Friday, September 20, 2013

Salubrius on the Political Rights of Arab Residents of Judea and Samaria



by Salubrius



In 1920 at San Remo the Jewish People were recognized by the Principal Allied War Powers in WWI as owning the political rights to Palestine; the competing Arab claims also submitted at the Paris Peace talks were implicitly denied in Palestine but recognized in the rest of the Middle East, i.e. Syria & Mesopotamia and, indirectly later in Transjordan. The Allies had conquered this area from the Ottoman Empire in a defensive war.  Their ruling was based on the historic association of the Jewish People with Palestine in which there had been a continuous uninterrupted Jewish presence for 3,700 years.  In 1922 this political right was recognized by 52 nations but limited to Palestine west of the Jordan River.  The rights were required to be placed in trust until the Jewish People attained a majority of population in the area in which they were to exercise sovereignty and were capable of exercising sovereignty in that area.

In 1948 the trustee abandoned its legal dominion over the political rights that were in trust and the Jewish People had established unified control over Palestine west of the Jordan River with some exceptions.  Just after it had declared independence in that year, the Jewish People’s State of Israel was invaded. Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem were invaded by the Arab Legion supplied and led by the British; they became illegally occupied by Jordan, and the Gaza Strip was similarly invaded and illegally occupied by Egypt.  By 1950 the Jews had also attained a Jewish majority population in the remaining area. With both a majority population in the area governed and the ability to exercise sovereignty, the political rights to that area vested in the Jews so they had legal dominion over them and the Jews were then sovereign in that area.  Following 1967 the Jewish People had annexed East Jerusalem; in 1967 it also liberated the other areas that had been illegally occupied.  Later, in 2005 the Jews withdrew from the Gaza Strip.

It follows that now the Jewish People have sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem as well as the territory within the Green Line because they own and have legal dominion over the political rights to these areas and have established unified control over them even though they have not as yet asserted that sovereignty except for East Jerusalem.

International Law does recognize the right of political self-determination in the case of colonies external to the areas from which they are ruled.  This is referred to as "decolonization".  International Law supports decolonization.  The quest for the right of political-self determination of a group of people in an area internal to the boundaries of a state that has sovereignty is referred to as "secession".  A secession would violate the territorial integrity of a sovereign state.

Effective as of 1976, International Law recognized the right of a "people" to political self- determination but it did not provide any indication of where that rule would be applied.  In any event, the so-called "Palestinians" do not meet the test of a legitimate "people" but are, in fact, an undifferentiated part of the Arab people residing in Palestine who were invented as a separate "people" by the Soviet dezinformatsiya in 1964.

In a decolonization, International Law gives preference to self-determination over territorial integrity.   International Law regarding secession of an area internal to a state is a wholly different matter.  The right to secede is not a general right of political self-determination for all peoples or nations.  It is limited by the territorial integrity of a sovereign state. The unilateral right to secede, i.e. the right to secede without consent from a sovereign state, if it is to be recognized, say most commentators on International Law, should be understood as a remedial right only, a last resort response to serious injustices.  In addition, those wanting to secede must show they have the capability of exercising sovereignty.

There is no evidence of serious injustice to support such a remedial right for the Arabs residing in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem although they have long complained of perpetual victimhood.  Nor do they have the capability to exercise sovereignty such as unified control over the area they wish to have designated as an independent state.  

It follows that the so called "Palestinians" have no right to political self determination under International Law.



Salubrius  is the nom de guerre of Wallace Edward Brand, retired attorney living in Virginia.

Source: Middle East and Terrorism

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israel’s Lessons From Two Painful Anniversaries



by Joseph Puder


isr 

This past Friday, September 13, and Saturday, September 14, marked two milestones: The 20th anniversary of the Oslo Accords signed on the White House lawn by President Bill Clinton, P.L.O. (Palestinian Liberation Organization) chairman Yasser Arafat, and Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and the 40th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War of 1973 (according to the Jewish calendar).  Both events have been mired in controversy, and both cost the Jewish state significant losses. The Oslo Accords are regarded by most Israelis today as a failure. The Yom Kippur War cost Israel nearly 3,000 lives, shocking the country psychologically while underscoring the failure of the Israel Defense Forces intelligence, as well as, perhaps, its arrogance in dismissing Arab (Egypt and Syria) capabilities.

This reporter interviewed PM Yitzhak Rabin before the Oslo process began. PM Rabin expressed a resolute stance against negotiating with Arafat. One will never know whether Rabin changed his mind about negotiating with Arafat or was forced to accept the ongoing, back-door negotiations that were taking place in Oslo. As we reflect on the last 20 years it is easy to conclude that the Oslo Accords, which allowed Arafat’s terrorists to openly operate in the heartland of Israel from the outskirts of Jerusalem to the Gaza Strip, were a “Trojan Horse” and a grave mistake. Rather than fostering the much hoped for understanding and harmony, Israel was faced with terror and horror in the form of suicide bombing, stabbing, and roadside shootings.

Prior to the signing of the Oslo Accords, Arafat relayed a message to Rabin that the P.L.O. was willing to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and adhere to UN resolutions 242 and 338. The message also noted that the P.L.O. was willing to commit to finding a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to relinquish all forms of terror and to revoke the clauses in the Palestinian National Covenant which negate Israel’s right to exist. None of Arafat’s stated “promises” were carried out.

Terror against Israel and Israelis resumed almost immediately after the Accords were signed. Arafat’s Tunis-based terrorist masters arrived in the West Bank and Gaza and, in coordination with the Islamist terrorist organization Hamas, went about terrorizing Israel. In the first five years following the signing of the Accords, more Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists than in the previous 15 years. In the period between 1993 and1998, 279 men, women, and children were killed as compared to 254.  Seven years later, in September, 2000, Arafat launched the Second Intifada. According to the far left group B’tselem, between September 27, 2000, and January 1, 2005, 1,063 Israelis were murdered.

