The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

[ ]



conférence annuelle organisée par l’Alliance internationale des libertés civiles (International Civil Liberties Alliance  a eu lieu près de Zurich, en Suisse les 12 et 13 Juin 2010. Plus de détails sur cette conférence importante et productive suivront prochainement sur ce site et plus au Gates of Vienna (see underneath).

Articles about the conference:


Slouching Towards Zurich


English Defence League (EDL) Attend International Conference In Zurich


English Defence League Represented At Counter Jihad Zurich 2








Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Slouching Towards Zurich

by Baron Bodissey

Counterjihad Zurich 2010

Tell me again about Europe and her pains,
Who’s tortured by the drought, who by the rains.
Glut me with floods where only the swine can row
Who cuts his throat and let him count his gains.
It seemed the best thing to be up and go.

               — William Empson, from “Aubade

This year’s meeting of European Counterjihad activists convened last Saturday morning in a suburb of Zurich. As is my habit, I arrived a couple of days early to allow time to recover from jet lag and see the local sights before beginning work in earnest. On Friday morning, under the expert guidance of a local Swiss participant, I took a tour of Zurich along with several other people who arrived early for the meeting.

The city of Zurich lies in the German-speaking area of Switzerland at the north end of a long lake called Zürichsee, where it is joined by the Limmat River. The site has been settled since approximately 5000 BC, and the present city was founded more than two thousand years ago by the Romans, who named it Turicum.

We walked from the main railway station to the lake, and then up the Limmat to the Grossmünster, the Great Cathedral of Zurich.

Zurich 1

The south tower of the cathedral was open to visitors, and the more adventurous members of our group made the long climb up a spiral staircase to the viewing area at the top, where we were afforded a spectacular view of the city in all directions. This is the skyline to the northwest:

Zurich 2

We spent the rest of the afternoon prowling the narrow streets of the Old Town, stopping occasionally to refresh ourselves with food and adult beverages in the outdoor seating areas of several cafes.

Zurich 3While walking around Zurich and its suburbs, I noticed that cultural enrichment has crept into the districts outside the main tourist zones. The kebab joints and pizza restaurants are often run by Turks, and crowds of men sitting in front of them glared at us as we walked by. Hijabs were in evidence on the street — and, as I reported yesterday, could also be seen on the heads of security personnel at the airport.

By and large, however, Zurich seemed to be only lightly enriched, compared to Vienna or, even worse, London. Unlike Copenhagen — where every pizza joint is owned by Arabs — there are Italian pizza restaurants in the city and its suburbs that are run by actual Italians.

The Swiss are fortunate to have taken action and passed the minaret ban while the country is still in the early stages of Islamization. With the growing influence of the Swiss People’s Party, Switzerland may yet avoid the dire situation that prevails in most other Western European countries.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

On Saturday morning we got down to business. I already knew many of the participants, but our location made it easy for French and German contingents to participate, so I was able to make the acquaintance of a number of people I had previously met only through skype or email.

Delegates to the meeting included:

Austria   Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
Denmark   Hans Erling Jensen
    Rolf Krake
France   Cyber-Résistant
    sementic 77
Germany   Conny Meier
Switzerland   Christine
UK   Gaia

In addition to the people listed above, there were attendees from Norway and Sweden, and representatives from the SVP, the EDL, and Lega Nord were also present. Belgium and the Netherlands were in the midst of major elections, and unfortunately sent no delegates to the meeting.
- - - - - - - - -
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is already known to our regular readers, and you may also recall Hans Erling Jensen, the wily Dane who is counter-suing the heirs of Mohammed for insulting infidels. It was a pleasure to finally meet Gandalf of VV&D, as well as a number of other French Counterjihad activists whom I had previously known only by email or skype. Kitman, the video whiz who works regularly with Vlad Tepes, was on hand to talk about media. Two major German-language news sites, Politically Incorrect and Europe News, sent several representatives to weigh in on alternative media.

I’ll be covering the individual sessions in some detail in later posts, but a brief overview is in order. Like the meetings in Vienna and Copenhagen, the sessions were mostly in workshop format, with moderated general discussion in a roundtable format. Emphasis was placed on the fact that in the repression of the current politically correct regime, what we do makes us dissidents. A nascent totalitarianism — in which state control on both sides of the Atlantic is exerted through government social and financial benefits — will gradually force us into a kind of samizdat.

