Acadhimmia. The New Scientific Approach.

If you thought the islamisation of college campuses was purely an american phenomenon, then think again.
In Great Britain, moves are being made by the University and College Union to cut all contacts with Israeli scientists, academics and researchers. The UCU is holding its annual congress this week and one of the points on the agenda will be the suggestion that all cooperative scientific and academic research must be driven by political ideology and that contact with the Israeli intelligencia should be hampered to the point of non-existence.
This idiotic suggestion comes from, wait for it, Palestinian trade unions and has its roots in the Palestine-Israel conflict. Some of the members backing the move want this to be standard practise throughout the whole EU, thereby stopping any scientific or cultural exchange with Israel.

There are, of course, those amongst the members of the UCU that do not support this stupid suggestion and they are quick to point out that one cannot give all the academic institutions in Israel the blame for the present conflict. They also suggest that the UCU increase contact with Israeli and Palestinian institutions of higher learning. Though how the Palestinians would contribute is beyond me. Hamas is not really reknowned for its higher education policies and the “University of Gaza”, if such a thing exists, is probably a training centre for terrorists. Intellectually speaking, not too beneficial to the advancement of the human endeavour.
The UCU is also being asked to define rules for the eventual exclusion of any research institute in the future, should this be “necessary”.

How stupid can this be? Should the Israeli scientists, among the world’s best, discover a cure for AIDS, heart disease or cancer, could it be imagineable that the rest of the world would not be interested in it merely because it was done in Israel? Nonsense. Only an idiot would not be interested in the sharing of new knowledge, or new research results. However, the Islamic world is not reknowned for its scientific achievements either, believing them to be unclean and ungodly. Which would make sense if you go back to the origins of this ridiculous suggestion being put to the UCU. The truly incomprehensible bit is, that it has some support.

It should be noted, this is not the first time that British academics are attempting to break ties with Israel. A couple of years ago, they took a rather controversial decision to ban all research results from Israeli universities from scientific conferences and journals.

And these are supposed to be intelligent people? The text of the proposal is brought to you here:

30 Composite: Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions University of Brighton, Grand Parade; University of East London, Docklands

Congress notes that Israel’s 40-year occupation has seriously damaged the fabric of Palestinian society through annexation, illegal settlement, collective punishment and restriction of movement.

Congress deplores the denial of educational rights for Palestinians by invasions, closures, checkpoints, curfews, and shootings and arrests of teachers, lecturers and students.

Congress condemns the complicity of Israeli academia in the occupation, which has provoked a call from Palestinian trade unions for a comprehensive and consistent international boycott of all Israeli academic institutions.

Congress believes that in these circumstances passivity or neutrality is unacceptable and criticism of Israel cannot be construed as anti-semitic.

Congress instructs the NEC to

* circulate the full text of the Palestinian boycott call to all branches/LAs for information and discussion;
* encourage members to consider the moral implications of existing and proposed links with Israeli academic institutions;
* organise a UK-wide campus tour for Palestinian academic/educational trade unionists;
* issue guidance to members on appropriate forms of action.

Time for a new title: Acadhimmic.

Link: UCU congress

The European Constitution. Round 2.

At the recent plenary sitting of the EU Parliament in Brussels, the debate turned to what should be the non-existence of a European constition. The constitution was voted out by both the Dutch and the French two years ago and should therefore have died then and there. The Euro-MP’s think differently. Determined to ram a constitution, which half of the total of Europeans are against, down our throats, the work continues. After two years of “reflection”, the EU is beginning the revival of the constitution. The debate was not concerned with the need to come up with something new. It was more concerned with how to get the European states to accept a constitution more by stealth than referendum. The main speaker was Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende. Here are a few extracts from the reports on the EU webside:

Future of Europe/European integration.

Reasons for the No vote.

First the reasons behind the No vote must be understood. One was the pace of change, for example enlargement. “We have to realise that the public needs time to get used to the EU in its new form. Things have changed quickly. Too quickly for some people’s tastes. We must allow time for a sense of solidarity to grow.” He went on to say “The question ‘Are you in favour of the Constitution for Europe?’ was taken to mean ‘Do you want the EU to assume the character of a state?’ or even ‘Should Europe eventually take the place of the national government?’ This was obviously a bridge too far.”

There were other reasons for the No vote. “Some believed Europe was making too many rules or doing things best left to the member states. Others accused Brussels of a lack of transparency. Concerns about the Dutch financial contribution was another important factor. Compounding the problem was the fact that people had no real sense of the specific benefits of the European partnership.”

