The European Union has offered to host the next meeting of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

The announcement comes less than one month after the United States hosted its own Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC.

The Istanbul Process – its explicit aim is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and/or Islamic Sharia law – is being spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim countries.

Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.

But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.”

The full wording is: Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.

You are probably thinking the same as me: why are Muslims wanting to make an international law that will criminalise more Muslims than anyone else? Which ‘religion’ is as intolerant towards others as Islam? Which ‘religion’ is responsible for the murders of thousands of people of other religions throughout the world every year? It’s Islam, of course. But this law won’t apply to Muslims, because only Islam can be disrespected.

I cannot see such an ‘international law’ being adhered to in countries like Nigeria, Egypt and Indonesia, where Christians by the hundred have been murdered recently just for being Christians (there’s religious hatred for you), but I can envisage the trembling hands of the ‘infidels’ in the West signing up to this in order to criminalise their own people for speaking out against Sharia law, arranged marriage, female genital mutilation, honour killings, Muslim rape gangs, poppy-burners and the rest of the sickness that goes wherever Islam goes.

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step foward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

However, the HRC resolution – as well as the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 – remains ineffectual as long as it lacks strong support in the West.

The OIC therefore scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. In doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.

Following the Obama Administration’s lead, the European Union now wants to get in on the action by hosting the next Istanbul Process summit, tentatively scheduled for July 2012.

As I have said so often before, the same agenda is being put in place all over the West.

The OIC is especially angry over its inability to silence a growing number of democratically elected politicians in Europe who have voiced concerns over the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host countries and the consequent establishment of parallel Islamic societies in many parts of Europe.

They even want our ‘democratically elected politicians’ to be silenced (those few who still speak up). And the last thing the leaders of the Islamic world want is integration. That’s not how their global caliphate will come about. They must remain separate in order to dominate.

To be sure, many individual European countries that lack First Amendment protections like those in the United States have already enacted hate speech laws that effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the OIC is seeking to impose on the European Union as a whole.

I am just going to reproduce these examples of what has already happening in Europe after people have done nothing more than told the truth about Islam…

In Austria, for example, an appellate court in December 2011 upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Also in Austria, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted in January 2009 for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Islamic prophet Mohammed would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of “incitement” for saying that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.” Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.

In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, was found guilty by a Danish court in May 2011 of “hate speech” for saying in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.

Hedegaard’s comments, which called attention to the horrific living conditions of millions of Muslim women, violated Denmark’s infamous Article 266b of the penal code, a catch-all provision that Danish elites use to enforce politically correct speech codes. Hedegaard has appealed his conviction to the Danish Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.

Also in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, was found guilty of hate speech in December 2010 for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.

Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his assertions because under Danish law it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner ($850) or spend ten days in jail.

In Finland, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician and well-known political commentator, was taken to court in March 2009 on charges of “incitement against an ethnic group” and “breach of the sanctity of religion” for saying that Islam is a religion of pedophilia. A Helsinki court later dropped the charges of blasphemy but ordered Halla-aho to pay a fine of €330 ($450) for disturbing religious worship. The Finnish public prosecutor, incensed at the court’s dismissal of the blasphemy charges, appealed the case to the Finnish Supreme Court, where it is now being reviewed.

In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court by Islamic authorities in the French cities of Paris and Lyon for calling Islam “the stupidest religion” and for saying the Koran is “badly written.” In court, Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) told the judges that although he had never despised Muslims, he did feel contempt for Islam. He was acquitted in October 2002.

Also in France, Brigitte Bardot, the legendary actress turned animal rights crusader, was convicted in June 2008 for “inciting racial hatred” after demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.

In The Netherlands, Geert Wilders – the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party who had denounced the threat to Western values posed by unassimilated Muslim immigrants – was recently acquitted of five charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims for comments he made that were critical of Islam. The landmark verdict brought to a close a highly-public, two-year legal odyssey.

Also in The Netherlands, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who is a vocal critic of Islamic female circumcision and often mocks Dutch multiculturalism, was arrested at his home in Amsterdam in May 2008 for drawing cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. Nekschot (which literally means “shot in the neck,” a method used, according to the cartoonist, by “fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents”) was released after 30 hours of interrogation by Dutch law enforcement officials.

Nekschot was charged for eight cartoons that “attribute negative qualities to certain groups of people,” and, as such, are insulting and constitute the crimes of discrimination and hate according to articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code.

In an interview with the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant, Nekschot said it was the first time in 800 years in the history of satire in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail. (That interview has since been removed from the newspaper’s website.) Although the case against Nekschot was dismissed in September 2010, he ended his career as a cartoonist on December 31, 2011.

In Italy, the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author, was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” In November 2002, a judge in Switzerland, acting on a lawsuit brought by Islamic Center of Geneva, issued an arrest warrant for Fallaci for violations of Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code; the judge asked the Italian government either to prosecute or extradite her. The Italian Justice Ministry rejected this request on the grounds that the Italian Constitution protects freedom of speech.

But in May 2005, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that “some of the things she said in her book ‘The Force of Reason’ are offensive to Islam.” An Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial in Bergamo on charges of “defaming Islam.” Fallaci died of cancer in September 2006, just months after the start of her trial.

