The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Notice the cultural & moral relativism of many of them.  Notice how the idiotic musings of Peter Tatchell are given the same instructional power as those of a Sheikh with 1300 years of tradition (plus the behaviour of the perfect Mo).  Can you imagine these leftards playing "devil's advocate" if it had been about the enslavement of black people? ("Well, I suppose it is for their own good....")

This shows precisely why the leftards allowed white kids to be raped and groomed for decades.  It illustrates why they don't care about FGM nor about the scandal exposed a few months ago about 9 year old muslim girls being married off in Islington.

The exasperation of "leciat" towards the end of the thread is palpable.   I'll bet these leftards mollycoddle their own children (all helicopter parents, bedding down at uni in their 18 y.o. kid's dorm, no doubt).  But when it comes to muslims sexually-abusing children, well, it would be rude to expect them to abide by our laws in this country.


Haitham al-Haddad: ‘the younger the better’.

Recently an HP commenter linked here– pointing out that it seemed to show Haitham Al Haddad recommending, in a slippery, ‘plausible deniability’ way, underage marriage/sex.  The original has now been removed, but it showed Haddad at a meeting answering questions. He was asked whether there was a particular teaching in Islam about the right age to marry. Haddad said no, but went on to note that girls, in particular, should marry young.  Here is a transcription I made of one section of the clip:

There are many laws in the country here that not Islamic  – not Muslims– not Islamic laws – no – so if there is a way by .. to live avoiding those anti-Islamic laws then, and providing you don’t put yourself into troubles  - yeah? – you should go for that choice –what can you do?  Yeah, normally the younger is the better, the younger is the better – but you have to take into consideration the legal side.

Now – you could argue that Haddad was not encouraging people to do anything which might break the law.  And you could also argue that a recipe I once saw in a mushroom cookbook which included the ingredient ’50 imaginary magic mushrooms’ was not encouraging people to take drugs.

Comments

Abu Faris
  24 June 2012, 12:01 pm

My wife’s family are Sudanese. Her father worked as a school teacher in a remote settlement in the north of Oman for much of her childhood. She attended the girls primary school there, along with lots of other Omani girls. By the time her classmates were in the 6th Grade (which means most of them were between eleven or twelve years old), she was nearly unique. Nearly all of the other, Omani, girls were either betrothed to be married when they reached puberty, or were recently married and so had left the school completely.

This is neither an ideal nor useful state for a society to be in and anyone who preaches, advocates and agitates for the same should be considered to be both mad and bad.

Dcook
  24 June 2012, 12:54 pm

Next week: “Gary Glitter: Why I admire The Prophet Mohammed – My conversion to Islam”

A thread with some slippery slopes ahead.

Dcook
  24 June 2012, 12:57 pm

On a serious note there is a dilemma between the Western standard of age-of-consent and other standards. We rightly feel morally just in establishing it as sixteen but my question is why other cultures don’t think it is.

If someone was from Oman what would their counter-argument be?

Disillusioned Lurker
  24 June 2012, 1:21 pm

Well, it isn’t even 16 in all “Western” countries, is it??

And nor are lower ages outside the West confined to Islam.

leciat
  24 June 2012, 1:40 pm

“We rightly feel morally just in establishing it as sixteen but my question is why other cultures don’t think it is.”

same reason other cultures see nothing wrong in child labor, slavery, subjugation of women and the murder of gays

CBinTH
  24 June 2012, 1:51 pm

D Cook:-
I’m having difficulty playing devil’s advocate, an Omani woman might say, “but 12 is normal, I don’t want to be the odd one out”, “my Mum was married at twelve and she had a very happy marriage, and I want a happy marriage too”, “If I don’t marry young then by the time I’m older the number of eligible bachelors will be fewer,” “I don’t wish to be a burden on my family” etc.

I suppose also one could argue that, if a woman marries a man much older and wiser then she’s more likely to be obedient. The later a woman marries, the more chance she shall commit fornication before marriage and go straight to hell.

I think, really, it’s just an idea of norms, and that societies with low economic output tend to favour early marriage for females, and early adulthood generally, whereas, societies with high economic output tend to invest in a prolongued unproductive childhood for their young, partially for educational and partially perhaps for sentimental reasons.