The Palestinians pretended to change the P.L.O. Charter but did not make even one amendment. They promised to refrain from anti-Jewish, anti-Israel incitement in schools and mosques, and in public political statements. The incitement continued and continues to this day under Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s successor. Moreover, Oslo failed to bring peace.  Instead it divided the people of Israel as well as the land of Israel. It weakened Israel’s deterrence, and empowered Hamas.

The CATO Institute’s suggestions should be considered: “Instead of trying to micromanage the Arab-Israeli peace process, the U.S. should minimize its financial commitment to Israel and the emerging Palestinian entity and encourage economic cooperation between Israel and the Arab states, which could be the foundation for an independent Middle Eastern economy.  Regional prosperity will advance peace far more effectively than American payoffs to prop up an artificial pax Americana.” This is particularly significant as the Obama administration goes about orchestrating “peace talks” once again between Israelis and Palestinians. The CATO Institute further noted that “Washington has sought to reestablish a prominent American role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. That would be a mistake.”

The lessons of the Yom Kippur War and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence failure to free itself from the “conceptions” is still relevant today, as Israel’s political leadership holds fast that Assad’s Syria will not attack Israel. The Yom Kippur War was a surprise attack on Israel during the Jewish state’s holiest day. But there were clear signs of the impending attack. Israel’s PM Golda Meir was told by the Nixon administration “not to mobilize the reserves,” and the assessment by Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence, Maj.  Gen. Eli Zeira that Egypt and Syria would not attack, despite intelligence to the contrary, doomed almost 3,000 IDF soldiers to an unnecessary death.

“The intelligence failure is generally noted as the main reason for the Yom Kippur 1973 fiasco,” according to a September 16, 2013 posting in the left-leaning Israel daily, Ha’aretz.  It charged that “The low probability the Military Intelligence Directorate ascribed on the eve of the war to the possibility of a coordinated Egyptian-Syrian offensive remains a source of eternal disgrace.”

Israel Defense Minister Moshe (Boogie) Ya’alon, reflecting on the lessons of the Yom Kippur War said, “One of the seeds of that war’s failure was the great sense of victory of the Six-Day War, which led to excessive self-confidence, arrogance, complacency, and carelessness. Senior officers had a culture then of ‘I am, and there is no other beside me.’ Immediately after I was appointed head of Military Intelligence (MI) Directorate in 1998, I set about reading the report of the Agranat Commission [the post-war inquiry commission, JP] and went to meet its protagonists, too. From them I learned the extent of the tragedy: MI’s leaders in those years were clearly excellent people. They were overcome, and not only they, by arrogance and immodesty. There was no room for another opinion, another view, different thinking.”

It is apparent that the scorn Israel’s military commanders and political leaders had for the Arabs’ ability following the Six-Day War was at the core of the 1973 fiasco. The relevant lesson for 2013 and beyond is to take potential enemies seriously and prepare accordingly.

Israelis in 2013 are in no mood for risk taking. Oslo brought in the “Trojan Horse” of Palestinian terrorists in their midst instead of leaving them in Tunisia. The unilateral withdrawal of Gaza encouraged by the Western powers brought Hamas terrorists to power in Gaza – a mere 38 nautical miles from Tel Aviv. At an AIPAC conference on March 22, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that “the status quo is unsustainable.” That message did not inspire Israeli confidence. To the contrary, it implied that a “piece of paper” such as the Oslo Accords can be a substitute for security.

Israel cannot rely on Barack Obama to ensure its survival. The recent Syrian debacle for Obama and his “red lines” demonstrated the U.S. administration’s reluctance to act militarily. Israel cannot wait for Obama’s “green light” to deal with Iran’s nuclear threat when its very survival is at stake. PM Golda Meir felt compelled to obey the Nixon administration admonition to Israel in 1973, “not to shoot first” or “mobilize reserves.” As a consequence Israel paid a steep price – the lives of almost 3,000 of its best men and women.  PM Rabin in 1993 was probably less than enthusiastic about trusting a deal with Arafat. He wanted however to please Clinton, Israel’s most important ally and friend. The lessons from last week’s two painful anniversaries are that Israel can only rely on itself on matters of war and peace.


Joseph Puder

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-puder/israels-lessons-from-two-painful-anniversaries/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Daniel Pipes: Scoring the Syria Deal



by Daniel Pipes


Diplomacy has never witnessed anything like the dizzying and erratic sequence of events relating to Syria that began on Wednesday, Aug. 21 and ended 3½ weeks later, on Saturday, Sept. 14. Who won, who lost? It's too soon for a definite answer, but Bashar al-Assad is in the driver's seat, suggesting that he, Putin, and the mullahs will gain while Obama, Erdoğan, and Israel will lose.

A pleased pair: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov celebrate reaching an agreement.
To start, a sketch of recent events:
Aug. 21: A chemical attack took place against civilians in Ghouta, near Damascus, presumably carried out by Syria's Assad regime.
Aug. 28: Barack Obama indicated an intent to use force against the Assad regime to punish it for the chemical attack.
Aug. 31: Obama retreated and asked Congress for authorization to use force, something he did not have to do.
Over the next week, in an unexpected development, popular and congressional opposition to a strike grew to the point that it became clear that Obama would not get the authorization he sought.
Sept. 9: Secretary of State John Kerry promised an "unbelievably small" attack and off-handedly commented that international control of Syrian chemicals could obviate the need for an attack. The Russians picked up on and ran with the latter remark.
Sept. 10: Obama rescinded the threat to attack the Syrian government and withdrew his request from Congress.
Sept. 14: The U.S. and Russia governments signed the "Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons" to "ensure the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons program (CW) in the soonest and safest manner."
Logo of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, founded in 1997.
Let's start by assessing choices facing the two main actors in this drama:

Bashar al-Assad: The framework permits him to make the key decisions that drive the process, subject to the influence of his patrons (Moscow and Tehran) and his advisers (the Assad clan). He has two options, to comply or not to comply with the US-Russian framework and the demands of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which regulates the chemical-weapons treaty Syria has promised to join. As a tactically incompetent leader, his actions are difficult to predict but I expect him not to comply because: (1) He needs these weapons to preserve his regime. (2) The civil war underway in Syria facilitates thwarting the OPCW. (3) Obama's record suggests he won't strike in retaliation. (4) Saddam Hussein set an appealing precedent, whereby Iraqi "cat and mouse" games slowed down and obstructed a similar regimen to destroy weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s.