So, you would think that criticising Islam is already a crime in Europe without any further effort by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The United Nations is still seen as a highly reputable and invaluable organisation to most people, rather than what it really is. If our politicians lack the strength of character to deal with the EU on most matters, how do you think they will react when expected to adopt laws that try to prevent us saying things like, ‘Well, actually, I don’t think it’s right that Muslim girls should have their genitals mutilated’?

If this happens, what a devastating blow to freedom. We will literally become dhimmis in our own country. Even more so than we are already, with the halal food being dished up to an unsuspecting public and the dismantling of our Judeo-Christian values and culture.

If we don’t stand up for our country and our freedom and commit ourselves to the values of our fathers and grandfathers, we will fall to Islam. And soon. It doesn’t matter that Muslims are a minority in Europe; the powers that be have dealt them a winning hand. At least, this is what they want us to believe, but it will only be a winning hand if we fail to realise that they are bluffing, therefore we must not throw in our hand because this rotten game is there for the taking if we stand strong against this tide of insanity.

FURTHER READING: ‘Proud to be a British Muslim’ (a lesson in mind-control)

The agenda is exactly the same all over the Western World: make people feel afraid of expressing opinions that are “off-message”. It’s globalism; global tyranny. It is just developing at slightly different speeds depending on the success of the opposition by decent, aware people. The threats to our freedoms – very basic freedoms, at that – are increasing all the time, as evidenced by this story: Footballer sacked over homophobic tweet aimed at Gareth Thomas.

Mike Ford, manager of the Southern Football League Premier Division club, said the decision was taken in response to Steele tweeting about Thomas’s appearance in Celebrity Big Brother. Steele wrote: “I wouldn’t fancy the bed next to Gareth Thomas #padlockmyarse”.

And that is it. Out the dressing room door you go, Steele.

Ford told the BBC: “On this occasion Lee’s had to pay for his error of judgment. He’s made a homophobic comment, [but] that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s homophobic.”

But Mr Ford, manager of the diddy team playing three divisions down from the Football League, gives Steele no chance to make amends. He is an outcast and forced to wear a metaphorical yellow star in the football world.

Steele, 38, had a long career in the Football League playing for clubs including Shrewsbury, Oxford United and Leyton Orient, and was part of the Brighton squad that won the old Division Two in 2001-02.

Some careers end because of broken legs, illness and accidents. Mr Ford ended Lee Steele’s career because of a quip on the internet.

Reacting to the sacking, the Justin Campaign against homophobia in football said: “While it is never pleasing to see someone lose a position in a club or company, we fully applaud the club’s decision to terminate the player’s contract.

Fancy that; no mercy from the ‘gay’ lobby. No calls for a bit of common sense and sense of proportion. They don’t even realise that to show forgiveness and clemency would further their aims no end.

“For far too long homophobic comments like the ones Steele made have been defended using the erroneous argument that such remarks as simply harmless ‘banter’. However, we no longer accept racist ‘banter’, and likewise, we must never accept homophobic ‘banter’.

To help answer that tired old comparison with racism, and other points, I will turn to this interesting analysis on the Guardian Watch blog entitled, Homophobia – The Gays’ Secret Weapon.

The writer has some sympathy for the club’s position, but then states,

So for the footballer in this case to be sacked for expressing what is a very very common feeling amongst straight men [‘latent homosexual tendencies’], especially straight men who find themselves in environments surrounded by other men, such as football, seems incredibly unfair. He was basically sacked for being a man!

I think this tells us exactly what is going on – and deserves to be in bold text:

This increased use of ‘homophobia’ as a ‘criminal’ offence is all part of the Big Gay Project. Again as Simpson has so clearly explained (back in 1996 in his book Anti Gay for example), the ‘gay’ identity has developed in part through the development of the concept of ‘homophobia’:
‘So, in the As [After Stonewall] epoch, homosexuality, with its nasty medicinal odour, was now an increasingly redundant term. Instead, ‘homo-phobia’, a word with a nasty medicinal odour, was coined to explain the origins of the obviously mentally imbalanced idea that gay wasn’t good. While the innocent BS [Before Stonewall] homosexual was the victim of pathologisation and prejudice, the guilty AS [After Stonewall]  homophobe was obviously deserving of pathologisation and prejudice. ‘

Now onto the comparison with ‘ racism’:

I find this conflation of racism with homophobia troubling, in part for the reasons I have stated above. If ‘homo-anxiety’ and ‘latent homosexuality’ are in fact an aspect of nearly all men, then ‘homophobia’ does not relate to an ‘other’, separate from the ‘homophobe’ as racism does.

However, there are ways in which ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ DO function in similar ways as discourses. The ‘born this way’ version of gay identities suggests that being ‘gay’, like having a certain skin colour, or being from a certain place, is innate, natural, fixed. But, as is often the case with identity politics there is an irony here. It is, in part, using Simpson’s ideas,  this ‘fixed, natural, innate’ gay identity that enables ‘homophobia’ to exist.  Without ‘homophobia’ ‘gay’ may not be here at all, and this is why gays use ‘homophobia’ so strategically in their crusades.