With these repressive conditions in mind, several of the sessions focused on working around the MSM to spread the truth about the dangers of Islamization. For now, until our countries bring to bear the kind of controls on the internet that exist in China, the new media are our best hope. YouTube and other online video services are particularly important in the viral spread of dissident information.

Aeneas gave a presentation on the English Defence League, which has mounted the most successful grassroots anti-jihad operation yet seen in the West. The EDL utilizes alternative media to get around the wall of negative MSM coverage, and organizes its membership for collective action using a variety communications strategies — online forums, Facebook, email, SMS, etc. The EDL’s methods are so successful that the group can almost instantaneously raise a local gathering of members in response to breaking events. In this they have taken a page from their Muslim adversaries, who are notorious for their generation of flash mobs.

Gandalf of VV&D led a workshop on the Alliance to Stop Sharia. The French constitution is based on laïcité, which is the principle of absolute secularism in government. Under laïcité, Islam cannot be officially attacked, since religion falls outside of governmental purview. However, because sharia is a legal system, it is a valid object of constitutional scrutiny. Moreover, it can be easily shown to violate the French constitution.

The Stop Sharia initiative thus focuses entirely on Sharia, and never mentions Islam. By avoiding religion and focusing on the law, we can see that Sharia demonstrably violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the American Bill of Rights, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. If we sidestep the question of religion, Islam becomes quite vulnerable to a concerted attack on its illiberal legal tenets — which are an absolute mandate of its scripture.

On Sunday afternoon a member of parliament for the Swiss People’s Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei or SVP, a.k.a. Union Démocratique du Centre or UDC, Unione Democratica di Centro or UDC, and Partida Populara Svizra or PPS) addressed the meeting. He led a discussion about his party’s successful referendum campaign that imposed a ban on the building of new minarets. He urged delegates from other countries to follow the Swiss example and employ direct democracy in their fight against Islamization. The Swiss constitution permits citizens to force a nationwide referendum after obtaining a threshold number of petition signatures, but not all European countries allow such initiatives. Switzerland, however, is not the only country with such a provision, and the EU itself provides for citizens’ referenda.

Other topics covered in the weekend’s sessions included parliamentary legislation, freedom of speech, fundraising, the OSCE, and the growing threat of Turkey.

As is usual in these meetings, some of the most interesting and lively conversations occurred at lunch or in the evening, as delegates shared ideas and compared notes over food and drink. I learned from the French delegation that official French government propaganda is failing massively, that people are not fooled, and that they no longer believe the official lies. There is a sense that the country is nearing the tipping point, and is on the verge of a fundamental shift in public opinion.

The same theme was expressed by delegates from other countries. All across Europe official propaganda is losing its effectiveness, which is why the news media are becoming more blatantly biased. Denunciations of politically incorrect parties and politicians are increasingly shrill, with Geert Wilders and his PVV being referred to as “rats” by German media outlets after the PVV’s recent electoral success. The demonization of the EDL by the BBC and other British media is ratcheting up, but it is no longer working. Even Sweden is experiencing a growing public awareness of the nature of the Islamic problem.

Underlying all of this is the financial crisis, which may be the proximate trigger for the coming changes. This is the unpredictable factor — if the euro and the banking system can hold out for a few years longer, the demographic advantage enjoyed by Islam can only increase, and make the reckoning that much more ugly when it finally arrives.

In any case, events in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Britain show that change is already beginning. Since I first started attending these meetings three years ago, more change has occurred than I would ever have believed possible. Given the current potential for cataclysmic events — an Iranian nuke, for example, or the collapse of a major currency — predicting what will happen in the next five years is all but impossible.

But as to risings, I can tell you why.
It is on contradiction that they grow.
It seemed the best thing to be up and go.
Up was the heartening and the strong reply.
The heart of standing is we cannot fly.

Once again, I’d like to thank all the people whose kind donations allowed me to travel to Zurich for this year’s meeting. You all know who you are, and you have earned my deepest gratitude.