All very true. We do not need a super state that can decide which laws are valid and which are not in each our own respective lands. That must be up to us in our own lands to decide in our own parliaments. Not in some far off bureaucracy where we have little or no influence on the debate. I can guarantee, that if the EU had it’s way, then the stringent laws on immigration in Denmark would be wiped off the pages of every law book we have.
I have no real sense of the specific benefits of the European partnership. There are none.
I voted no to the EU over 30 years ago in Britain. I was right to do so. The propaganda that brought us in told us that we would have cheaper and better goods in the shops. That we could streamline our agriculture and industry to produce only that which we were good at producing. We would easily be able to import the things that we did not produce ourselves from other member states, who were perhaps better at those products. In return they would buy ours.
It didn’t happen. Prices went up as taxation increased to subsibise farming and failing industries, not least in France, where agriculture is a national joke. the trend has continued since.
What then, of the future?

The way forward

Moving on to the Dutch government’s view of how the EU should proceed on the Constitution, he said the new treaty should have two main goals. “Firstly, we want an EU that operates more democratically. Secondly, we want an EU that can take decisions and act on them.”

This would mean focusing on four key points. Firstly, a more gradual approach: “the Netherlands is in favour of a more traditional document, in the same vein as the Treaties of Amsterdam or Nice. We need to continue with the Monnet method: moving ahead via small, but significant increments. This approach throws a spotlight on the improvements, the democratic safeguards and the increased effectiveness”.

Secondly, “a more robust subsidiarity test, with an important role for national parliaments”. The institutional proposals made in the Constitutional Treaty were a step in the right direction. But there was still room for improvement. “National parliaments must play a more integral part in assessing whether proposed EU legislation conforms to the subsidiarity principle. If a majority of national parliaments are opposed to a given proposal, there must be consequences.”

Thirdly, to be more effective the EU needs more qualified majority voting. But “we must recognise that countries are afraid to relinquish their vetoes, afraid that the EU will extend its competences by stealth. On this point we must be clear. The Union can become more effective only if it has public support.”

Fourthly, “enlargement criteria should be included in the new Treaty”. He stressed that “In the Netherlands there is a perception that the Union does not take its own rules seriously. The criteria are in place, but some would say they are not strictly applied. This erodes public support for the EU. These criteria should therefore be included the new Treaty.”

“We need to continue with the Monnet method: moving ahead via small, but significant increments.”
That one single sentence would have been lost in the noise of the debate. But it gives a hint as to the coming tactics of the EU. What they could not get us to swallow in one huge mouthfull, will be sneaked in through the back door and made law in the EU. This will be done by making small changes to EU legislation and we will not even notice them. The debate is too far away. Once these things are in place, they need not be mentioned in the constitutional document. Remove the offending text and the document is then palletable for all.
Referendum? What’s the point? It won’t be necesary. Others have seen this too.

For the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty group, Philip CLAEYS (BE) said that “Dutch voters clearly spoke out against the Constitutional Treaty” and added that “I hope that the voters will be given the opportunity to speak out not just in the Netherlands but in all Member States.” Mr Claeys added that one the key issues to be addressed is “not just the institutional question” but “the fundamental question of what the borders of Europe should be.” In particular, “whether or not a country such as Turkey should be allowed to accede.”
Mr Claeys concluded by saying that “we seem to be acting here in Europe as if there’s nothing going on” and yet “we cannot accept the threats and the arrogance that is being expressed in this respect.”
[....]
“One has to ask how much energy has been wasted on chasing the moonbeams of a European constitution?” asked Jim ALLISTER (UK), speaking for the Non-attached Members. “Part of the reason why the EU institutions are stuck in this rut”, Mr Allister continued, “is because of the refusal to take a democratic ‘No’ for an answer.” The debates taking place are “dominated…with demands for strategies to avoid letting the citizens have their say.”

Mr Allister spoke of “that which imposes the apparatus of statehood upon the EU” as “the same old tired and tarnished product, already rejected, and upon which citizens must have their say.”

Read that again here:

“Dutch voters clearly spoke out against the Constitutional Treaty”

“…that which imposes the apparatus of statehood upon the EU [is]the same old tired and tarnished product, already rejected, and upon which citizens must have their say.”

“Part of the reason why the EU institutions are stuck in this rut is because of the refusal to take a democratic ‘No’ for an answer.”