As James Baldwin has put it so eloquently:

“People invent categories in order to feel safe. White people invented black people to give white people identity. . . . Straight cats invented faggots so they could sleep with them without becoming faggots themselves.”

– James Baldwin to Nikki Giovanni

I might add to that statement – ‘faggots invented homophobia so they could continue to exist as a distinct identity group in an ever-changing world’.

So if we want to get rid of homophobia (and indeed racism, for whilst skin colour is something we are born with, the ‘black’ or ‘white’ identity is not), we need to challenge the categories on which it is based. And that means challenging the notion of a ‘gay’ identity, especially challenging the idea that ‘gay’ is particularly special, particularly oppressed, and particularly, to use Simpson’s word: ‘fabby’.

I don’t know where the writer gets the idea that ‘homo-anxiety’ and ‘latent homosexuality’ are an aspect of most men; it would be interesting to read any believable research. Certainly, there has been a major shift in what is considered normal and acceptable behaviour. As the writer indicates, homosexuality was the mental illness of the past, but now not thinking that ‘gay’ is good is considered its replacement clinical condition.

The extra danger now to freedom is that once something has been labelled a mental condition, it makes it easier for ‘dissenting’ individuals to be abused by the state, as happened in the USSR:

Soviet psychiatric hospitals were used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. This method was also employed against religious prisoners and most especially against well-educated former atheists who adopted a religion. In such cases their religious faith was determined to be a form of mental illness that needed to be cured.

Many people wonder why one or two percent of the population has so much influence in how our society is evolving, or rather, being re-engineered, but in my opinion the main reasons for the promotion of homosexuality are these:

1) as a divide and rule tactic;

2) for the weakening of traditional family life, society’s basic unit of strength;

3) as one part of the agenda to erode the West’s moral values and culture;

4) to aid in the control of thought and speech.

It has nothing to do with equality, fairness and justice and everything to do with control of the masses. The Tories promised to reverse this madness of political correctness, but it keeps marching on. Of course it does; they are party to it. They wouldn’t be allowed to form a government if they weren’t keen as mustard. It’s a global phenomenon. It’s also surely one of the reasons we didn’t get our EU referendum. The EU is one of PC’s major steering groups and 27 countries are subject to its diktats, so that isn’t something the globalists will sit idly by and watch disintegrating if they can avoid it.

Diane Abbott. Or is it Robert Mugabe?

Firstly, I think the woman is horrendous, particularly for her campaign to have abortion legalised in Northern Ireland, despite the protestations from all parts of the community there. Typical socialist: we don’t care how you want to live or what you hold precious, we’re going to tell you what to do.

However, this doesn’t imply she is a racist. I’m sure she despises the unborn equally, regardless of colour. I wonder what she makes of the fact that black unborn babies in the USA (not sure of the UK figures) are more likely to be aborted than white ones, in what some term the black holocaust. They say that US abortionists kill more blacks every three days than the Ku Klux Klan has done in its history. I doubt she cares. ‘Rights’ to feminazis of her ilk do not include the right to life (surely the most basic right of all), but the ‘right’ of a woman to ‘control her own fertility’, blah, blah. Similarly, to the feminist mind, the father has no rights in determining the future of his unborn child, just the woman. There’s only one thing worse than a feminist woman like Abbott, and that’s a man who shares her feminist beliefs.

Leg-iron wrote a piece with which I largely agree and raises several valid points,

As a honky myself I took no offence other than to observe that it is not white people, but politicians such as herself, who are using the ‘divide and rule’ principle these days.

Cue some excerps from the post on this blog I link to most,

Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett has announced that:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

Mr Neather wrote: “Earlier drafts [of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit] I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

And as we know, multiculturalism is about dividing the population into pockets of ‘communities’ and the ‘equality and diversity’ brigade can then stir them up with all the phoney ’rights’ nonsense to get them at each other instead of fighting our common enemy: the social engineers.

As Leggy writes, her comment was racist, as it ‘defined an entire ethnic group within one derogatory statement’, but he doesn’t believe she is. I just don’t know, but as most of her white colleagues would appear to be racist against the native Brits, why should she be any different? I also don’t know if her subsequent twittergaffe (if this isn’t a word, it should be) in which she suggested that taxi drivers are inclined not to pick up black passengers, is based on reality or if it is just her that they don’t pick up, and who could blame them, especially as she looks increasingly like Robert Mugabe (see picture above for proof!) and they are probably fearful that if they let her in their cab she’ll take their home and land from them.

BBC Bristol sacked their presenter, Sam Mason, in 2008 after she called a taxi firm to collect her 14 year-old daughter and requested an ‘English’ driver. I wrote to the BBC at the time to complain about the dismissal and, of course, received the sort of standard reply I expected. Is Sam Mason a racist for wanting to protect her daughter from a (perceived) heightened risk?

So is it just proles who deserve to be sacked for being ‘racist’ whether or not they really are?

As Leg-iron concludes,

Diane Abbott was part of the government that brought about this equality. The one in which the politicians despise us all equally.

She was one of those who made this happen. She was one of those who created these laws.

They are ridiculous, but they are laws. Should she escape them?

One rule for the proles, another for the Politburo. Let’s see if that’s true.

Many, many people are about to find out just where they stand.