Possibly Al-Haddad has a problem because the Prophet married a very young girl – but this doesn’t seem to be a problem for most Muslims. Possibly he’s thinking that many of his South Asian audience have mothers or grandmothers who married very young.

I’m pretty certain Al-Haddad thinks men should marry younger women because he thinks wives should be obedient. I think that’s a pretty unflattering priority when choosing a life partner, but I don’t know that it’s unwise or ineffective.

DocMartyn
  24 June 2012, 1:54 pm

Isn’t it amazing how the concept of ‘child’ wobbles around.
The media represent every causality below the age of 19 as a child, but never worry about the recruitment of combatants, suicide bombers or brides below this age.

Bad Penny
  24 June 2012, 2:01 pm

dilemma between the Western standard of age-of-consent and other standards

And Western standards of hygiene and other “standards”.

If someone was from Oman what would their counter-argument be?

Who cares? Primitive opinions are not relevant to Western society.

By the way, if the girl is twelve and the man is thirty (or nine and fifty-two respectively in the case of the “prophet” Mohammed) “consent” doesn’t come into it.

Alec
  24 June 2012, 2:11 pm

We rightly feel morally just in establishing it as sixteen but my question is why other cultures don’t think it is.

I’d be hard pressed this think of someone from this culture who, even where they approve of the age of consent at 16, would see two 16 year olds having sex in the same light as a 16 year old and someone more than a few years their senior.

~alec

Steve James
  24 June 2012, 2:38 pm

Unrelated but might be of interest:

The Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe mourns the prominent thinker, Roger Garaudy (prominent holocaust denier)

http://www.fioe.org/ShowNews_en.php?id=94

Ronbo2571
  24 June 2012, 3:16 pm

dilemma between the Western standard of age-of-consent and other standards
And Western standards of hygiene and other “standards”.
If someone was from Oman what would their counter-argument be?
Who cares? Primitive opinions are not relevant to Western society.
By the way, if the girl is twelve and the man is thirty (or nine and fifty-two respectively in the case of the “prophet” Mohammed) “consent” doesn’t come into it.

No point in tying ourselves up in knots,the western values are the gold standard,or possibly Somali or Pakistani,North Korean,Russian….it’s a close call.

quizblorg
  24 June 2012, 3:38 pm

“On a serious note there is a dilemma between the Western standard of age-of-consent and other standards. We rightly feel morally just in establishing it as sixteen but my question is why other cultures don’t think it is.”

Well, in Italy and (with some minor reservations) Germany the age of consent is 14. In Spain it’s 13.

I think the essential factor is whether someone has reached puberty or not. The problem with some Islamic teachings/mores (as those apparently advocated by Al Haddad) is not that they don’t repect the UK age of 16, which is somewhat arbitary even by Western standards, but that they declare pre-pubescent girls fair game.

Brian Eisen
  24 June 2012, 3:44 pm

quite- it is a question of norms – but I see no reason why Western cultures should not enforce Western norms norms in Western countries.

Dcook
  24 June 2012, 3:47 pm

Just to be clear, I wasn’t arguing “Well, maybe the other countries have a point”. I was asking why we are able to conclude that 16 is the “right age” and why other countries come to a different conclusion.

Anyone in the West with children would be sickened at the idea that a 12 or 13 year old could be married yet 12 and 13 year old’s have sex and babies.

Josh Scholar
  24 June 2012, 3:50 pm

I’d like to point out that where I live, in California, the age is 18 and the authorities take that age seriously, there even being cases where teenagers are themselves are jailed for breaking the limits. So obviously I should call many of you sick pedophiles for saying that 16 is the standard.

Dcook
  24 June 2012, 3:54 pm

I’m pretty certain Al-Haddad thinks men should marry younger women because he thinks wives should be obedient

That causes me to think that women’s roles have been that of second-class and to perform duties such that the man can do the things that men are supposed to do. It seems to me that male dominated societies used their position to impose abuse on women and catch them young so they could be trained into their slavery whilst providing sexual gratification.

In the West we have evolved equality for women and so prevent men marrying children and subjugating any desire for equality. One might still remember the ideas that women stayed at home, cooked and brought up the kids while the man worked and went to the pub. I daresay there are parts of the UK where these are still seen as traditional roles.