Tags: Conference, CounterJihad, Zurich

Views: 94

Replies to This Discussion

Alliance against Shari'a (Hat Tip Gaia)
[ ]
Monday, July 12, 2010 The Alliance to STOP Sharia
by Baron Bodissey

Counterjihad Zurich 2010

Last month’s Counterjihad meeting in Zurich was a milestone for several reasons, one of them being the participation of a substantial contingent of French delegates. Gandalf*, who has appeared several times previously at Gates of Vienna and blogs at Vérité, Valeurs et Démocratie, gave a presentation on his proposed Alliance to STOP Sharia.

In the wake of the meeting a group of people from a number of European countries (plus the United States and Canada) began preparations for the launch of the Alliance to STOP Sharia as an umbrella group that can apply anti-sharia strategies across the entire West.

Countries with secularism written into their constitutions encounter a problem with any official effort to oppose Islamization. How can Islam be stopped when the state is enjoined not to interfere in religious affairs? In particular, the constitutions of France and the United States forbid any state meddling with religions. We Americans have the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the French have an official policy of laïcité — the complete removal of religious matters from the purview of the government.

The Alliance, however, is completely unconcerned with Islamic religious beliefs — as far as it is concerned, Muslims may believe whatever they want. Instead, the focus is on Sharia, or Islamic law.

Last week Gates of Vienna interviewed Gandalf about the reasoning and methodology behind the planned alliance.

Alliance to STOP Sharia

Q: You say that you do not take issue with Islamic beliefs or religious doctrines, but only with the body of law known as Sharia. Could you please explain the reasons for your focus on Sharia?

A: Well, let’s begin with Islamic beliefs and religious doctrines. We cannot take issue with someone’s beliefs for the simple reason that we are respectful of their human rights. In a democratic society you have the right to believe what you want; it’s as simple as that. Let me add that having issues with what’s inside your neighbour’s brain seems a very unproductive way of spending your time.

Sharia is an entirely different matter, Sharia in an occidental society is of a political nature (politics being the thing that rules society). In a Muslim society Sharia is of religious essence but we are not in a Muslim society, and we don’t have to consider their weltanschaaung in this matter.

Some people pretend to introduce something they consider as a body of laws into our society. Laws regulating individual and collective behaviour, morals, clothing, food, justice, matrimonial relations, sexual life, inheritance, citizenship status, and even what you are allowed to believe or not believe. Laws voted by nobody, laws absolutely incompatible with the principles of democracy, laws violating each and every human right you can think of, laws rejecting our basic civilisationnal concept of human dignity, and you ask why we focus our concerns on the Sharia?

Let me return your question by asking this: why hasn’t everyone in our democratic countries focused yet on the Sharia problem we are facing today?

Some clever souls say that it only concerns Muslim people, why should we care?

What is a Muslim? A new kind of citizen having different rights and obligations? A new kind of citizen denied the benefits of his constitutional rights, of his basic human rights — especially if this Muslim person is a woman?

We don’t know what a Muslim is, and to be really honest, we don’t care. But we know what a free citizen is and we know what Sharia does to people: it enslaves them in a degrading servitude. Sharia is mental slavery, that’s why we take issue with it.

Q: So, if I understand you correctly, you are completely opposed to any application of Sharia law, because it violates our human rights as well as our constitutions?

A: My answer will be yes and no.
- - - - - - - - -
Yes, we are completely opposed to any kind of individual or collective behaviour (note that we are speaking of behaviour, not beliefs) promoting a political system which is non-democratic and incompatible with our citizens’ constitutional and human rights. Actively promoting a non-democratic political and social system in our society is called subversion. This is an offence.

Acceptable prayer

Teaching children and citizens that they cannot use their constitutional liberties and that they have to obey a foreign law — however small this obligation might be — is intolerable. There is no such thing as a parallel law beside our own, and our opinion is that everyone who is trying to enforce a foreign law in our country, even when hiding behind a religious façade and seemingly harmless behaviours, must be stopped.

Let’s take an example to be very clear: Ramadan. It seems to be an inoffensive custom, festive and convivial — right?

Wrong: Ramadan is an obligation dictated by the Sharia. As such, if you don’t respect it, you become a kafir (a non-Muslim kind of sub-human). In an Islamic society (ruled by Sharia) you can go to jail or be mobbed by your neighbours because “you insult Islam” simply by eating or drinking something during this period.