Is she racist?

Who knows?

Is she stupid?

Undoubtedly.

Should she be sacked?

She should never have been elected.

Trafford Housing Trust - building towards a future without opinions... or flowerpots.

You might remember the story of Colin Atkinson from a few months ago. He is the 64 year-old former soldier who ended up in serious trouble from his employers, Wakefield and District Housing (WDH), for keeping a palm cross on his company van’s dashboard.

Now another Christian, Adrian Smith, who works for another housing trust, Trafford Council and Trafford Housing Trust, has been demoted, with a 40% pay cut, for stating on his own personal Facebook page that ‘gay church marriages’ are “a step too far”. Apparently, the only reason he wasn’t sacked is because of his eighteen years of service.

We are becoming a nation of informants:

Mr Smith was disciplined after a second colleague complained to the Trust’s ‘equality and diversity lead’, Helen Malone.

A few days later, Mr Smith was summoned from his home to a meeting at the Trust’s headquarters in Sale, where he was told he was being suspended while the complaint was investigated.

He was warned that even though his Facebook page could be viewed only by registered friends, rather than by the general public, those readers included colleagues who had taken issue with his comments.

Perhaps there is more to this story than meets the eye. It seems his ‘friends’ and colleagues were ganging up on him and perhaps using his rather unassuming comments as an excuse to get rid of someone they don’t like. If he was homosexual and being bullied and harassed, it would have been a totally different matter. One phone call to Stonewall would have left his bosses and colleagues panic-stricken.

A shocked Mr Smith, who managed a team looking after local housing issues, immediately removed the reference to where he worked from the page.

Why remove it? I have a feeling that allowing yourself to be cowed by these creeps will be seen as a sign of weakness. The Trust has 350 employees. Many of these will likely share Mr Smith’s beliefs and most will be afraid to speak out. And I hope those who grassed him up don’t get too complacent, or they could also find themselves the subject of a witch hunt if they are caught uttering a non-PC opinion (if they are capable). I would not have too many drinks at the office Christmas party if I was them. The walls probably have ears. (They will probably have a ‘Winterval’ party, of course, so as not to ’cause offence’.)

The following month he was called to a disciplinary meeting before Mike Corfield, the Trust’s Assistant Director, Customers. Although Mr Smith was allowed to put his case, insiders described the meeting as ‘tense and fraught’.

I can imagine. He would likely have been made to feel like scum by his interrogators. Like there was something wrong with him.

According to legal documents lodged at Manchester County Court, Debbie Gorman, a ‘neighbourhood manager’ also at the meeting, said Mr Smith’s comment could cause offence.

Indeed. A comment could ’cause offence’ but that is sometimes the price we pay to have freedom of speech. The alternative is far, far worse.

But because of his loyal service, Mr Smith was instead demoted to money support adviser, handling rent collection. His pay was reduced to £21,396, phased in over a year, and he was given a final written warning.

Mr Smith’s solicitor has said that, ‘Nothing he said was offensive or abusive. His comments were calm, measured and reasonable.

That doesn’t matter anymore. Freedom of speech has gone. You will comply – because someone, somewhere might be offended, especially when there’s money to be made.

‘Adrian has been treated disproportionately. Even those who disagree with his opinions will surely agree that he has been treated badly.’

I doubt it, actually. Some people are too far removed from reality now.

Last year, the Trust, which employs 360 staff, was awarded a ‘quality mark’ from a gay support group for its work training staff in recognising homophobic hate crime.

But it has also angered a number of elderly residents by ordering them to remove garden benches and flower pots from outside their flats for health-and-safety reasons.

Yes, they are clearly drugged up on a heady cocktail of political correctness gone mad and health and safety taken to insane extremes.

This is the future for everyone if this nonsense isn’t dealt with once and for all. David Cameron promised to end this sort of persecution, but as we know, he is a joker who has actually meted out similar treatment to some of his party members. It is no exaggeration to compare what is happening in the UK and EU to China and Soviet Russia. Clearly, it won’t just be Christians who will be browbeaten, but eventually, everyone but the most mindless drones will be forced to conceal their true feelings. For example, there are some people who want criticism of the EU to be a criminal offence. That would probably make criminals of the majority of the British people at the moment, but imagine it being an actual crime. How many detractors would remain?

One thing is for sure: I will never be employed by a housing trust. Nor would I want to be.

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani could be martyred by Iran any time.

Cranmer writes,

It really is quite incredible. Last week, a convicted murderer, Troy Davis, was finally executed in the United States, and it seemed as though the entire British (and EU) Establishment arose to denounce the barbarism. Even Pope Benedict XVI appealed for clemency.

Yet today, Iran is scheduled to hang a Christian pastor for ‘apostasy’, and the collective silence from our scurvy politicians, trappist churchmen and hypocritical media is positively deafening.

Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani was found guilty two years ago of ‘apostasy’, even though he was never a practising Muslim. His guilt was determined because he ‘has Muslim ancestry’ (which is a kind of convenient catch-all in a place like Iran), and he was sentenced to death. That sentence may be suspended if he renounce his faith. This week, in court, he has twice refused to recant. A third refusal today will result in his execution.

