The recent sexual assault in Cologne of women on New Year’s Eve has shocked the nation. As many as 1000 men, allegedly set upon women and made them run a gauntlet as they were grabbed, their clothes ripped, and their bodies groped. Police sources and witnesses have said that many were refugees — triggering renewed objections over a spate of rapes and assaults of women in the country attributed to recent immigrants. To make matters worse for the government, newspapers are reporting that one man told police “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.” The result has been a rising tide of criticism of Merkel for her open-door policy. Yet, that criticism may now be muted by a move by the government to crackdown on anti-immigration comments as a form of “hate speech.” As we discussed today with the effort to ban Donald Trump, free speech is being rolled back in Europe under hate crime and anti-discrimination laws as an alarming rate. It is particularly worrisome when the government is under attack on an issue like immigration and responds by prosecuting people for such criticism. News reports indicate that 18 of the 31 known suspects from Cologne were asylum seekers, including “nine Algerians, eight Moroccans, five Iranians, four Syrians, an Iraqi, a Serbian, an American and two German nationals.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen comedians targeted with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).
Prosecutors are charging people who are “inciting hatred” in Germany by speaking out against immigrants and their impact on German society. Prosecutors and judges are determining what criticism will be allowed and what will be treated as criminal. In the meantime, the government has reached a deal with Facebook, Google and Twitter to crackdown on Internet speech. It is an effort to create the artificial appearance of agreement and tolerance by denying free speech to critics.
While it is still not clear how many of the Cologne attackers were immigrants (as many as 22 have been identified as refugees), the incident has been a flashpoint as numerous stories of women and girls being harassed about their clothing or assaulted by immigrants. For example, a 26-year-old Berlin man’s home was raided by police, who confiscated his computer and phones after he had posted the image of a dead 3-year-old Syrian boy on a Turkish beach and wrote “We are not mourning, we are celebrating!” A disgusting comment and one that is worthy public condemnation. However, it is also an act of free speech.
Nevertheless, many citizens are celebrating the denial of their own free speech rights. So long as they disagree with the speakers, there appears little concern over the rising tide of censorship and criminalization of speech. People are now unsure what they can say about immigration, which is precisely the chilling effect that governments seek in such measure. The result is a forced silence . . . which is golden for governments like Merkel’s that do not like what they are hearing.
Speaking of feminism, here is a worthwhile profile from Thruthdigger:
———————–
Truthdigger of the Week: Fatema Mernissi, a Founder of Islamic Feminism
Posted on Jan 10, 2016
By Natasha Hakimi
Fatema Mernissi was one of the founders of Islamic feminism. (Vysotsky / CC BY-SA 4.0)
Born in a domestic harem in Fez, Morocco, in 1940, acclaimed sociologist Fatema (also Fatima) Mernissi grew up with a unique perspective on the Islamic world. At an early age, she learned from a young Sudanese girl who was a servant in the harem that “the frontier indicates the line of power because wherever there is a frontier, there are two kinds of creatures walking on Allah’s earth, the powerful on one side, and the powerless on the other.” [Editor’s note: In her book “Dreams of Trespass,” Mernissi described post-1909 domestic harems as “in fact extended families … with no slaves and no eunuchs, and often with monogamous couples, but who carried on the tradition of women’s seclusion,” in contrast to the imperial harems perhaps best known to Westerners from the “Arabian Nights” tales.]
Mernissi understood then, in the isolation of her home—and behind the veil she had to wear whenever she was allowed to leave the harem, always accompanied by a man—that she was one of the powerless.
As Morocco gained its independence from France in 1956 and domestic harems were banned, a nationalist push allowed her to attend school and, later, to graduate from university. She obtained degrees from Mohammed V University in Rabat, Morocco, and the Sorbonne in Paris as well as earning a Ph.D. in sociology from Brandeis University. Based on Mernissi’s doctoral dissertation, her first book was titled “Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society.” It “examines Islam from a feminist perspective and critiques traditional, male-dominated interpretations,” and its publication set her on the path to becoming one of the founders of Islamic feminism.
A devout Muslim, Mernissi found proof in history and in Islamic texts that the subjugation of women was a male machination justified by “manipulations” of sacred texts. She found no evidence in the Quran and other scriptures that Muslim men were meant to dominate women. “The elite faction is trying to convince us that their egotistic, highly subjective and mediocre view of culture and society has a sacred basis,” she wrote. “But if there is one thing that the women and men of the late 20th century who have an awareness and enjoyment of history can be sure of, it is that Islam was not sent from heaven to foster egotism and mediocrity.”