Pope Francis called for a global day of fasting and prayer for Syria.
Barack Obama: Already in a corner because of his "red line" threat of August 2012, the U.S.-Russian agreement is a double-or-nothing gambit that places the American president at the mercy of his Syrian counterpart. If Assad complies, Obama becomes a foreign-policy genius for ridding Syria of chemical weapons without a shot. But if, as is far more likely, Assad does not comply, Obama must attack the regime to preserve his credibility, regardless of how much this runs contrary to the wishes of his leftist base and congressional opinion, the United Nations, the pope, et al., and even if it strengthens the jihadis in Syria and embroils the United States in an unwanted long-term military operation. I expect Obama will attack but without causing real damage to his own popularity or the Assad regime.

In short, I predict Assad will not comply and Obama will symbolically attack. Assuming this scenario, it means for the major actors:
  • Bashar al-Assad: He crows about surviving an American onslaught and is the stronger to this.
  • Barack Obama: His foreign policy credibility sinks and that of the United States with him, especially vis-à-vis the Iranian nuclear buildup, at least until 2017.
  • Vladimir Putin: Whether Assad complies or not, whether Obama attacks or not, the Russian president can't lose. Rather, he has become eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the big winner.
  • Iran: Tehran gains, confident that its own nuclear infrastructure is safe from an American strike, unless Obama tears the Assad regime to bits.
  • Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: The reverse: the Turkish president, as leader of the international war party, he loses unless Obama seriously attacks Assad.
  • Israel: Along with Obama, Israel gains if Assad complies. But it loses if Assad does not, as is likely.
We end with two ironies: The U.S.-Russian agreement does not solve the crisis, but delays and deepens it. Obama's almost nonchalant "red line" statement of a year ago was the obscure mistake that could precipitate the great foreign-policy fiasco of his presidency.


Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and author of three books on Syria. © 2013 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
 
Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/13376/syria-deal

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Does the Qur’an Teach Hate?



by Robert Spencer



terrkor 

On September 11, 2013, a public information officer for Palm Beach County, Florida named John Jamason posted a message on his personal Facebook page: “Never forget. There is no such thing as radical Islam. All Islam is radical. There may be Muslims who don’t practice their religion, much like others. The Quran is a book that preaches hate.”

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) immediately complained, and demanded that the county turn over to them everything that Jamason had written from a county computer over the previous month. County Administrator Bob Weisman assured CAIR that Jamason had not written the offending Facebook message from a county computer, and stated that county officials were determining whether or not to discipline him.

Left unexamined in the controversy was whether or not what Jamason said was true. In light of the Qur’an’s teachings about jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims, he certainly had a case that “there is no such thing as radical Islam” and “all Islam is radical,” for there is no mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach that the Muslim community must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under its rule.

Jamason was also correct that “there may be Muslims who don’t practice their religion, much like others.” Indeed, there are many people who identify themselves as Muslims who have no interest in waging jihad against unbelievers, but would prefer to hold down their jobs and take care of their families in peace in the same way as there are millions of people who identify themselves as believers in other religions who are not particularly concerned with living out every teaching of the religion with which they identify.

But what CAIR was most outraged about was not that, of course, but Jamason’s contention that the Qur’an teaches hate. They did not, however, provide any evidence showing that it doesn’t.
So does it?

The Qur’an teaches that Muslims must fight and kill unbelievers “wherever you overtake them” until “religion is Allah’s,” i.e. Islamic law rules all societies (2:190-193). They must fight unbelievers “until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (8:39). Muslims are to fight unbelievers and “prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows” (8:60).

Allah tells Muhammad to “fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination” (9:73). The followers of Muhammad should imitate him in this: “O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness” (9:123). For “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves” (48:29).

Muslims should not befriend non-Muslims, unless, as we have seen, it is to deceive them to save oneself from danger: “Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence” (3:28).

Allah says he will “cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve” (3:151). He tells his prophet: “[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”

Among “those who have disbelieved” are the Christians, who have made themselves into disbelievers by worshipping Christ as God: “They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary’” (5:17; 5:72). In worshipping Christ, they have associated a partner with Allah, thereby becoming polytheists, and “the polytheists are unclean” (9:28). Both Jews and Christians have ascribed a son to Allah, for which Allah should destroy them: “The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah’; and the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah.’ That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?” (9:30).

Chief among those are the Jews. The Muslim holy book also contends that Allah transformed disobedient Jews into “apes, despised” (2:65; 7:166), and “apes and pigs” (5:60). It says that they’re accursed for rejecting the Qur’an, which they should have recognized as confirming their own Scriptures: “And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which was with them – although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved – but [then] when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be upon the disbelievers” (2:89).

The Qur’an says that while Muslims are “the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind,” the People of the Book (primarily Jews and Christians) are mostly “defiantly disobedient” (3:110). The Jews “have been put under humiliation [by Allah] wherever they are overtaken, except for a covenant from Allah and a rope from the Muslims” – that is, except those who have accepted Islam or submitted to Muslim rule. “And they have drawn upon themselves anger from Allah and have been put under destitution. That is because they disbelieved in the verses of Allah and killed the prophets without right. That is because they disobeyed and [habitually] transgressed” (3:112). They killed the prophets because they disliked their messages: “Whenever there came to them a messenger with what their souls did not desire, a party [of messengers] they denied, and another party they killed” (5:70).
Not only have they disbelieved in revelations from Allah and killed the prophets, but they even dare to mock Allah himself: “And the Jews say, ‘The hand of Allah is chained.’ Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say.” They “strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters” (5:64).