It is after 7pm and the only mention of this pastor I have found in the British mainstream media is this post in The Telegraph. According to Google, the BBC haven’t seen fit to write about this latest development at all.

I called the Iranian Embassy earlier and I said I’m phoning about the pastor and they knew who I meant straight away. I spoke to a cheery Iranian who hopes and believes that the pastor won’t be killed.

Let’s hope and pray he is right. Maybe I am wrong, but Persia, that was, conjures up more noble images than this sort of cold-blooded butchering.

If you want to call in the morning, the Embassy switchboard number is 0207 225 3000.  Other contact details can be found on the Embassy’s website.

I thought I might give our Foreign Secretary a ring as well, so looked up his contact details, however I noticed that he has made a statement,

“I deplore reports that Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, an Iranian Church leader, could be executed imminently after refusing an order by the Supreme Court of Iran to recant his faith. This demonstrates the Iranian regime’s continued unwillingness to abide by its constitutional and international obligations to respect religious freedom. I pay tribute to the courage shown by Pastor Nadarkhani who has no case to answer and call on the Iranian authorities to overturn his sentence.”

Time will tell.

WTC Building 7 fell several hours after the Twin Towers. It collapsed onto its own footprint in near freefall speed. NIST concluded that fire brought it down.

This was my guest post on Subrosa’s blog this morning..

I was out and about on September 11th 2001 and the first inkling I had that the attacks had taken place was on seeing a picture of one of the Twin Towers on fire on a newspaper stand in the centre of Glasgow while changing buses. When I reached my friends’ house around dinner time, the telly was on and I was finally able to catch up with what had happened: the jets hitting the Towers and pulverising them, the attack on the Pentagon and the other plane that never reached its intended target but crashed in a Pennsylvanian field. Building 7 was still standing at this point (more on that later).

Naturally, I was gobsmacked with what I saw, but at the same time, I just could not believe that the authorities in the US could not have known that something this big was going to happen. I told a few people what I thought, but I pretty much kept quiet about it for the next couple of years – until I came across the “9/11 Truth Movement” and realised that millions of people had the same suspicions I had. I found out that not only did some people think that the government let it happen, but that they made it happen.

Further investigation was called for on my part.

I quickly learned that there were a great many inconsistencies and unbelievable coincidences in the official 9/11 story. For example, no steel framed skyscraper had ever completely collapsed due to fire before. Even those which had been ablaze for many hours never fell to the ground. Yet three of the World Trade Centre buildings fell completely – even the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) which was not hit by a plane.

For many, Building 7 is the biggest ‘smoking gun’ of all because it resembles a classic controlled demolition. 1,500 architects and engineers agree and want a new investigation. So many people in New York City have never seen footage of Building 7’s collapse, that a poster and TV ad campaign is underway this week.

And Building 7 wasn’t even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. But then, the chairman and vice chairman wrote in their book that the Commission was “set up to fail”.

When George W Bush gave his evidence to the Commission it was not under oath and he was chaperoned by Dick Cheney, the man responsible for making NORAD stand down, according to “conspiracy theorists”. Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified that the Vice President had ordered the plane heading for the Pentagon NOT to be shot down. This testimony was omitted from the Commission’s final report.

9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating that restrictions on information from the Presidential Daily Briefs meant that the investigation was “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States”. Another Commissioner, Timothy Roemer said, “To paraphrase Churchill, never have so few commissioners reviewed such important documents with so many restrictions. The 10 commissioners should either have access to this or not at all.”

In Cheney’s new book, which seems to have been released to coincide with the tenth anniversary, he claims that he did order that Flight 77 could be shot down when it was eighty miles out then again when it was sixty miles out, but it was allowed to hit the Pentagon. He also claims that Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania because passengers stormed the cockpit, aware of what had already happened that morning, however, the large area across which the wreckage extends suggests that the plane exploded in mid-air, and pictures from the alleged crash site leave us wondering where the actual plane is, if it crashed without being blown out of the sky first.

It is also difficult to see how a large passenger jet could have made such little initial damage to the outside of the Pentagon, before the walls collapsed.

Osama bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for 9/11 (he had actually been a CIA ‘asset’ in Bosnia) and ‘al Qaeda’ was a name made up by Western intelligence to give the impression that disparate groups of Islamic terrorists had a united front. After the end of the Cold War, a new enemy was needed to try to frighten us into giving up our rights.

And 9/11 was the excuse the US Government needed to invade Afghanistan.

Many people find it impossible to believe that there could have been any government involvement, but history provides many examples of “false flag” terrorism where state-sponsored attacks were carried out and blamed on political enemies. Operation Gladio was the name given to the clandestine NATO “stay-behind” operations in Europe after World War II to keep communism in check, and many civilian deaths can be attributed to Gladio over decades which were to discredit the likes of the Red Brigades.

And a secret US Government document from 1962 called Operation Northwoods, now declassified, actually suggests hijacking planes then blowing them out of the sky and blaming it on Cuba as a pretext to invade the now Communist island.

I cannot possibly mention all the inconsistencies in a blog post where it has taken others whole books to set out their arguments, but I join the calls for a proper investigation into 9/11 because it just doesn’t add up.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts (father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury) wrote last month, “Even if there were definite proof of government complicity, it is uncertain that Americans could accept it. Architects, engineers, and scientists live in a fact-based community, but for most people facts are no match for emotions”.