Thankfully, these two gentlemen seem to have grasped the seiousness of this. However, I feel they are in the minority, and I fear that the majority will not consider their fears.
Or mine.
Or yours, for that matter.

Link: The EU report on the debate.

Amnesty International on Denmark.

The copenhagen Post has brought an article concerning the views of Amnesty International on Denmark. A less meaningful organisation than Amnesty would be hard to find and even harder to take seriously.

Human rights organisation Amnesty International has given the Danish government credit for its defence of free speech during the Mohammed cartoon crisis, but, at the same time, it needs to improve its relationship with the country’s Muslim minority.
Irene Khan, Amnesty International’s secretary general, wrote Tuesday in the organisation’s annual report that free speech was the central issue during Muslim protests in early 2006 over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed printed by Jyllands-Posten newspaper. She said the government appropriately defended that right.
‘Freedom of speech should only be limited if it directly incites racial or religious hatred, but not when its goal is to express viewpoints – regardless of how tasteless they may be.’

I must remeber that the next time I see someone on the news screaming for someone to be beheaded or killed because they insulted Islam or something similar. It’s about time we really started prosecuting these people.
The article continues thus:

But Denmark otherwise fared poorly in the report. Amnesty International criticised Denmark for wide-spread discrimination, long-term isolation of prisoners, a lack of assistance for rape victims and anti-terror laws that undermine fundamental human rights.
Khan wrote that the government had generally failed to protect the nation’s Muslim minority against ‘discrimination and social exclusion’. She indicated Amnesty International was especially concerned about reports from the UN and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance stating that Denmark had a ‘low rate of prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred despite, among other things, inflammatory statements by some politicians and the media’.

(Khan. There’s a good old western name for you. Of the Oxford Khan’s, I presume?)
Well, I don’t know about the rape victims. I’ve never been raped. So I can’t really speak about that. However, I fail to see how anti-terror laws will affect the rights of normal decent citizens in this country. I can see how not having them might affect us all. As for discrimination and social exclusion, I can only suggest, that those who would be socially accepted, conform to our laws and local customs, stop the discrimination they carry out against the infidels that support them and start behaving like citizens in this country instead of crying foul, or victimisation, every time they don’t get their own way. Discrimination and integration are after all, dependant on both sides.
I didn’t realise there was a quota on how many prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred one has to bring before the courts per annum. I agree though, the rate of prosecutions is low. I think we should have prosecuted many more imams than we did last year.
As for isolating prisoners? There is an old saying; If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Simple. They get no pity from me. Lock ‘em up, throw away the key.
And now the good news:

Less than two weeks ago, the public prosecutor refused to press racism charges against several members of the Danish People’s Party for comments about Muslims and Arabs.

Must be the vast right wing conspiracy at work!

I can’t wait to see the detailed report from Amnesty on Iran. That might be a little more interesting than this miserable commentary.

Gross Misrepresentation.

The pictures below are both described in the Danish press as refugee camps.

The picture immediately below is of a refugee camp in Zaire. A mesh of tents, shanties, cardboard and fabric with no real infrastructure or organisation. It has simply developed as people came to it seeking refuge. A pretty sad and forboding place. The people living here are refugees. This is a refugee camp. The people living here are forced to do so. They are truly unfortunate.

The picture below is of Gaza. A seaside town, well planned, solid structures and a definite infrastructure. Made of brick and mortar, definitely planned by a council somewhere at sometime and resembles exactly what it is. A working, living urban environment. The people living here are palestinians. This is therefore, by default, a refugee camp. Not a city on the coast. Poor Palestinians. Imagine being forced to live in these terrible conditions.

I don’t buy it any more.

I refuse to listen to the palestinian propaganda in our press any longer.

I am forced to ask again; Just who do they think they are kidding?

The May 2007 Bullshit Award.

One of my favourite TV programmes is the BBC’s motoring magasine “Top Gear”. Not merely a technical run down of all the cars and stuff, it takes a light hearted look at motoring, motorists and the various manufacturers new offerings. One of the programmes presenters, Jeremy Clarkson, has got himself into a sport of bother over a remark during one of the more recent shows. The Times brings us this little story:

Clarkson censured for “bit gay” car gibe.Sunday Times columnist Jeremy Clarkson is well known for his forthright views

Jeremy Clarkson, friend of the motorist and avowed enemy of political correctness, was criticised this morning for labelling a car “a bit gay” on television.
Clarkson was unimpressed by the Daihatsu Copen, last year. He asked a member of the studio audience on the BBC’s Top Gear programme whether he would consider buying one. The man replied, “No, it’s a bit gay” and Clarkson added, “A bit gay, yes, very ginger beer.”