And in a not-yet Islamic society Ramadan applies a very strong social pressure on individuals daring to take liberties with the strictures of Sharia. Our citizens of Muslim faith are suffering from that “innocent and festive custom” which allows for the counting of heads and the stigmatization of those who hope to live a free life.

Sharia victims who have internalized the rules they must obey just think it’s the “normal” way of doing things. Uneducated people just see the feast and the pastries, but it’s Sharia law, no more and no less than the stoning of women for adultery and amputation of thieves’ hands.

Sharia is a “package”; you cannot pick what you fancy and forget about the rest. That’s what we do with religions in a democratic society, but please remember that Sharia is outside the realm of democracy and outside the Western definition of civilisation.

What we see now of Sharia seems mostly harmless — halal food, a publicly displayed dress code, etc. — but it’s strongly linked with all the ugly content we don’t want to look at. Accepting one step is calling for the next. If you don’t want to go to the cellar why start to descend the stairs?

The “no” part of this answer concerns what people think is non-harmful in Sharia, wearing distinctive outfits, eating special food, building mosques, etc. In themselves each of those actions is not significant — outfits, food, buildings, what is the problem?

If there were no connection with Sharia, we would take no issue with all of that. We have no problem with Islam as a religion.

But at the present day, wearing Sharia-compliant clothing is an ostentatious sign of submission, and as such an open promotion of Sharia, a social conquest flag. Consuming halal food is another sign of submission, and a financial contribution for more Sharia in the society. And, in the mosques appearing in our towns, Sharia is often openly taught as a behavioural norm to our citizens, to defenceless children, to our neighbours.

So yes, we are definitely opposed to any application of Sharia law, any teaching of it and we believe confidently that if enough people raise their voices to demand efficient policies against Sharia, our representatives will forget their fears and will do what we elected them to do: protect our nations and our democracy.

Q: You seem to assert that a ban against Sharia will be a force for the liberation of Muslims, as well as for non-Muslims. Is this correct ?

A: Absolutely! In a democratic country each citizen is granted a full array of rights and liberties, he has the right to live his life as a free human being provided that he doesn’t threaten others’ right and liberties.

Why should we tolerate that Sharia preachers/activists actively work at the destruction of our neighbours’ rights and liberties by indoctrination, social pressure, and more often than not physical violence?

The “Muslim community” (umma) is a Sharia-derived concept binding individuals in a “community” with specific customs and obligations (sharia law). This concept has absolutely no validity — either you are a citizen or you are not; all the rest is irrelevant.

A total ban on Sharia will help to protect citizens of Muslim faith from those who insidiously try to bind them to the Sharia’s mental slavery. Our democratic societies are offering the fabulous gift of freedom to every citizen of Muslim faith willing to accept it. It’s our collective duty to maintain the conditions allowing our citizens to break the yoke of an alien and barbaric law.

Getting rid of Sharia will protect us too, because Sharia concerns non-Muslims too.

Sharia heavily promotes discrimination, hatred, deception, and violence against non-Muslims, kuffar. Sharia creates social unrest and tensions leading to urban semi-insurrectional situations when mixed with social and immigration issues.

Everyone will enjoy a better life without Sharia, everyone.

Q: Your program makes complete sense. However, our countries already have in place constitutions and laws that are antithetical to sharia. What strategy do you propose to persuade our leaders to reject Sharia explicitly? How will you compel them to enforce existing prohibitions against such undemocratic laws?

A: To answer this question some things need to be explained first.

It’s exact: our countries already have constitutions and laws that are antithetical to sharia. This simple fact should shelter us from any attempt to introduce sharia in our societies. In theory yes, but the reality is very different, as we all can see.


Information. The western democracies are suffering from a grievous lack of information.

* We are at war and we don’t even know it (remember that jihad against non-Muslims is a holy duty for everyone obeying sharia).
* We face a political ideology and we don’t even know it (most people are still mentally stuck in a “clash of civilizations”, a “religious conflict” or a “racism-related” problem).
* We can see symptoms of the growing influence of sharia and we can’t identify them as such (scarves, halal food, a withering of freedom of speech due to a latent climate of threatening and violence around sharia-related subjects, etc…).

We just don’t know what we are facing. Most people don’t know what sharia is, nor anything about its relations with the fundamental texts of Islam.