I can appreciate that this is what keeps a great many people from questioning the official story. This weekend emotions will be high as we relive those desperate events of a decade ago, but many people who lost family members on 9/11 don’t believe the government’s version of events and have become activists for truth.

They aren’t afraid to face the truth because they want justice for their loved ones.

It is believed that much of the disorder during three nights of violence in London was orchestrated on sites such as Twitter, which was monitored by the police.

BlackBerry Messenger was also used by youths planning riots. The instant text messaging system cannot easily be monitored by police.

Essex Police apparently had no problem the other day, as they reassure residents they are working to keep county safe.

A 20-year-old man from Colchester who allegedly sent messages from a Blackberry encouraging people to join in a water fight has been charged with encouraging or assisting in the commission of an indictable only offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. He has been conditionally bailed to appear at Colchester Magistrates’ Court on September 1.

Essex Police officers,

have vowed to take a robust approach to anyone who uses social networking sites to stimulate fictitious rumours.

It reminds me of the jokes on Twitter that landed people in court. Paul Chambers very obviously just pretended that he was going to blow Robin Hood airport “sky high” and Tory Birmingham councillor Gareth Compton requested that someone stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death after her discussion about human rights on Radio 5 Live. They were arrested.

There had been calls from politicians for a Twitter and Facebook blackout during riots. I suppose this seemed easier for MPs than dealing effectively with the problem, having created it in the first place.

So who or what can we pin the blame on for these riots? Most commentators agree that genuine poverty is not the reason. People who are genuinely poor need food, shelter, clothing and fuel, not huge big tellies, designer trainers and even more bling.

Melanie Phillips blames the liberals,

So now the chickens have well and truly come home terrifyingly to roost. The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.

She writes about the liberal intelligentsia’s attack on the family, welfare dependency, the victim culture and human rights, multiculturalism and the shattering of “any attachment to a shared and over-arching culture”

Ms Phillips has a special mention for the Hideous Harman,

One of these ultra-feminist wreckers was Harriet Harman. The other night, she was on TV preposterously suggesting that cuts in educational allowances or youth workers had something to do with young people torching and looting shops, robbing and leaving people for dead in the streets.

But Harman was one of the principal forces in the Labour government behind the promotion of lone parenthood and the marginalisation of fathers. If anyone should be blamed for bringing about the conditions which have led to these appalling scenes in our cities, it is surely Ms Harman.

Historian David Starkey caused shockwaves by suggesting that whites were becoming black. It was a dangerous thing to say in this day and age, but was he being “racist” as so many were quick to claim? Barrister and former Tory MP, Jerry Hayes, wrote,

So the cool analysis that David Starkey was trying to explain, despite the wailings, squeals of outrage and shocked indignation, is this. Many young people have adopted a way of speech and a way of life that is alien to the tolerance and decency that is Britain. It glorifies the workshy, feckless fatherhood, gun crime and drugs. It worships greed and self gratification no matter whom it hurts. If you want further evidence just look at the subliminal messages and popularity of Gangsta Rap.

He makes it sound like another form of liberal ideology: selfish self-indulgence with no real connection or commitment to the community as a whole.

Another Tory MP, Robert Halfon, wrote on his blog,

…moral relativism, moral equivalence, family breakdown and absent fathers, the weakening of social capital (the glue that binds community together), the failure of our education system over decades (a huge proportion of children leave school illiterate) and the glorIfication of the drugs/gang culture have all contributed to this disaster.

In other words, the liberal agenda of the past few governments and that of the controlled “entertainment” industry.

However, Mohammed Abbas and Kate Holton believe that London rioters point to poverty and prejudice.

“It’s us versus them, the police, the system,” said an unemployed man of Kurdish origin in his early 20s, sitting at the entrance to a Hackney housing estate with four Afro-Caribbean friends who nodded in agreement.

“They call it looting and criminality. It’s not that. There’s a real hatred against the system,” he added, listing what he saw as the police prejudice, discrimination and lack of opportunity that led him and his friends to loot shops, torch bins and hurl missiles at police Monday.

Is this what multiculturalism and political correctness have delivered? Well, I don’t think it ever was about equality, but divide and conquer.

“There’s two worlds in this borough. More and more middle classes are coming and we’re being pushed out. The shops are pricing stuff like it’s the West End, we can’t afford the rents. We’re the outcasts, we’re not wanted any more.

“There’s nothing for us.”

Are these genuine reasons for complaint or unacceptable excuses for those exaggerated tantrums in the streets?

Is this bad feeling between the “poor” and the middle classes yet another front in the divide and conquer war?

One of the knee-jerk reactions has been the serving of eviction notices to rioters who live in council houses. The first was in Wandsworth, but it was the son who was charged with breaking the law, not the tenant. This sounds as unjust to me as the looters ruining a man’s business. But when natural justice has been compromised to such an extent to accommodate the beliefs of others, political and religious, confusion was bound to reign.