Allah gave food laws to the Jews because of their “wrongdoing,” and “for their averting from the way of Allah many [people]” (4:160), and by doing so, “repaid them for their injustice” (6:146). Some Jews are “avid listeners to falsehood” who “distort words beyond their [proper] usages.” These are “the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts,” and they will be punished not just in hellfire but in this life as well: “For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment” (5:41).

Jews dare to deny divine revelation, claiming that “Allah did not reveal to a human being anything,” to which Muhammad is told to respond, “Who revealed the Scripture that Moses brought as light and guidance to the people? You [Jews] make it into pages, disclosing [some of] it and concealing much” (6:91).

In light of all this, it is understandable that Muslims should not get close to such people: “O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people” (5:51). What’s more, the Jews are “the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers” (5:82).

While Muslims are the “best of people” (3:110), “they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures” (98:6). They are “like livestock” (7:179). “Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe” (8:55).

But when John Jamason called the Qur’an “a book that preaches hate,” in the eyes of CAIR it was he who was the one who was preaching hate, not the holy book of Islam. The hypocrisy of their harassment of Jamason was self-evident, but only to those familiar enough with the Qur’an and honest enough to acknowledge the nature of all too much of its contents. That was a small group that did not include officials of Palm Beach County, who were – like so many other officials of all kinds in the United States and elsewhere in the staggering but still marginally free world – all too ready to entertain the complaints about Muslim pressure groups despite being woefully ill-equipped to evaluate those complaints properly. They knew, like Fort Hood jihad mass murderer Nidal Hasan’s superiors, that what was important above all was to avoid being labeled “bigoted” and “Islamophobic.”

How grand that they had their priorities straight. All it cost was thirteen dead and thirty wounded.


Robert Spencer

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/does-the-quran-teach-hate/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Islamist-Interfaith Coalition’s War on the NYPD



by Ryan Mauro


20110426_ISNAlogo 

The misrepresentation of the NYPD by the Islamists and their interfaith allies continues. In the latest round, the Shoulder-to-Shoulder Campaign is slamming the Department for privately designating a small percentage of mosques and Islamic organizations as “terrorism enterprises.”

Shoulder-to-Shoulder consists of about 30 religious organizations and was birthed in November 2010 in response to the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. The alliance says it was alarmed by how “prejudice against Muslims had reached an unprecedented intensity.”

It also aims to influence policy. It says its work includes “working closely with White House staff,” “working with Congress to explore ways to end anti-Muslim sentiment” and “implementing a comprehensive press strategy.”

One of the founders of Shoulder-to-Shoulder is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. ISNA exponentially increases the power of its activism by working through this interfaith coalition. ISNA is so proud of it that its success was at the top of the agenda when its officials met with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan.

ISNA chose Sayyid Syeed, a former Secretary-General, to lead its new interfaith office. In 2006, he was recorded saying, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.” ISNA’s pro-Sharia influence on Shoulder-to-Shoulder was plain for all to see in its latest newsletter.

There is a section that provides resources “that may be helpful to you as you engage in discussions around anti-Shari’ah or anti-foreign law legislation.” One of them is a June 2013 paper titled, “Secular is Not Always Better: A Closer Look at Some Women-Empowering Features of Islamic Law.”

The overall theme of the newsletter is that the NYPD is discriminating against Muslims in an outrageous fashion. It is titled, “Mosques are houses of worship. Not terrorist organizations.” It is inferred that the NYPD is equating all mosques with terrorist groups, a gross mischaracterization of the NYPD’s operations and integrity. The problem that the NYPD faces is that, inarguably, some mosques are used to preach extremism and foment terrorism.

The Clarion Project sets the record straight by explaining that “[o]ut of a minimum of 175 mosques, only 10 were subjected to a ‘terrorism enterprise investigation’ over 10 years.”

These investigations only commenced after the vetting of a credible lead. These were not randomly chosen mosques. The NYPD would do the same thing to a church or synagogue if there were sufficient evidence that it may be serving as a hotbed for terrorism.

The Shoulder-to-Shoulder newsletter links to an article by Rev. Richard L. Killmer, a Presbyterian minister and Executive Director of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. He writes that the NYPD is making “wholesale associations” between Muslims and terrorism. He falsely states, “It seems that the NYPD undertook its surveillance without any stated evidence of wrongdoing.”

There are reasons that the NYPD gave extra attention to these mosques. Of course, the NYPD wouldn’t publicly state the evidence it has before a prosecution begins and jeopardize its investigation. That’s common sense. However, even the open-source information that is available about some of these mosques is enough to justify the investigations.

For example, one of the investigated mosques is the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge in Brooklyn. The NYPD was criticized for keeping a close eye on it and its “moderate” imam, Reda Shata. This is a cleric who praised Hamas, honored its spiritual leader after he was killed by Israel and referred to a female suicide bomber as a “martyr.” Those are statements he made publicly.

Shoulder-to-Shoulder forwards its readers to an article by Linda Sarsour, director of the Arab-American Association of New York. Her group was labeled a “terrorism enterprise” and placed under investigation. The provocative title of her article is, “Being Arab or Muslim is not probable cause for NYPD spying.”

The NYPD did not “spy” on anyone for merely being an Arab or a Muslim.

She writes, “Criminalizing an entire community is not effective policing and is a waste of taxpayer dollars.” She’s right. That’s part of the reason why the NYPD doesn’t do that. Nor did the NYPD do anything illegal, as is implied when she says terrorism can be fought against “while following the law of the land.”