Ask around — how many people do you know who have read the Koran and the hadith or know what sharia is and what it is not?

People don’t know what sharia is. Most Muslims in our countries don’t know either, by the way. And our leaders? Why should they know better? Because you voted for them? Think twice…

This is the root of the problem: our societal inability to detect the presence of sharia and to analyze the threat it represents to our democratic societies.

Once educated about the sharia and its dangers, our leaders will be able to defend the nation against it.

At this point comes the answer to you question.

How to persuade our leaders to put the name “sharia” on our problem?

How will we compel them to enforce prohibitions against sharia?

Information is the answer. Once you know what sharia is and how to recognize it when you see it, you know what to do.

We’ll show people and leaders what sharia is and how it has already crept stealthily into our streets, where it is rapidly growing if not strongly challenged.

And when you know what sharia is, trust me, you know that you don’t want it in your country, never.

And at this point if enough of us raise our voices to say “Stop sharia now!” our leaders will hear their electors.

And if they don’t, they won’t remain our leaders much longer. Democracy is not that bad a system, you know — once people understand that their leaders are truly blind and deaf to the needs of their nation, they kick them out.

Truth about sharia: that’s our strategy. Truth is our weapon; we don’t need anything else.

* Not to be confused with the British blogger Gandalf, who runs the Counterjihad site Up Pompeii.

This interview was originally published in four installments at Big Peace.
Alleanza contro la Shari’a
[ ]
Lunedì 12 luglio 2010 – The Alliance to STOP Sharia (Alleanza per FERMARE la Shari’a)
di Baron Bodissey

Controjihad Zurigo 2010 [*]

L’incontro dello scorso mese a Zurigo della Controjihad è stato una pietra miliare per diverse ragioni, una delle quali è la partecipazione di un contingente sostanzioso di delegati francesi. Gandalf*, che è apparso diverse volte precedentemente su GatesOfVienna e su VéritéValeursEtDémocracie, ha dato una presentazione della da lui proposta Alliance to STOP Sharia.

In seguito all’incontro un gruppo di persone da un numero di Paesi europei (più gli Stati Uniti e il Canada) hanno iniziato i preparativi per il lancio dell’Alliance to STOP Sharia quale gruppo mantello che possa applicare strategie anti-Shari’a attorno all’Occidente intero.

I Paesi con il Secolarismo scritto nelle loro Costituzioni incontrano un problema in occasione di un qualsiasi sforzo ufficiale che si oppone all’Islamizzazione. Come puô essere fermato l’Islam quando ad uno Stato viene ingiunto di non interferire con gli affari religiosi? In particolare, le Costituzioni di Francia e degli Stati Uniti proibiscono ad un qualsiasi Stato di immischiarsi con le religioni. Noi americani abbiamo la clausola istituzionalizzata del Primo Emendamento, e i francesi hanno ufficialmente la politica della Laicità – la completa rimozione delle questioni religiose dall’ambito governativo.

L’Alliance, comunque, è totalmente priva di preoccupazioni circa le credenze religiose islamiche – per quanto le riguarda, gli islamici possono credere a qualsiasi cosa vogliono. Invece, la focalizzazione è sulla Shari’a, o Legge islamica.

La passata settimana, GatesOfVienna ha intervistato Gandalf in merito alle ragioni ed alla metodologia che stanno dietro la pianificata alleanza.

Alliance to STOP Sharia (Alleanza per FERMARE la Shari’a)

Domanda: dite di non entrare nel merito delle credenze islamiche o delle dottrine religiose, ma solo del corpo legale conosciuto come Shari’a. Può spiegare le ragioni per la vostra focalizzazione sulla Shari’a?

Risposta: bene, iniziamo con le credenze islamiche e le dottrine religiose. Non possiamo mettere in questione le credenze di qualcuno per la semplice ragione che noi rispettiamo i loro Diritti umani. In una società democratica si ha il diritto di credere in ciò che si vuole; è tanto semplice. Mi lasci aggiungere che mettere in questione ciò che sta nel cervello del proprio vicino sembra essere un modo veramente improduttivo di passare il proprio tempo.