Ofcom, the media watchdog, ruled this morning that there was “no justification” for the comment.

Ofcom was established as a body corporate by the Office of Communications Act 2002. . Ofcom is the regulator for the UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services. The public censor, if you like. PC in a bottle.

The watchdog turned to the Oxford English Dictionary and agreed that “gay” can be used to mean “foolish, stupid and socially inappropriate, or disapproved of and lame”. However, it ruled that in conjunction with “ginger beer”, Cockney rhyming slang for queer, Clarkson intended to criticise the car by describing it as homosexual.

Pardon me but… how can an otherwise inanimate object, a machine, possess a sexuality? It may be a car that a homosexual (male) would go for as it may or may not express a certain effeminism when compared to a Ford 8, which is a bit “butch” by any motoring standards, but a car has no sexuality as such. I have never observed cars mating.
The story gets worse as it develops:

In Top Gear Magazine the review of the Daihatsu described it as a “cutie with a folding metal roof, aimed at those with a collection of sunglasses and co-ordinating handbags”.
Ofcom said: “In this edition of Top Gear, the presenter’s use of a Cockney rhyming phrase made clear he intended to give a particular meaning to use of the word ‘gay’. This, in Ofcom’s opinion, meant that the use of the word became capable of giving offence. In the context, there was no justification for using the word in this way.”Stonewall, the gay rights group, welcomed the decision. “We’re glad to see that Ofcom has censured Jeremy Clarkson for the use of the word gay, in what was clearly meant in a derogatory way. Clarkson should remember in future that he is a presenter on publicly-funded TV before making such comments and therefore should uphold certain standards of behaviour,” said Vicky Powell, a spokeswoman.

“There was no doubt that it was being used in the sense of ‘homosexual’ and was capable of giving offence,” said Fraser Steel, the BBC head of editorial complaints.

Yay, Stonewall. Gay rights for cars! And about time too. Actually it isn’t the first time Jeremy has been in trouble with the gay crowd. The BBC stood by Clarkson in February 2006 when Stonewall released a report accusing the Top Gear presenter of making derogatory or offensive references to homosexuality.

Well, well. I am upset. I’m sure all the various parties in this idiotic episode are entitled to their own opinions. But I don’t like censorship, I don’t like the taking of a simple remark to be used as a club to beat one about the head with, and I disagree with both Ofcom and Stonewall here, who have definitely made a mountain out of a molehill.

So they are this month’s winners.. the May 2007 Bullshit Award goes to the two offended parties. May it bring them consolation after this devastating outburst from Mr. Clarkson.

Clarkson’s last remark? “It wasn’t a gay car – it was actually a bit lesbian.”

Way to go, Jeremy!

Extremists to the Right of Me, Activists to the Left..

When is an extremist not an extremist? Answer: The extreme left wing thugs, vandals, hooligans, louts and stone and bottle throwing miscreants are not “left wing extremists”. They are “activists”. Anyone who doesn’t support them is “right wing extremist”. At least, according to the Danish press they are.
Here’s a ‘for instance’ for you.
During the weekend, “Anti-jihad”, a non-political organisation protesting about the degradation of society by the activities of immigrant gangs, held a small but peaceful demonstration in Aalborg in Denmark. They turned up, delivered their message, and then went peacefully home again.
The police, acting properly, arrested and detained about 40 people who were invited to disrupt the demonstration by the extreme left wing “Enhedslisten” party.
Since the demo was legal, any disruption would have been illegal. The press in its infinite wisdom descibes the demonstrators as “right wing extremists”. No mention of the hired left wing thugs who were invited there for a punch-up.

The following day, the squatter colony, Christiania, in Copenhagen was the centre of rioting and carbeque parties. Note the description given of the perpetrators:

Rioting at Christiania follows demolition
By The Copenhagen Post
Copenhagen squatter colony Christiania erupted into violence after the government began demolishing a condemnedbuilding

Copenhagen police have arrested 59 people in the wake of protests against an unannounced demolition of an abandon building in the squatter colony Christiania.