Dcook
  24 June 2012, 4:20 pm
Joseph K.
  24 June 2012, 4:51 pm

Alec: I’d be hard pressed this think of someone from this culture who, even where they approve of the age of consent at 16, would see two 16 year olds having sex in the same light as a 16 year old and someone more than a few years their senior

Hard pressed, Alec? Really? You and I both aware of a sometime contributor to Harry’s Place, a extremely well-known figure, who has not only contributed a chapter to a book that advocated normalising sex between children younger than 16 and adults far more than a few years their senior, but has also praised as “courageous” another book on the same theme which, in his own words, questioned “whether all sex between children and adults is necessarily harmful”. Indeed, the individual declared in the Guardian letters pages that:

it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted,abusive and harmful.”

If we should regard Haitham Al Haddad as contemptible for his views, surely we should find Peter Tatchell just as despicable for his?

Lamia
  24 June 2012, 5:49 pm

I see no reason why Western cultures should not enforce Western norms norms in Western countries.

‘Enforcing norms’ is something the ‘progressive’ left lauds in countries which scapegoat Jews, oppress women and persecute religious minoirites and gay people, and an idea that makes them spit blood when considered in relation to countries where equal – or at least almost equal – treatment of all of the above is enshrined in law.

Now just what is it patriarchal bearded scumbags with beards who wrote dodgy antisemitic books that first drew followers of Karl Marx towards a sympathy with Islam?

Lamia
  24 June 2012, 5:50 pm

“what is it about

a small, still voice
  24 June 2012, 7:07 pm

Marriage is not about love, it’s about forging alliances and cementing bonds. The moment a girl reaches puberty, she is ready to enter into the contract for her menfolk. It’s a waste of money the paternal family feeding her, it’s better that someone else takes on the expense, someone for whom she will provide fine, fit, strong sons. I remember reading an article in the New Scientist a couple of years ago, saying that there is evidence that in societies where girls and fathers are distant, the girls will reach the menarche far earlier thus making them suitable for being married off. It seems that there may be chemical signals that hasten puberty.

The laws governing the age of consent are the product of industrialization; they began as a way of stamping out child prostitution. The age gradually crept upwards until in Britain at the moment it stands at 16. Very young people do engage in sexual activity ie teenage pregnacies, just doing what comes naturally. It’s just barbaric basing your sexual conduct on the mores of a desert trading society of over 1,000 years ago.

Sarka
  24 June 2012, 7:29 pm

CBinTH
“I think, really, it’s just an idea of norms, and that societies with low economic output tend to favour early marriage for females, and early adulthood generally, whereas, societies with high economic output tend to invest in a prolongued unproductive childhood for their young, partially for educational and partially perhaps for sentimental reasons.”

I don’t understand what is meant by “it’s just an idea of norms”- rather than..er…what? (e.g. it’s just an idea, it’s not a reality OR it’s just flu, it’s not cancer??)

The correlation with economic output seems bizarre and mechanical. Or at least it is hugely more complicated than that. Medieval and Early Modern England had low marriage ages for the aristocracy, and by the overall standards of Europe quite late marriage ages for those lower down the scale – this was broadly because the aristocracy had so much more property, and used children for family dynastic politics (like royals), whereas that side of things mattered rather less to the less rich, in a cultural context where the church and society frowned on forced marriages, and families tended not to want to acquire more mouths to feed too early…unlike in some other countries, the rule for small farmers and tradespeople was that sons couldn’t marry until they could afford their own household – in contrast to most Asian and South European set-ups the son couldn’t bring his bride home as additional household member. Since English society was not socially sex-segregated, youg men often acquired sweethearts quite early – in the village or apprentice-master’s daughter or whatever – in the nature of things these girls would not be many years younger than they were – and then they had to wait! The theme of many folksongs is the anxiety of the chap who is trying to make his way in the world about whether his girlfriend will be nabbed by someone sexier or wealthier before he has managed to get enough money for a household. Young girls of course could be married off to elderly men with dosh, but the strict ban on polygamy limited the possibilities here (the chap had to be a widower or for some unusual reason never married before), and if high deathrates ensured a supply of older widowers they also ensured a supply of relatively young widows, who for cultural legal reasons unknown in the Muslim world were economically autonomous and a terrific catch for the young man with ambitions…And all this at periods when England was not notably more productive economically than various developing Muslim countries now. One might add that in a monogamous society, choice of wife was more critical – a farmer would be inclined to pragmatism with regard to relative maturity and health (as well as wealth)- marry a twelve-year old and with repeated pregnancies she may not survive, or may be constantly ill and generally unable to play an active role in household and farm management. Economics comes into all this (obviously) but not in some simple way.

