the resident countryman has been denied.

 

Any suggestions as to which of the 12 points should be replaced?

The only way I can see to fit in this extra point would be to collapse points 8 and 9 together, into a single point all about abuse of women.  That would make it a bit of a mouthful though as in:

8. Stop Abuse of Women via Bigamy, Grooming, Forced FGM and Forced Marriage

Bigamy should be made legal for everyone, or illegal for everyone. Muslims should not receive special privileges.  The law should be applied equally to protect minors against abuse by their parents, by FGM for example.

Then the next question is, what category is the immigration stipulation: sedition, crime, family or finance?
Perhaps the Family category should be expanded to be Community, then the immigration of foreign cultures into a society, without consultation, is a crime against that community.  Actually, there's a UN declaration about this - the rights of indigenous peoples, which the UK government is practically in violation of.

RSS

Monitor this Page

You don't have to be a member of 4F to follow any room or topic! Just fill in on any page you like.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2018   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service