Vandalism and the setting of bonfires began Monday immediately after the police demolition team began tearing down the building. The disturbances continued throughout the night, escalating at around midnight, when some 300 activists began burning garbage bins and built barricades in the streets near the colony’s entrance.

Rocks, bottles and Molotov cocktails were thrown at police, who replied by using tear gas to disperse the crowd. Six of those arrested during the rioting were charged with assaulting police officers.

It is noteworthy, that the “activists” that burned cars and vandalised Copenhagen, that threw cobblestones, bottles and molotov cocktails at the police, are from the same crowd who tried to disrupt the peaceful demonstration in Aalborg.

Left wing extremists? Unheard of.

A fair and unbiased press? Equally so.

Just who do they think they are kidding?

Sunday, Apocalyptic Sunday.

I’m not much of a conspiracy theory guy. I don’t speculate that much about who is doing to what to whom or why they are doing it and what are they trying to hide. It all gets a bit too silly to be interesting. But… imagine my dismay on reading the following headline in The Times; (and on a Sunday afternoon, no less.)

Vatican denies hiding the full truth about the end of the world.

Good God. The end of the world? And I’m missing it? Why do the Catholics get all the good stories first? I immediately grabbed the souvenir Greek rosary beads, switched on the TV and headed for all the news channels I could find. No. No-one was showing me the end of the world happening. Relieved, I fell back into my favourite armchair and lit my pipe. I knew somehow, that if the world was ending, I would have known about it. Or my wife would. Or at least, CNN would have had one of those smart brassy logos up on the screen to tell me so. Finding solace in that, I threw the souvenir Greek rosary back into the corner and continued to read.

The Vatican tried yesterday to draw a line under a conspiracy theory that has dogged the Catholic Church for decades – that it was harbouring details of the predicted apocalypse.
The Pope’s second-in-command, Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, denied that the Church was suppressing a vision of the end of the world said to have been revealed by the Virgin Mary to three shepherd children on a hillside at Fatima in Portugal exactly 90 years ago.

Hmm.. Decades. And Virgins. Had there ever been such a virgin mother, I thought, she bought the farm about 2000 years ago, not 90, so this didn’t seem to be alarming after all. I liked that title though. “The Pope’s second-in-command”. Cool. How very christian-soldierly. But still, this tale has all the necessary hallmarks of something biblical, the number 3, shepherds are mentioned and a hillside. And visions! Wow. Now we’re talkin’.

The three “Secrets of Fatima” were written down by one of the children, Lucia Dos Santos – who became a Carmelite nun – and sent to the Vatican in a sealed envelope. Two of the “secrets” were made public, apparently predicting the inferno of 20th-century world war and totalitarianism and the eventual reconversion of Communist Russia to Christianity.
Pope John Paul II suggested that the third “secret” predicted the 1981 attempt on his life. He failed to satisfy conspiracy theorists however, with many accusing the Vatican of disclosing only part of the last Fatima secret.

Well, that did it for me. A nun. And if the Pope can’t settle the minds of the conspiracy boys, then there has to be something to it. Doesn’t there? I mean, he is the man. Isn’t he? Direct descendant from Saint Peter and all that jazz. God’s second-in-command. One wave of his holy hand and we’re all done for. Don’t mess with this guy.

Antonio Socci, a Catholic journalist and author of The Fourth Secret of Fatima, said that he had at first accepted John Paul’s explanation. His researches led him to believe however that the late Pope’s revelation had been “partial”.
He said that the undisclosed portion of the “secret” predicted a crisis of faith in the West and the collapse of the Church hierarchy in the face of a tidal wave of “apostasy and heresy”. Marco Tosatti, a Vatican watcher and author of The Prophecies of Fatima, also said that the Vatican was believed to be “hiding something” so as “not to alarm millions of the faithful”.
But yesterday, as tens of thousands gathered at Fatima, 130 kilometres (81 miles) north of Lisbon, to mark the 90th anniversary of the “visions”, Cardinal Bertone insisted that the idea that the secret predicted “catastrophic world events” or the collapse of the Christian Church were “pure fantasy”.

Oh, well. What a let down. Tens of thousands turn up and it’s “pure fantasy” day. I thought so. From start to finish. Still, he is working damned hard to deny something here. The thing is, if it’s all fantasy, then why was it kept a secret? By the way, how does one research a “secret” that is being closely guarded by the Vatican? Where would one start? I can imagine the conversation. “Good morning Pope, I was wondering about this secret of yours…” Only to be told, very politely to “Bugger off and bother somebody else..”.
The good cardinal has been fighting conspiracy theories involving the Church, such as The Da Vinci Code, which he dismissed as a “pack of lies”. In “The Last Fatima Visionary: My Meetings with Sister Lucia”, Cardinal Bertone says that before her death in 2005 at the age of 97 the nun confirmed John Paul’s account of the “third secret”.