La Shari’a è una questione interamente differente; la Shari’a in una società occidentale è di natura politica (essendo la Politica quella cosa che gestisce la società). In una società islamica, la Shari’a è d’essenza religiosa, ma noi non siamo in una società islamica, e non vogliamo considerare la loro Weltanschaaung in merito a ciò.

Alcune persone pretendono d’introdurre qualcosa che considerano come il loro corpo legale, nella nostra società - le leggi che regolano il comportamento individuale e collettivo, la morale, il modo di vestirsi, l’alimentazione, la giustizia, le relazioni matrimoniali, la vita sessuale, l’eredità, la cittadinanza, e persino ciò che si è autorizzati a credere o a non credere. Sono leggi votate da nessuno, leggi assolutamente incompatibili con i principi della Democrazia, leggi che violani qualsiasi ed ogni Diritto umano a cui si possa pensare, leggi che rigettano il nostro concetto civilizzatore basilare di dignità umana – e lei chiede perché focalizziamo le nostre preoccupazioni sulla Shari’a?

Mi lasci tornare alla domanda chiedendo ciò: perché non tutti, non ancora, nei nostri Paesi democratici, non si sono ancora focalizzati sul problema della Shari’a, che stiamo oggi affrontando?

Alcune anime buone dicono che ciò riguarda solo la gente islamica – perché dovremmo occuparcene?

Cos’è un islamico? Un nuovo tipo di cittadino che ha differenti diritti e obbligazioni? Un nuovo tipo di cittadino a cui vengono negati i benefici dei suoi Diritti costituzionali, dei suoi Diritti umani basilari – specialmente se questa persona islamica è una donna?

Non sappiamo cosa sia un islamico, e ad essere veramente onesti, non ci interessa. Ma sappiamo ciò che un cittadino libero sia, e sappiamo cosa faccia la Shari’a alla gente: la schiavizza in un servilismo degradante. La Shari’a è Schiavitù mentale, ecco perché la mettiamo in questione?

Domanda: così, se la comprendo correttamente, voi vi opponete completamente a qualsiasi applicazione della Legge della Shari’a, perché essa viola i nostri Diritti umani, come pure le nostre Costituzioni?

Risposta: la mia risposta à sì e no.

Sì, ci opponiamo a qualsiasi comportamento individuale o collettivo (notare che stiamo parlando di comportamento, non credenza) che promuova un sistema politico che sia non-democratico ed incompatibile con i nostri Diritti costituzionali di cittadini e umani. Promuovere attivamente un sistema politico e sociale non-democratico nella nostra società, è chiamato Sovversione. Questa è un reato.

Preghiera accettabile

Insegnare ai bambini e ai cittadini che non possono usare le loro Libertà costituzionali e che devono obbedire ad una Legge straniera – per quanto questa obbligazione sia – è intollerabile. Non c’è una cosa come una Legge parallela che stia a fianco della nostra, e secondo noi chiunque cerchi di fare applicare una Legge straniera nel nostro Paese, persino nascondendo ciò dietro una facciata religiosa e comportamenti apparentemente innocui, deve essere fermato.

Lasciatemi fare un esempio, per essere molto chiari: il Ramadan. Sembra un costume inoffensivo, festivo e conviviale – giusto?

Sbagliato: il Ramadan è un’obbligazione dettata dalla Shari’a. In quanto tale, se non lo rispetti, diventi un kafir (una sorta di sub-umano non-islamico). In una società islamica (governata dalla Shari’a) puoi finire in galera oppure essere assalito dai tuoi vicini perché “insulti l’Islam” semplicemente mangiando o bevendo qualcosa durante questo periodo.

Ed in una società non-islamica, il Ramadan esercita una pressione sociale molto forte sugli individui che si permettono di prendersi libertà rispetto alle restrizioni della Shari’a. I nostri cittadini di fede islamica stanno soffrendo di questo “costume innocente e festivo” che permette la sorveglianza e la stigmatizzazione di coloro che sperano di vivere una vita libera.

Le vittime della Shari’a che hanno interiorizzato le regole a cui devono obbedire, pensano semplicemente che sia il modo “normale” di fare le cose. La gente non istruita vede la festa ed i pasticcini, ma è Legge della Shari’a, né più né meno di quanto lo sia la Lapidazione di donne per adulterio e l’Amputazione delle mani dei ladri.