Modern Islamist demands for early marriage of girls are frankly more purely ideologically than economically based. It is interesting that despite the lowering of the age of marriage for females to eight or whatever in Iran following the revolution (it’s been put back up a bit, I think), few Iranians took full advantage of this…it’s very much for a few clerics and zealots – a prestige thing and a gesture about the need for female subservience.

leciat
  24 June 2012, 8:26 pm

do any of you have daughters? as a parent of a once 13 year old who has endured the chaos of the screaming giggling sleepover, i have first hand knowledge that just because a girl bleeds from her vagina does not mean she is intellectually or emotionally mature enough to make life altering sexual or marriage decisions on her own. maybe that is why in the usa a 16 year old can get married only with parental consent

CBinTH
  24 June 2012, 11:19 pm

Sarka : That was really interesting and well put. Thanks.

How do you know all this?

Stephen Rothbart
  24 June 2012, 11:56 pm

Joseph K as HP contributor Flaming Fairy would testify, if Peter Tatchell thinks it’s OK then it must be. After all if a Muslim man wants to marry a young girl that other members of society don’t agree with, even if is their belief, then it is their human right to do whatever the hell they like. You cannot show prejudice between a man and woman.

If a Muslim thinks marrying a girl at the age of 8 is OK for him, then who are we to disagree. We would not want to humiliate the man or anything, he might sue. Other people’s beliefs and opinions should not matter.

We don’t want to be accused of bigotry now, do we?

Sarah AB
  25 June 2012, 7:16 am

I think one important difference between where Haddad is coming from – and where others who are questioning the 16 threshold are coming from – is that the latter type, even when they veer into what might seem pretty startling territory, are not saying that a girl should be married off at, say, 14 – and get married, moreover, within a belief system and community which then may well require her to be obedient to her husband, not refuse sex, not seek a divorce or help if she is abused,etc. I am not saying this is the situation for all Muslims, of course, but it is likely to be the case for some of Haddad’s addressees perhaps.

Views: 91

Replies to This Discussion

These are disgusting people. I could write an article explaining the logic and physiology involved in this issue, but, given the immaturity of their comments, there doesn't seem any point.

The leftards are at it again.  Clearly this is how they are coming to terms with the fact that 1) muslims are massively over-represented in the gangs who groom underage girls for a life of prostitution, 2) that 9 y.o. muslim girls in Britain are being married off to be raped by elderly husbands.  Leftards were pushing for the legalisation of paedophilia in the aftermath of the 1960s sexual revolution, but they have been silent on it for about 40 years.  Now they have taken it up again, obviously as a way of them making every facet of islam amenable.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-...

Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light

Jon Henley, The Guardian, Thursday 3 January 2013

The Jimmy Savile scandal caused public revulsion, but experts disagree about what causes paedophilia - and even how much harm it causes

 

In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."

It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim. But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject.

A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.

So what, then, do we know? A paedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Savile appears to have been primarily an ephebophile, defined as someone who has a similar preferential attraction to adolescents, though there have been claims one of his victims was aged eight.

But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa: by no means every paedophile acts on his impulses, and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact, "true" paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for onl.... Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent: no firm links have so far been established between paedophilia and aggressive or psychotic symptoms. Psychologist Glenn Wilson, co-author of The Child-Lovers: a Study of Paedophiles in Society, argues that "The majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational."

Legal definitions of paedophilia, needless to say, have no truck with such niceties, focusing on the offence, not the offender. The Sex Offenders Act 1997 defined paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16.

There is much more we don't know, including how many paedophiles there are: 1-2% of men is a widely accepted figure, but Sarah Goode, a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate – based on possibly flawed science – is that "one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being.... Even less is known about female paedophiles, thought to be responsible for maybe 5% of abuse against pre-pubescent children in the UK.