“There is no fourth secret,” he declared. “Everything has been published and correctly interpreted.” He hinted that “antiChristians” were behind the conspiracy theories.

Aha. It’s those bloody anti-christians again. Might have known it. Jews? Yes. It has to be a jewish conspiracy. It’s always a Jewish conspiracy. Unless it’s a right wing conspiracy. Or the CIA. Or a couple of kids that have been drinking wine and eating poison mushrooms or smoking pot and having a giggle or two.

In a preface to Cardinal (Pope, 2-I-C, remember?) Bertone’s book, Pope (God, 2-I-C,) Benedict XVI writes that publication of the “third secret” by his predecessor “unveiled the truth amid the confused framework of apocalyptic interpretations and speculation in the Church”.

The Fatima visions.

First secret.

“Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze . . . ”

Second secret.

“ . . . If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church”

Third secret.

“A bishop dressed in white . . . falls to the ground, as if dead, after a volley of gunfire”

I thought, “Oooh! How very worrying. What happened to the fourth secret? You can’t leave me dangling here. Tell me about the apocalypse. I want to know. Because, if it’s going to happen tomorrow, then I don’t need to mow the bloody lawn.”
Which is my prime concern. I hate mowing the bloody lawn.

Still, the sea of fire seemed convincing.

Global Warming?

A Little Less Conversation…

It isn’t every day that you see someone taking action for something they believe in. It is refreshing when you do.
Take, for example, the little but growing organisation calling itself SIAD, Stop Islamisation of Denmark. Back in February, they went to the Ministry of Justice in Denmark claiming that certain verses in the Koran were incompatible with the Danish constitution and should be removed, or at least, forbidden within the context of the law. The verses incite violent action against Jews, Christians and, in fact, any faith other than Islam. That makes them racist and the preaching of them equally so. A perfectly reasonable arguement if you ask me. We can’t have people declaring death to everybody because they don’t believe in this or that. Unconstitutional or not.
Having had their claims refused once, SIAD repeated the charges on the grounds that the first person to handle the complaint was incompetent in that she had never read the Koran or indeed the Hadith. In fact, she didn’t even know what the Hadith is.
This second complaint wasn’t even looked at. The Ministry for Justice simply referred to its previous response.

So SIAD decided to go one stage further. They are going to sue the state for not upholding the constitution. Which again, seems perfectly reasonable to me. After all, what good is a constitution if you can’t live up to it? Or only wish to defend bits of it, as you feel inclined, and disregard the rest?
So the stage is set for a new Motoon affair, Only this time, it will have legal overtones.

If you should feel the desire to offer some monetary support to SIAD, because this won’t be cheap, then go to the SIOE or SIAD website and see how you can donate to their newly created bank account. I hear they are working on Paypal too.

Warriors need a war chest.

Links:
SIAD (Danish site)
SIOE

Don’t Believe Everything You Read..

.. especially if you read Avisen.dk.

Avisen.dk, a Danish online newspaper, published an article yesterday describing the activities of the new allaince against the Jihad in Denmark, the group “Anti-jihad”. The group is made up of SIAD, Frit Danmark, Nationale Danskere, I Media, og Frie Danske Nationalister.

The article describes this collection of non-political associations as being armed and dangerous and colours them as extreme right wing fanatics. All of that is simply not true. Furthermore, the article by “journalist” Rune Eltard-Sørensen, also states that the Center for Vigilant Freedom formed the group. Which is also not true.

It should perhaps be mentioned here, that our intrepid and greatly misinformed journalist has also spent a little time at Her Majesty´s pleasure for once having attacked the Danish Foreign Minister, Per Stig Møller, with red paint. So if he wants to start talking dirty, we’ll have that to throw back at him. I have this to say about him: Ignorant uninformed lefty lout.

SIAD chairman Anders Gravers has of course replied. Here is a copy of his letter to the red rag: (Note: my translation.)

To Chief Editor David Trads

Avisen.dk’s journalist Rune Eltard-Sørensen has published a critical article concerning SIAD and the Anti-jihad movement under the title “Armed network will stop Islam in Denmark”. (Avisen, 08 May 2007.)