La Shari’a è un “pacchetto”; non puoi prendere quello che ti attrae e dimenticare il resto. Ciò è quello che facciamo con le religioni in una società democratica, ma per favore, ricordate che la Shari’a esula dal reame della Democrazia ed esula dalla definizione occidentale di Civiltà.

Ciò che vediamo ora della Shari’a sembra perlopiù innocuo – cibo halal, un codice d’abbigliamento pubblicamente mostrato, eccetera – ma è fortemente legato con tutto il brutto contenuto a cui non vogliamo guardare. Accettare un passo è chiedere che venga fatto il prossimo. Se non vuoi andare in cantina, perché iniziare a scendere le scale?

La parte “no” di questa risposta riguarda ciò che la gente pensa essere innocuo nella Shari’a, come indossare orpelli distintivi, mangiare cibo speciale, costruire moschee, eccetera. In sé, ognuna di queste azioni non è significativa – orpelli, cibo, edifici … qual è il problema?

Se non ci fossero connessioni con la Shari’a, non ci occuperemmo di tutto ciò. Non abbiamo problemi con l’Islam in quanto religione.

Ma a presente, indossare abiti adeguati alla Shari’a è un segno ostentato di sottomissione, ed in quanto tale una promozione aperta della Shari’a, una bandiera di conquista sociale. Consumare cibo halal è un altro segno di sottomissione, e un contributo finanziario per più Shari’a nella nostra società. E, nelle moschee che appaiono nelle nostre città, la Shari’a viene spesso apertamente insegnata - quale norma comportamentale – ai nostri cittadini, ai bambini indifesi, ai nostri vicini.

Così sì, ci opponiamo definitivamente ad una qualsiasi applicazione della Legge della Shari’a, ad un qualsiasi suo insegnamento, e crediamo con fiducia che se abbastanza persone sollevano le loro voci per chiedere politiche efficienti contro la Shari’a, i nostri rappresentanti si dimenticheranno le loro paure e faranno ciò per cui sono stati eletti: proteggere le nostre nazioni e la nostra Democrazia.

Domanda: sembra asserire che un divieto contro la Shari’a sia una forza liberatrice per gli islamici, come pure per i non-islamici. È corretto?

Risposta: assolutamente! In un Paese democratico ad ogni cittadino è garantita un’intera paletta di Diritti e Libertà; egli ha il diritto di vivere la sua vita quale essere umano libero, fintantoché non minacci i Diritti e le Libertà degli altri.

Perché dovremmo tollerare che i predicatori/attivisti della Shari’a lavorino attivamente per la distruzione dei Diritti e delle Libertà dei nostri vicini tramite l’indottrinamento, la pressione sociale, e – più spesso che non – tramite la violenza fisica?

La “comunità islamica” (Ummah) è un concetto derivato dalla Shari’a che lega gli individui in una “comunità” con costumi ed obbligazioni specifici (la Legge della Shari’a). Questo concetto non ha assolutamente alcuna validità – o sei un cittadino o non lo sei; tutto il resto è irrilevante.

Un totale divieto della Shari’a ci aiuterà a proteggere i cittadini di fede islamica, da coloro che in modo insidioso cercano di legarli alla Schiavitù mentale della Shari’a. Le nostre società democratiche stanno offrendo un favoloso regalo di Libertà ad ogni cittadino di fede islamica, che voglia accettarlo. È nostro dovere collettivo di mantenere le condizioni che permettono ai nostri cittadini di rompere il giogo di una Legge aliena e barbarica.

Liberarsi dalla Shari’a proteggerà pure noi, perché la Shari’a riguarda pure i non-islamici.

La Shari’a promuove pesantemente discriminazione, odio, inganno, e violenza contro i non-islamici, o kuffar. La Shari’a crea disordine sociale e tensioni che conducono a situazioni urbane semi-insurrezionali, quando si mischia con questioni sociali e d’Immigrazione.

Chiunque beneficierà di una vita migliore senza la Shari’a. Chiunque.

Domanda: il vostro programma ha perfettamente senso. Comunque, i nostri Paesi hanno già in luogo Costituzioni e Leggi che sono antitetiche rispetto alla Shari’a. Che strategia proponete per persuadere i nostri leader a rigettare la Shari’a esplicitamente? Come li obbligate a fare applicare le proibizioni esistenti contro simili Leggi in democratiche?