A wide range of non-Muslim religious organizations are signing onto ISNA’s political agenda in the name of interfaith relations. Simultaneously, ISNA is holding huge conventions with a parade of Islamist speakers, misleading non-Muslims about Sharia Law and telling its base that “Muslim terrorism is not a threat after 9/11.” In its magazine, it makes even more exaggerated claims about the NYPD, such as that Muslims get investigated for reporting crimes.

The NYPD officers put themselves on the line to protect us—all of us, including Muslim-Americans. They expose themselves to disdain and danger daily. The least we can do is honor them by giving them a fair shake.

This article was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.


Ryan Mauro

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/the-islamist-interfaith-coalitions-war-on-the-nypd/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israeli Rocket Attack Victims Win Bank of China Terror Suit



by JewishPress.com


The families of twenty Israeli terror victims have won a monumental decision in the New York State Appellate Division (1st Dept.) in their case against the Bank of China (BOC). The Appellate Court affirmed that the civil action brought in 2008 by the Israeli victims of Palestinian rocket attacks and suicide bombings can proceed against the BOC in the United States. 

Importantly, the Appellate Division also held that the trial court will apply Israeli law in hearing the case. The defendant had argued that Chinese law should apply as the BOC is headquartered in Beijing. This ruling will allow the non-American plaintiffs in the case to maintain their claims that the BOC was liable for providing financial services to Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terror organizations. Applying Israeli law, which differs from the Chinese law, would make it easier for the plaintiffs to prove that BOC officials had illegally violated banking regulations and US criminal statutes by carrying out money transfers for the terror organizations. 

As the Court held: "We find that there is nothing repugnant to New York public policy in holding that Israeli law applies to this action. We also find that the complaint has sufficiently alleged negligence under Israeli law . . . Although a straightforward reading of the Israeli enactments would lead to the conclusion that they concern conduct that is broader in scope than most of what BOC is alleged to have done, the record contains opinions written by experts in Israeli law; plaintiffs' expert explains that BOC's alleged transmission of funds is sufficient to bring it under the enactment forbidding the "giving" or "payment" of funds to terrorist groups." 

The plaintiffs, are represented by New York attorney Robert Tolchin and Israeli attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner. 

The civil action brought on behalf of the victims and family members of victims of terror attacks perpetrated between 2004 and 2007 in Israel alleges that starting in 2003, the BOC executed dozens of wire transfers for the Hamas and PIJ totaling several million dollars. These dollar transfers were initiated by the PIJ and Hamas leadership in Iran and Syria, were processed through BOC’s branches in the United States and were sent on to a BOC account in Beijing administered by a senior operative of the Hamas and PIJ. From there, the funds were transferred to Hamas and PIJ leaders in the Gaza Strip and West Bank and used to carry out terrorist attacks. The families are seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. 

According to the plaintiffs' complaint, in April 2005, Israeli counter terrorism officers met with officials from the Chinese Ministry of Public Security and China’s Central Bank regarding these Hamas and PIJ wire transfers. The Israelis demanded that the Chinese officials take action to prevent BOC from making any further such transfers. Despite the Israeli warnings, the BOC – with the Chinese government’s approval – continued to wire terrorist funds for the Hamas and PIJ. The suit was brought against the BOC on behalf of the Israeli victims, alleging that the BOC had knowingly transferred funds for the Palestinian terror organizations. 

Plaintiffs include the families of Emi Elmaliah, Israel Zamalloa and Michael Saadon, who were murdered on January 27, 2007 in a suicide bombing in a bakery in Eilat. The attack was carried out by a PIJ bomber from Gaza. 

The Court's ruling means that the families of the victims of the Hamas and PIJ rocket attacks can now proceed to the discovery and trial stages. 

According to Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: "This is another obstacle we overcame in our journey to get justice for the terror victims. The court decision to apply Israeli law allows the terror victims to receive their day in court and to prove their allegations against the Bank of China. This decision joins previous decisions of the New York courts that ruled, that banks around the world will not be able to get away without pay in cases they were involved with terror financing That in the end of the day they will have to pay for their wrong doing and compensate the terror victims."

e families of twenty Israeli terror victims have won a monumental decision in the New York State Appellate Division (1st Dept.) in their case against the Bank of China (BOC). The Appellate Court affirmed that the civil action brought in 2008 by the Israeli victims of Palestinian rocket attacks and suicide bombings can proceed against the BOC in the United States. Importantly, the Appellate Division also held that the trial court will apply Israeli law in hearing the case. The defendant had argued that Chinese law should apply as the BOC is headquartered in Beijing. This ruling will allow the non-American plaintiffs in the case to maintain their claims that the BOC was liable for providing financial services to Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terror organizations. Applying Israeli law, which differs from the Chinese law, would make it easier for the plaintiffs to prove that BOC officials had illegally violated banking regulations and US criminal statutes by carrying out money transfers for the terror organizations. As the Court held: “We find that there is nothing repugnant to New York public policy in holding that Israeli law applies to this action. We also find that the complaint has sufficiently alleged negligence under Israeli law . . . Although a straightforward reading of the Israeli enactments would lead to the conclusion that they concern conduct that is broader in scope than most of what BOC is alleged to have done, the record contains opinions written by experts in Israeli law; plaintiffs’ expert explains that BOC’s alleged transmission of funds is sufficient to bring it under the enactment forbidding the “giving” or “payment” of funds to terrorist groups.” The plaintiffs, are represented by New York attorney Robert Tolchin and Israeli attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner. The civil action brought on behalf of the victims and family members of victims of terror attacks perpetrated between 2004 and 2007 in Israel alleges that starting in 2003, the BOC executed dozens of wire transfers for the Hamas and PIJ totaling several million dollars. These dollar transfers were initiated by the PIJ and Hamas leadership in Iran and Syria, were processed through BOC’s branches in the United States and were sent on to a BOC account in Beijing administered by a senior operative of the Hamas and PIJ. From there, the funds were transferred to Hamas and PIJ leaders in the Gaza Strip and West Bank and used to carry out terrorist attacks. The families are seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, in April 2005, Israeli counter terrorism officers met with officials from the Chinese Ministry of Public Security and China’s Central Bank regarding these Hamas and PIJ wire transfers. The Israelis demanded that the Chinese officials take action to prevent BOC from making any further such transfers. Despite the Israeli warnings, the BOC – with the Chinese government’s approval – continued to wire terrorist funds for the Hamas and PIJ. The suit was brought against the BOC on behalf of the Israeli victims, alleging that the BOC had knowingly transferred funds for the Palestinian terror organizations. Plaintiffs include the families of Emi Elmaliah, Israel Zamalloa and Michael Saadon, who were murdered on January 27, 2007 in a suicide bombing in a bakery in Eilat. The attack was carried out by a PIJ bomber from Gaza. The Court’s ruling means that the families of the victims of the Hamas and PIJ rocket attacks can now proceed to the discovery and trial stages. According to Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: “This is another obstacle we overcame in our journey to get justice for the terror victims. The court decision to apply Israeli law allows the terror victims to receive their day in court and to prove their allegations against the Bank of China. This decision joins previous decisions of the New York courts that ruled, that banks around the world will not be able to get away without pay in cases they were involved with terror financing That in the end of the day they will have to pay for their wrong doing and compensate the terror victims.”