“Armed network will stop Islam in Denmark” is full of misrepresentation and lies.

Firstly, the title in itself is a direct lie. The Anti-jihad movement is not armed. During a telephone interview on the 7th May the SIAD Chairman clearly stated that Anti-jihad operates only within the framework of the law, as Rune Eltard-Sørensen was clearly interested in this and was this the case?

The subtitle in the article states: “With loaded weapons and support from abroad, a newly formed extreme right wing group will set the agenda concerning the debate on immigration”.
As mentioned before, there are no weapons in the Anti-jihad movement. Anti-jihad is neither left, right nor middle orientated. We have no political agenda as such, in that we are broadspectered and have only one goal, That is, to stop the islamisation of Denmark. To call us right wing extremists is a direct lie.

Further in the article is stated: “On saturday Anti-jihad will take to the streets and demonstrate for “more freedom for citizens – less control over gangs”. The initiative is aimed at concentrating the debate on immigration”.
Once again, a lie. Our slogan is “more freedom for citizens – more control over gangs”, which can be clearly read on our website, www. siad.dk

The article states, concerning The Chairman, Anders Gravers and SIAD that; “He has now allied himself with a string of groups from the extreme right wing and has established contact with the international organisation, “Vigilant Freedom”. The organisation offers support to Islam-critical groups over the entire world and was recently involved in the creation of a scandinavian section of the Anti-jihad movement”.
SIAD refutes the charge of right wing extremism and is not allied to groups in the extreme right wing. All our groups are non-political, neither right, left nor center.
Vigilant Freedom has not been involved in the formation of “Anti-jihad” in Denmark. The 910 group is SIAD’s contact and has nothing to do with “Anti-jihad”.

Finally the article mentions Michael Ellegaard, foreman for Frit DK, who mentions weapons. Michael Ellegaard is expressing a personal opinion and is not a spokesperson for “Anti-jihad”. Anything he says is personally accountable.
However, the article seems to be based solely on his statements about weapons and thereby his statements are directly linked to “Anti-jihad”, which has been done deliberately but which is a complete distortion of the truth.

All in all, this article is a disgrace and a very poor advertisement for your journalists credibility.

SIAD and Anti-jihad demand an immediate retraction of the lies and distortions that are presented in this article

Sincerely,
Anders Gravers. Chairman, SIAD.

I daresay the chief editor will also be hearing from CVF in the near future.

Naser Khader’s New Alliance.

Shortly after coming back from a successful visit to the USA, Naser Khader got himself into an arguement with his party boss, Marianne Jelved, and the party spokeswoman spokesthing spokesperson, Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen, over the wearing of headscarves in parliament. Khader doesn’t approve, the two others do not object. In fact Gerner Nielsen even went on TV wearing one to make her point.
That was the final straw for Khader, who has been planning to set up his own party for some time. He has done so now, with support from a colleague, also from the Social Liberals, Anders Samuelsen, and the now former conservative MP, Gitte Seeberg.
The party was launched this morning and already boasts nearly 1000 members who signed up on the New Alliance website.

New Alliance or not, this is going to be a blow to the Social Liberals, who have been hanging on to the fringe of Danish politics for some years. Personally, I will see this as a blessing. That particular party should have died with the dinosaurs at the end of the communist era in Russia!

The papers are full of speculation as to what this new party will bring to the table.

From the Jyllands Posten’s pendant, the Copenhagen Post:

Neither Khader nor Samuelsen would comment specifically on the reasons for their departure from the Social Liberals, but the rift between Khader and the party’s leadership – in particular party head Marianne Jelved and immigration spokesperson Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen – had been apparent for some time.

That rift began to grow wider last week after Nielsen made a public appearance in a Muslim headscarf. She called the appearance a show of support for Muslim women, but the Syrian-born Khader saw the move as a kowtow to the religion’s conservatives.

So no kowtowing to the islamists amongst us then?

I look forward to that.

The New Alliance website gives sparse details of any political intent but it does mention the reduction of taxation,(Yay!) a viable and humane immigration policy (whatever that may be!) and support for globalisation and the raising of foreign aid.
Seeing themselves as a center party, looking to build bridges between left and right, they claim to be tired of contractual and reactive politics. They intend to take what they believe to be the best of social liberal and social conservative policies with them.

This may be one to watch over the next few weeks. I will try to stay abreast of developments.