What is the answer? If the problems we face as a society stem from the postwar liberal agenda and the socialists’ anti-family agenda and the divisive multicultural and political correct agendas then clearly these things must be rejected forthwith, because they have not brought the promised freedom or peace – that was just an illusion to get as all on board, but the reality is what we see today – a country in crisis – people without direction and little hope; broken families and fragmented communities; desperation dealt with through alcohol misuse and prescrption and illicit drug use.

Being tough on crime is important, but so is grabbing these failed, highly destructive ideologies by the scruff of the neck and throwing them into the depths of the ocean.

In Oklahoma, you can be arrested for making ugly faces at a dog.

Even if the dog makes ugly faces at YOU first.

In South Carolina it is legal to beat your wife on the court house steps on Sundays.

It’s a long time to wait if she’s annoyed you on Monday.

In New York, the penalty for jumping off a building is: Death.

Nice to see the law of gravity being taken seriously in the Big Apple.

In Pennsylvania, it’s against the law to tie a dollar bill on a string on the ground and pull it away when someone tries to pick it up.

Use a ten dollar bill. It’ll be even funnier.

In France, it is against the law to sell an “E.T” doll. They have a law forbidding the sale of dolls that do not have human faces.

There can’t be a doll of Nicolas Sarkozy.

In Louisiana, biting someone with your natural teeth is considered “simple assault,” but biting someone with your dentures is “aggravated assault.”

Especially when your pitbull terrier has borrowed your false teeth.

In Florida, it is illegal to fart in a public place after 6 P.M. on Thursdays.

“Officer, that man’s just farted. Can’t you smell it?”

“Whoever smelt it dealt it, buddy. I’m taking you in.”

In Samoa, it’s a crime to forget your own wife’s birthday.

The penalty is fifty lashes (of her tongue). He won’t forget next year.

In London, England it is illegal for a City cab to carry rabid dogs or corpses.

That’s what buses are for.

In England, it is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament.

There is plenty of room outside for gallows.

In England, it is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the Queen upside down.

Isn’t it an act of treason to allow one’s realm to fall into enemy hands? Just asking.

In Indiana, it’s against the law to dress ‘Barbie’ in ‘Ken’s’ clothes.

At last, a sensible one.

In Australia, it’s illegal to name any animal you plan to eat.

Skippy goulash, anyone?

In New Jersey, answering a traffic cop who asks “Do you know why I pulled you over?” by saying,“If you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you” is an automatic $300 fine.

Not famous for their sense of humour, then?

In York, it is legal to kill a Scotsman within the ancient city boundary, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow.

Well, that’s all right then.

In Italy, anyone considered “obese” is forbidden from wearing polyester.

Lycra it is, then.

In Montana, it’s illegal to tear a phone book in half.

Drat! I can’t perform my party piece in Montana. I’ll have to crush a grape instead.

In Michigan, it is illegal to chain an alligator to a fire hydrant.

I can see how that might be important.

In Victoria. Australia after mid day on Sunday, it’s illegal to wear pink hot pants.

So, you’d better change out of them after church.

In Connecticut, night watchmen are forbidden from drinking decaf coffee while working.

Night watchmen drink proper coffee, which is why they never fall asleep on the job.

In France, it’s illegal to name a pig Napoleon.

In Australia too, if you plan on eating the porker.

In Indonesia, the punishment for masturbation is death by decapitation.

Quite right.

In Florida having sexual intercourse with a porcupine is illegal.

But Spinewall are trying to have the law changed.

In Oklahoma, it is against the law to have a sleeping donkey in your bathtub after 7 PM.

Give it plenty of coffee to keep it awake. Not decaf.

In Ohio, it is against state law to get a fish drunk.

The punishment is a hefty fin.

In Chico, California, the law states that anybody who detonates a nuclear device within the city limits is liable to a fine of $500.

Tough on crime…

In Minnesota, it is against the law to hang male and female underwear together on the same washing line.

Including Barbie and Ken’s.

—————–

I would just like to thank the person who performed that Google search which made this post possible!

As usual, I have dozens of tabs open on Firefox with news stories I was going to write about, but in a way, they don’t merit individual posts. The headlines are enough to make you sick. There is sometimes nothing more that needs to be said, because we all know the score by now. We know that the police don’t care much about catching criminals anymore and the judges don’t consider it their duty to deliver justice.

Moral relativism brings confusion (obviously) and very bad judgments are the natural result. Add to this “Human Rights” legislation and police targets and criminals have never had it so good.

Devon and Cornwall Police didn’t even bother to investigate 30,000 crimes last year.

Up the road in Bristol, Marie Wastlund beat off three thugs who were throttling and kicking a woman, while two policemen sat in their vehicle twenty-five yards away. The Mail reminds us of some of the other pathetic inactions of the boys in blue (or should that be yellow?). Remember the two PCSOs who let a ten year-old boy drown in a pond because they were “not trained” to deal with such an incident? Their (in)action was defended by police chiefs.

Then there are the usual reports of people with decades of unblemished service in their jobs who are sacked after of a non-event. Ronnie Lane was head of the art department in Liverpool’s West Derby School, but the testimony of one unscrupulous individual ended it. He restrained a 15 year-old boy who repeatedly tried to scrunch up another pupil’s work and alleged that the teacher had left nail marks in his arm. The boy told him, “get off or I will stab your eye out.”