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rocket-attack-victims-win-bank-of-china-terror-suit/2013/09/18/

JewishPress.com

Source: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rocket-attack-victims-win-bank-of-china-terror-suit/2013/09/18/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Team B II - What is it and Why on Earth Should I Care?



by Sally Zahav


I recently picked up the book "Shariah - the Threat to America", subtitled "An Exercise in Competitive Analysis - Report of Team B II".

From the Preface:
"This study is the result of months of analysis, discussion and drafting by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as shariah. It is designed to provide a comprehensive and articulate  "second opinion" on the official characterizations and assessments of the threat as put forth by the United States government.

...

Unlike its predecessor, which a group of independent security policy professionals conducted at the request and under the sponsorship of the Director of Central Intelligence, George H. W. Bush, the present Team B II report is based entirely on unclassified, readily available sources. As with the original Team B analysis, however, this study challenges the assumptions underpinning the official line in the conflict with today's totalitarian threat, which is currently euphemistically described as "violent extremism", and the policies of co-existence, accommodation and submission that are rooted in those assumptions."

...

The Contemporary Threat

Today, the United States faces what is, if anything, an even more insidious threat [than the threat posed by the Soviet Union in the past]: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls shariah. Translated as "the path", shariah is a comprehensive legal and political framework. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of shariah as a "religious" code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere - economic, social, military, legal and political."

Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam's internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates - figures like Abdurrahman Wahid, the late president of Indonesia and leader of the world's largest libertarian Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama - whose members espouse the Enlightenment's embrace of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms. On the side of the divide, shariah is a reference point for a Muslim's personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society.

By contrast, the other side of the divide is dominated by Muslim supremacists, often called Islamists. Like erstwhile proponents of Communism and Nazism, these supremacists - some terrorists, other employing stealthier means - seek to impose a totalitarian regime: a global totalitarian system cloaked as an Islamic State and called a caliphate. On that side of the divide, which is the focus of the present study, shariah is an immutable, compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to install and the world required to adopt, the failure to do so being deemed a damnable offense against Allah. For these ideologues, shariah is not a private matter. Adherents see the West as an obstacle to be overcome, not a culture and civilization to be embraced, or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of governments peacefully to coexist with the end-state they seek."

This book clearly delineates the existential threat posed to the United States by "Islamist" groups, mostly affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which aspire to infiltrate the organizations and institutions of the United States in order to destroy it from within. In future posts, we will prove the truth of this allegation by bringing the words of Muslim Brotherhood leaders themselves. We must not fool ourselves - the process is already well underway.


Check out ShariaTheThreat.com.

Sally Zahav

Source: "Sharia - the Threat to America", CSPPress

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Iran's President: We Won't Develop Nukes...No, Seriously!



by Rick Moran


Ah, the gullibility of some people in the west. Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani, appeared quite sincere when he looked into the NBC cameras and said "under no circumstances would we seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, nor will we ever."

Poor Iranians! They're just misunderstood. What they're really doing with all that nuclear material is building an atomic ice cream machine.
"We have never pursued or sought a nuclear bomb, and we are not going to do so," he said. "We solely are looking for peaceful nuclear technology."
Rouhani's comments are the latest in a slew of signs that he is cautiously open to defrosting relations with the U.S., which were in deep freeze under the isolating leadership of his predecessor, the inflammatory Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
He and President Obama have exchanged letters in which they traded views on "some issues."
"From my point of view, the tone of the letter was positive and constructive," Rouhani said of the note he got from the White House congratulating him on his June election, in which he defeated five hard-liners.
"It could be subtle and tiny steps for a very important future. I believe the leaders in all countries could think in their national interest and they should not be under the influence of pressure groups. I hope to witness such an atmosphere in the future."
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday that in the letter, Obama told Rouhani the U.S. is open to a resolution to the nuclear impasse in which Iran can prove its atomic program is peaceful.
But he also conveyed the need to act quickly because the window for a diplomatic deal "will not remain open indefinitely," Carney said.
On another pressing topic, Rouhani was questioned about his views on Iran's close ally Syria and its promise to give up chemical weapons under the threat of air strikes from the U.S.
He said he could give no guarantees on behalf of Syrian President Bashar Assad, just days after he was quoted by his country's official news agency as saying he would accept any Syrian president elected by the people.
The Pakistani nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan wasn't selling Iran hardware and expertise to build a "peaceful" nuclear program. Khan has admitted as much. What are they doing with bomb designs, warhead plans, and highly enriched uranium if they're not trying to build a weapon?

But those are just details, details, details. Never mind what we're doing, listen to what we're saying. That's Rouhani's message - and thankfully, it is mostly falling on deaf ears.


Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/iran.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Solving the Problem of Child Marriage



by Mohshin Habib


Earlier this year, a 15 year old girl was sentenced to 100 lashes for being raped and made pregnant by her stepfather. Premarital sex is not legal, but flogging is.

An eight-year-old girl, identified as Rawan, and married the week before to a 40-year-old man in the northwestern Yemen, died of internal injuries the first night of forced marriage to a groom five times her age, the Daily Mail reports on September 9th.

Yemeni Human Rights Minister Hooria Mashour has now declared that enough is enough -- telling CNN that the growing anger over Rawan's case has presented Yemen with an opportunity to finally do the right thing. "Many child marriages take place every year in Yemen. It is time to end this practice," she said.

But practically nothing is taking place.

Although the situation of a ten-year-old Yemeni girl raped and abused by her husband led, in 2009, to the proposal of a bill establishing 17 as a minimum age for marriage, the legislation has not yet been enacted, mainly due to opposition from the Yemeni Parliamentary Committee on Islamic law.

Two earlier proposals for laws setting minimum ages for marriage in Yemen were stuck down in 1999, thanks to objection from religious leaders.

Whatever the constitution and penal code of a Muslim dominated country suggests, it seems that the society and the government itself are not able to budge Islamic instructions, values and tenets -- especially on the issue of child marriage. In most Muslim countries, laws and even constitutions, when they collide with Islamic trends that have existed for the last 1,400 years, seem to have absolutely no effect.

A Nigerian senator and ex-governor of Zamfara state Ahmad Sani Yerima appeared on Al-Jazeera's "The Stream" show on September 4th to argue that if a Muslim groom is selecting a bride from a Muslim family, whatever her age, it is no one else's business. He referred to the Islamic prophet Muhammad, who married a 9-year-old child, Ayesha (actually he wedded her when she was six, and consummated the marriage when she was nine). Therefore any Muslim who marries a girl of nine or above is following the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. Senator Yerima, 54, who married a 13-year-old girl in 2009 as his fourth wife, said he finds nothing wrong in his action.

In Nigeria, the NGO "Gender and Constitution Reform Network" [GECORN] sent a letter to the president of the senate on July 24, 2013, stressing the importance of removing the constitution's clause that legitimizes child marriage – clause 29(4)(b), which states: "any women who is married shall be deemed to be a full age". However, the senate committee that debated removing the provision failed to gain the required 73 votes required to remove it.

Senator Yerima, backed by some conservative members, also opposed the clause's removal, and insisted that under Islamic tenets, a woman, once married, is of age. "The constitution says the National Assembly shall legislate on marriage except those under Islamic rites," he said.
According to the UN, 20% of Nigerian girls are married by age 15. In addition, Nigeria's Child Rights Act is not recognized in 12 states of Nigeria, out of a total of 36.

Earlier this year in the Maldives, a 15-year-old girl was sentenced to 100 lashes for being raped and made pregnant by her stepfather.

In the Maldives, premarital sex is not legal, but flogging is, and an accepted punishment. The girl had been under house arrest on an island near the capital, Malé, since her sentencing. The charge against her of fornication sparked a petition by the global network AVAAZ, signed by two million people around the world who called for the sentence to be commuted. Opposition MPs called British Prime Minister David Cameron to put pressure on the Maldivian government.

According to Sharia law, if a woman is raped, she is considered guilty of adultery unless she can provide four adult Muslim male witnesses. Her punishment is stoning to death if she is married, or 100 lashes if she is single.

According to the constitution, the Maldives is a democratic republic based on the principles of Islam. Article 7 states that Islam is the state religion and Article 16 states that it allows for criminal defense in accordance with Sharia. According to Maldives's custom, the minimum age for marriage is 15, but the local Protection of the Rights of the Child law discourages marriage before the age of 16.

In Bangladesh, in April 2011, a politician and highly respected Islamic cleric, the late Fazlul Haq Amini, said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives to oppose any law restricting child marriage. He declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage were putting the prophet Muhammad in a bad light: "Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of holy prophet of Islam. Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women."

This situation apparently exists in every Muslim country: there are thousands of victims of ostensibly legitimate sexual abuse of children across the Muslim world.

Dr. Zakir Naik, originally from India, who is president of the Islamic Research Foundation that owns the Peace TV channel based in Dubai, has millions of followers around the globe. He has also been promoting child marriage through his preaching.

The International Center for Research on Women has stated about child marriage, that if present trends continue, 142 million prepubescent girls will marry over the next decade -- or 38,000 girls who will marry every day for the next 10 years. According to the study, most of the victims are from Muslim-dominated areas.

Advocacy groups from Western countries and say they are concerned about the issue. The United States alone spends billion of dollars to reduce maternal death and infant mortality, improve the attainment of education, and promote the rule of law for the affected countries. But the big question is: Will the effort bring any solution to the Islamic problem of child marriage so long as the preaching of these clerics is not countered?


Mohshin Habib

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3981/child-marriage

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

British College "Unbans" Burqa



by Soeren Kern


"People are frightened of standing up and speaking out…because of political correctness and the intolerant reaction from Muslim groups who jump up and down with fury whenever anyone says it makes sense to for people to go around with their faces perfectly visible to everyone else, which is the way human beings were created in the first place…If we all covered our faces, the world would be a very different place. Imagine Parliament where everyone had their faces covered." — Philip Hollobone, MP

A college in England has reversed a ban on Islamic veils after furious Muslim students complained of discrimination, and launched an online petition drive that gathered more than 8,000 signatures in just two days.

Birmingham Metropolitan College backed away from its ban on September 12, just hours before a mass demonstration by hundreds of Muslim students threatened to disrupt the normal functioning of the college.

The controversy began on September 9, the first day of the autumn term, when the college announced that students and employees would be ordered to remove any face coverings so that individuals are "easily identifiable at all times."