Debate still rages, too, about the clinical definition of paedophilia. Down the years, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – "the psychiatrist's bible" – has variously classified it as a sexual deviation, a sociopathic condition and a non-psychotic medical disorder. And few agree about what causes it. Is paedophilia innate or acquired? Research at the sexual behaviours clinic of Canada's Centre for Add... suggests paedophiles' IQs are, on average, 10% lower than those of sex offenders who had abused adults, and that paedophiles are significantly less likely to be right-handed than the rest of the population, suggesting a link to brain development. MRI scans reveal a possible issue with paedophiles' "white matter": the signals connecting different areas of the brain. Paedophiles may be wired differently.

This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parl..., and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".

Child protection agencies and many who work with sex offenders dislike this. "Broadly speaking, in the world of people who work with sex offenders here, [paedophilia] is learned behaviour," says Donald Findlater, director of research and development at the Lucy ..., a charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, and, before it closed, manager of leading treatment centre the Wolvercote Clinic. "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment … I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned."

Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."

If the complexity and divergence of professional opinion may have helped create today's panic around paedophilia, a media obsession with the subject has done more: a sustained hue and cry exemplified by the News of the World's notorious "name and shame" campaign in 2000, which brought mobs on to the streets to demonstrate against the presence of shadowy monsters in their midst. As a result, paranoia about the danger from solitary, predatory deviants far outweighs the infinitely more real menace of abuse within the home or extended circle. "The vast majority of sexual violence is committed by people known to the victim," stresses Kieran Mccartan, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of the West of England. Only very rarely is the danger from the "stranger in the white van", Mccartan says.

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia."

Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. More recently, campaigning organisations of the 70s and 80s such as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and Paedophile Action for Liberation were active members of the NCCL when it made its parliamentary submission questioning the lasting damage caused by consensual paedophilic relations.

Even now there is no academic consensus on that fundamental question – as Goode found. Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children foll..., that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm."

This is not, obviously, a widely held view. Mccartan uses O'Carroll's book Paedophilia: the Radical Case in his teaching as "it shows how sex offenders justify themselves". Findlater says the notion that a seven-year-old can make an informed choice for consensual sex with an adult is "just preposterous. It is adults exploiting children." Goode says simply: "Children are not developmentally ready for adult sexuality," adding that it is "intrusive behaviour that violates the child's emerging self-identity" and can be similar in long-term impact to adults experiencing domestic violence or torture.

But not all experts are sure. A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".

Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".

If that assertion does nothing else, it underlines the need for more research on paedophilia – something on which everyone in the field at least is agreed. There is, too, broad consensus around the idea that the approach to paedophilia must be about management and prevention: on stopping potential offenders making that contact (or downloading that image).

Initiatives such as Stop It Now!, which Findlater runs, exemplify this: a telephone helpline offering advice to people worried they may be having inappropriate sexual impulses. A similar German programme, Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, has as its slogan: "You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behaviour. There is help."

For convicted abusers, Circles UK aims to prevent reoffending by forming volunteer "circles of support and accountability" around recently released offenders, reducing isolation and emotional loneliness and providing practical help. In Canada, where it originated, it has cut reoffending by 70%, and is yielding excellent results here too. The goal of all treatment, Findlater says, is "people achieving a daily motivation not to cause harm again. Our goal is self-management in the future."

For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. "Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it's not something we can eliminate," she says. "If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label paedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us."

We can help keep children safe, Goode argues, "by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else", and by "respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint". Only then will men tempted to abuse children "be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed".

• This article was amended on 3 January 2012. The original incorrectly suggested that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published by the American Psychological Association, and misspelled Dunkelfeld as Dunkenfeld.

Re-reading the original HP thread of Leftist ninnies arguing their hypothetical toss about FGM, child marriage, etc (which they obviously will never do anything concrete about), inevitably reminds me of Hayek's views on conservatism.

Of course HP bloggers aren't "conservatives" conventionally, but in this discussion, they are taking the 'conservative' position.  Yet it is so obvious that they will just pontificate about it, and those rights will be lost.  So as Hayek said, the problem with the conservative position is that it just stands against change, it doesn't stand explicitly for anything, hence all it can do is slow down the rate of change, not stop or reverse it.

RSS

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

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)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service