It seems that all some children learn at school is their “rights”. It’s bizarre when you consider that by honouring his alleged rights, the teacher has no rights to maintain discipline in his classes and the other pupils have no rights not to have their work ripped to shreds or to learn in a civilised, safe environment.

Meanwhile, another 15 year-old, Tom Clarke from Oxfordshire, was playing with a football in his garden when he accidentally lobbed it over the fence and through a pane of glass in next door’s greenhouse. A patrol car was on the scene half an hour later and the police helicopter was diverted to search for the culprit with thermal imaging. “Officers said the incident was not a formal caution or criminal conviction but would be ‘recorded for future reference’ and could be seen by future employers carrying out an enhanced Criminal Record Bureau check.”

Imagine falling into a coma in 1970 and waking up today, oblivious of how society has changed, then reading the newspapers. What would you make of the burglar who was freed from prison because being locked up breached his family’s human rights or another prisoner who demanded to be a dad and a Justice Secretary so out of touch with reality that he approved the decision to allow him to artificially inseminate his “partner”?

It is now clear that David Cameron’s socialist party is just as determined to give everything away that our forebears worked and fought for as the traitors in the Labour Governments did. The agenda is the same. The behaviour of this new wave of Quislings is only a surprise to those who were naive enough to fall for Cameron’s lies before the election – and they were lies. Blatant and deliberate lies and for that alone he should be stripped of office.

Why do people keep voting for these liars? Do they think that lying is part and parcel of politics and is acceptable? I think they must. Or maybe they are delusional. Perhaps they think that he is going to stop lying any day now and everything will be just dandy when that happens.

This treasonous government is giving away more money to bail out other countries, plans to “drastically” cut carbon emissions which will cut jobs and increasing military union with other countries.

The Daily Mail never disappoints with its scare stories. The latest “research” suggests that drinking too much coffee can produce hallucinations of Bing Crosby. The volunteers were made to listen to “white noise” and told that “there may be parts of the White Christmas song and if you hear it, press the button.”

There wasn’t any Bing, but regardless, the power of suggestion apparently made them hear him crooning. A bit like people think they have heard a “cast-iron” guarantee from David Cameron when it is really just white noise (propelled by hot air).

But how long, I wonder, until coffee addiction is used as an excuse to avoid being punished for a serious crime?

“M’lud, after drinking five cups of coffee and playing with the dial on his radio, my client heard Bing Crosby telling him to kill the victim…”

“Case dismissed.”

And as always, we are to be afraid of the terrorists – this time, poisoning our food. The warning comes from the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure [CPNI].

That’s a new one on me. But the terrorists are already poisoning us with aspartame and GMO, it’s just that they are known as manufacturers and scientists.

But let’s all be scared of al-CIAda while we eat our delicious cancer-causing food.

If I do give up blogging, just read this post every day. The current news will just be the same, or even more unsettling and bizarre.

But I will soldier on. I believe that more and more people are waking up to how the world really works, and this awakening is something I want to be part of, so expect continued blogging, God willing.

A Tacoma seventh grader faced federal interrogation at school for what he posted on his Facebook page.  His mom said it all happened without her knowledge or permission.

After Osama bin Laden was killed, 13-year-old Vito LaPinta posted an update to his Facebook status that got the Feds attention.

“I was saying how Osama was dead and for Obama to be careful because there could be suicide bombers,” says LaPinta.

I imagine that the Feds’ computers have spiders which crawl the internet and were alerted to this “threat”.

A week later, while Vito was in his fourth period class, he was called in to the principal’s office.

“A man walked in with a suit and glasses and he said he was part of the Secret Service,” LaPinta said. “He told me it was because of a post I made that indicated I was a threat toward the President.”

Now he’s more careful about what he posts online.

And that was probably the point of the exercise, to make an example of him – to train people to just talk about the weather, or sport, or what’s on the telly tonight.

His mother says she isn’t financially able to take legal action but hopes her family’s story raises awareness about the treatment she said her son endured.

The Seattle branch of the Secret Service did not respond to requests for comment.

This seems to be happening more and more, where people in authority consider themselves to be judge and jury and non-accountable.

This is the country that our traitor former Home Secretary Blunkett agreed a one-sided extradition agreement with whereby an American court can basically just ask for a UK citizen to be sent there and our police go and arrest them.

I use Facebook quite regularly, and Twitter. I would be surprised if what we are saying here in the UK is not also being monitored. In fact, I wonder if these social networking sites were set up for this very function. Before YouTube was full of adverts, I used to wonder how (and why) they gave people unlimited storage space for uploading videos for no obvious financial gain.

I have just visited young Vito’s Facebook page. At the time of writing, he has seven friends. This is odd, because I know these youngsters like following each other. Of his friends, two don’t allow the public to view their friends, but the number of friends of the other five range from 218 to 766.

Did Vito also have hundreds of friends? He looks like he would, doesn’t he? Have all of his “friends” bar these seven unfriended him out of fear?

Maybe I should add him as a friend. Or maybe he feels he’s in enough trouble already. Maybe he’ll be waterboarded if he is found to associate with the likes of me.

Source and hat-tip.