The college's ban on face-covering niqabs or the body-covering burqas -- as well as caps, hoodies and other types of head covering -- was billed as a security measure.

Local high school students visit the engineering department of Birmingham Metropolitan College.

Christine Braddock, the college's principal, said the policy had been developed to keep students safe. In an interview with the Birmingham Mail, she said:
We have a very robust equality, diversity and inclusion policy at Birmingham Metropolitan College but we are committed to ensuring that students are provided with a safe and welcoming learning environment whilst studying with us.
To ensure that safeguarding is a priority, we have developed our policy alongside student views to ensure we keep them safe," Braddock added. "This needs individuals to be easily identifiable at all times when they are on college premises and this includes the removal of hoodies, hats, caps and veils so that faces are visible. All prospective and progressing students, as well as staff, have been advised of the policy, which will mean everyone allowed on the premises can understand and know each other in a safe environment.
Muslims were livid. One prospective Muslim student said she was so upset about the policy that she decided to look for another college in the city. The angry 17-year-old girl, who did not want to be named, told the Mail: "It's disgusting. It is a personal choice and I find it absolutely shocking that this has been brought in at a college in Birmingham city center when the city is so multicultural and so many of the students are Muslim. It upsets me that we are being discriminated against."

Another student at the college, Imaani Ali, also 17, told the Mail that her "freedom has been breached" by the rule. "Me and another friend who wears the veil were only told we wouldn't be allowed inside the college after we had enrolled," she said. "They haven't provided us with another alternative. We said we would happily show the men at security our faces so they could check them against our IDs, but they won't let us. It's a breach of my freedom and I feel discriminated against. This is my religion, it is what I believe in. I don't really want to go to a place that doesn't accept me but I have no choice now."

Muslim politicians were quick to chime in. Birmingham MP Shabana Mahmood said she was "shocked" and "deeply concerned" at the policy, and demanded an urgent meeting with college leaders about the decision. "For those that chose to wear the full veil, it is an important article of faith," she said. "I would like to know how many students are affected and a full explanation as to why the compromise suggested by students at the College, that the veil is removed for security staff to check and verify identity before being put back on, was not accepted by the College."

"I am deeply concerned that other colleges may follow suit, as a result of which increasing numbers of women will be locked out of education and skills training," Mahmood added. "We must not allow this to happen."

A member of the Birmingham city council, Waseem Zaffar, called the move "baffling" and said: "How they dress in their lessons should be entirely up to the students as there is no uniform policy at the college. I hope the college comes to its senses and does a U-turn."

The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), an umbrella organization of student groups that represents the interests of more than 100,000 Muslim college students in Britain and Ireland, issued a statement saying: "This senseless decision is massively divisive and will only lead to an environment in which the rights of many will be disproportionately suppressed. The fundamental rights to freedom of religious expression are at stake here and this sets out an extremely dangerous precedent not only for the Muslim community but for members of all faith backgrounds."

The college was ultimately forced into a climb-down after nearly 600 angry students threatened to participate in a campus demonstration on September 14 with the stated aim to "protest against this Islamophobic and illogical decision to ban the face veil...to take a stand against such hysterical and discriminatory decisions."

Fearing that the protest could potentially turn violent, the college issued a statement saying, "We are concerned that recent media attention is detracting from our core mission of providing high quality learning. As a consequence, we will modify our policies to allow individuals to wear specific items of personal clothing to reflect their cultural values."

Muslims reacted with jubilation. Protest organizer Sabiha Mahmood, 27, a former student at the college, said, "We are very happy that the ban has been overturned but there is still the wider issue of why it was ever allowed to happen in the first place. This is a victory for now but we have to make sure it does not happen again in Birmingham or in any other college in the UK. Our primary concern is that this student is part of British society and in this country we allow women to express themselves how they want to. We believe it is a fundamental right for Muslim women to be allowed to wear the face veil and to ban it was a violation of our human rights."

Waseem Zaffar, the city counsellor, said it had been a "sad few days" for Birmingham but was glad "common sense" had prevailed after the U-turn. "I think democracy has won here," he said. "The college has heard 8,000 people signed a petition in 48 hours and they have been brave enough to admit they were wrong. The reputation of the city and the college has been damaged but I hope we can move on now."

A spokeswoman for the Muslim Council of Britain, a Muslim umbrella group that is pressing the British government to implement Islamic Sharia law, described the ban as "shocking," "draconian" and "unBritish," and welcomed its reversal.

"This was a clear case of religious discrimination masquerading as a security measure," she said. "In Britain, we pride ourselves in the freedom of religion. While there may well be many views on whether this aspect of clothing is a religious obligation, we nevertheless respect a woman's right to wear the niqab if she freely wishes to do so."

But others say the college's reversal represents a capitulation for the British way of life.
Tory MP for Kettering Philip Hollobone told the British newspaper The Independent that the college's change of heart was a shameful disgrace and argued for the urgent need for legislation to ban the niqab in all public spaces.

"People are frightened of standing up and speaking out in this discussion because of political correctness and the intolerant reaction from Muslim groups who jump up and down with fury whenever anyone says that it makes sense for people to go around with their faces perfectly visible to everyone else, which is the way human beings were created in the first place," Hollobone said.
Hollobone presented a bill in the British Parliament on September 6 that would make it illegal to wear clothing obscuring the face in public; the bill will be considered on February 28, 2014.
In a live debate entitled, "Should Britain Ban the Veil?" and aired on BBC Radio 5 on September 6, Hollobone said, "Society can't function if people go around with facial coverings. If we all covered our faces the world would be a very different place. Imagine Parliament where everyone had their face covered. It makes it very difficult for the police to identify troublemakers. I am sad that legislation may be necessary to address this problem. It's basic common sense to most people. It would ultimately lead to the breakdown of our society."

Hollobone denied that his proposal amounted to an attack on Islam: "We have to be quite clear -- the burka isn't religious clothing. It's a choice."


Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3975/birmingham-college-burqa

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.