Risposta: per rispondere a questa domanda bisogna dapprima spiegare alcune cose.

È esatto: i nostri Paesi hanno già Costituzioni e Leggi che sono antitetiche rispetto alla Shari’a. Questo semplice fatto dovrebbe tenerci al riparo da qualsiasi tentativo di introdurre la Shari’a nelle nostre società. In teoria sì, ma in realtà è molto differente, come tutti possiamo vedere.


Informazione. Le Democrazie occidentali stanno soffrendo di una grave mancanza d’informazione.

*Siamo in guerra e non lo sappiamo nemmeno (ricordate che la Jihad contro i non-isalmici è un sacro dovere per chiunque obbedisca alla Shari’a).
*Affrontiamo un’ideologia politica e non lo sappiamo nemmano (la maggior parte delle persone è mentalmente bloccata in uno “scontro di Civiltà”, in un “conflitto religioso”, o in un problema “relativo al Razzismo”).
*Possiamo vedere i sintomi della crescente influenza della Shari’a e non sappiamo identificarli come tali (veli, cibo halal, un appassimento della Libertà d’Espressione dovuta ad un latente clima di minaccia e di violenza attorno a soggetti relativi alla Shari’a, eccetera).

Semplicemente non sappiamo cosa stiamo affrontando. La maggior parte delle persone non sa cosa sia la Shari’a, e nemmeno sa qualcosa delle sue relazioni con i testi fondamentali dell’Islam.

Chieda attorno – quanta gente conosce che abbia letto il Corano e gli Hadith, o che conosca ciò che è la Shari’a e ciò che non è?

La gente non sa cosa sia la Shari’a. La maggior parte degli islamici nei nostri Paesi nemmeno lo sa, fra l’altro. E i nostri leader? Perché dovrebbero saperne di più? Perché li si è votati? Ci pensi sopra ….

Questa è la radice del problema: la nostra incapacità societaria di individuare la presenza della Shari’a e di analizzare la minaccia che essa rappresenta per le nostre società democratiche.

Una volta che si viene educati in merito alla Shari’a e ai suoi pericoli, i nostri leader saranno in grado di difendere la Nazione contro di essa.

A questo punto giunge la risposta alla sua domanda.

Perché persuadere i nostri leader a mettere il nome “Shari’a” al nostro problema?

Come li obbligheremo a far applicare proibizioni contro la Shari’a?

L’informazione è la risposta. Una volta che si sa cosa è la Shari’a e come riconoscerla quando la si vede, si sa cosa fare.

Mostreremo alla gente e ai leader ciò che è la Shari’a e come essa si sia già infiltrata subdolamente nelle nostre strade, dove sta rapidamente crescendo quando non viene vigorosamente sfidata.

E quando si sa cosa è la Shari’a, mi creda, si sa di non volerla nel nostro Paese, mai.

E a questo punto se abbastanza di noi sollevano le loro voci per dire “Stop alla Shari’a adesso!”, i nostri leader ascolteranno i loro elettori.

Se non lo fanno, non rimarranno ulteriormente i nostri leader. La Democrazia non è un sistema tanto male, sa – una volta che le persone capiscono che i loro leader sono veramente ciechi e sordi ai bisogni della loro Nazione, li mandano fuori a pedate.

Verità in merito alla Shari’a: questa è la nostra strategia. La verità è la nostra arma; non abbiamo bisogno di nient’altro.

*Da non confondere con il blogger britannico Gandalf, che mestiche il sito controjihadista UpPompeii.

Questa intervista è stata originalmente pubblicata in quattro parti presso BigPeace.



[ ]

Conferenza annuale organizzata dall’Alleanza Internazionale della Libertà Civili (International Civil Liberties Alliance ha avuto luogo a Zurigo, in Svizzera, il 12 e 13 giugno 2010. Più dettagli su questa importante e produttiva conferenza seguiranno prossimamente su questo sito e di più su Gates of Vienna.

Articoli in merito alla conferenza:

Slouching Towards Zurich
English Defence League (EDL) Attend International Conference In Zurich
English Defence League Represented At Counter Jihad Zurich 2


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)"

© 2021   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service