Her bold readings initially attracted criticism and even protest, according to The Guardian:
Fatima’s interpretations and deconstructions of the scriptures were iconoclastic to establishment Islam, [but] she was not, by and large, a target of formal censure, because of her rigorous scholarship, her respect for and adherence to the Qur’an, her demonstrated intellectual expertise with the Qur’an and the Hadith (the sayings attributed to the Prophet) and their many concordances. Her empathetic style and her elegant use of jadal—reasoned and logical argumentation, itself a Qur’anic mode—kept the hecklers away.
In her book “Islam and Democracy,” published in 1992, the feminist thinker also analyzed the role that the first Gulf war had in turning the Arab world against the idea of democracy, a concept many have come to conflate with “violence and religion in the west, as perceived by Arab observers of American broadcasts.”
After a life dedicated to feminist Muslim scholarship as well as to work on “civil society, democracy and the digital revolution,” the writer died of cancer on Nov. 30, 2015, at a clinic in Rabat.
@Hildegard
1, January 10, 2016 at 5:19 pm
This woman’s remarks remind me of Marshall McLuhan’s observation that “Modern women decided that they did not want to be dictated to by their husbands, so they went out and got jobs as stenographers.” 🙂
Ken Rogers ““Modern women decided that they did not want to be dictated to by their husbands, so they went out and got jobs as stenographers.” Yes that’s a good one.
I wonder how women are going to feel about ‘feminism’ (I have to put it in quotes because it’s so anti-feminine) when they’re drafted into the military.
It’s not like NOTHING good has come from feminism. Hell, something good probably came from Mao Zedong’s Communist revolution but was it worth it?
@po
1, January 9, 2016 at 11:50 am
Olly says:
“”That leaves you with two choices; take a stand against these extremists which would be consistent with a belief in unalienable rights OR take a stand against those that far and wide believe the threat is Islamic extremism. You’ve chosen the latter. As a result, NOTHING that you can possibly say will be believable.””
———————-
“Wow, Olly, classic case of false dichotomy.
To break it down:
Either I side with the extremists of the left, or I side with the extremists of the right?
No in between?
Can’t I side against the extremists on the left and still believe the threat is not islamic extremism?
So the only right answer is to stand against extremism AND believing that islamic extremism is the threat?”
Whoa, po.
As you must know if you’ve read even half of my posts in this thread, I have nothing but contempt (mixed with pity for their authors) for mindless, blanket condemnations of Muslims qua Muslims, but your evasive response to Olly’s challenge here requires, to my mind, immediate clarification.
Do you or do you not have a problem with forthrightly condemning the behavior of Muslim jihadists like ISIS and their ilk who deliberately target non-combatants?
Ken
I see you not only as fair minded but also as knowledgeable. I therefore trust the reason behind the question.
As I have done countless times previously, I completely and unreservedly condemn EVERY SINGLE ACT OF VIOLENCE, EMOTIONAL, MENTAL, PHYSICAL, FINANCIAL… against ANY civilian and non-combatant, I even include in it any building, animal, tree, steam and river.
I condemn any violence of any kind against anyone unless it is in clear and evident self-defense. I reject suicide bombing, I reject pre-emptive strikes, I reject any retaliation beyond the measure of an eye for an eye. I reject prosecution based solely on suspicion, I condemn ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra Front and any group that cloaks itself in Islam to do the deeds they do.
I condemn Hamas lobbying rockets in Israel, I condemn Saudi Arabia oppression of is population, I condem any law that creates a second class citizenship due non-islamic faith.
I reject and condemn honor killing, stoning, blasphemy laws and apostasy laws.
it is easy to condemn all of those because all of those are clearly and as shown in the dozens of links I have submitted all the time, against the letter and spirit of Islam. All of the above has been clearly stated in the Quran and was exemplified in the life of the Prophet.
Let the record show, once more, that I am yet the only to have extended such clear and unequivocal condemnation of extremism.
po – you say you condemn violence of any kind, however you attack your fellow commentors all the time. You clearly have violence in your heart and it has gotten worse over time.
Nah, Paul it is just eager love…to match the one I get from them.
Unless it is violence I get from them?
Either way, it hurts me than it hurts them!
Ralph
Eat you dead heart out 🙂
Pew research shows that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. The religious group will make up 30 percent of the world’s population by 2050, compared to just 23 percent of the population in 2010. That means the number of Muslims in the world will nearly equal the number of Christians by 2050.
If Islam’s growth spurt continues, Pew data shows, Muslims could outnumber Christians soon after the year 2070.
Imagine, Ralph, your grandchildren might be Muslims! Oh, the horror! 🙁
Remember James Carville, “its the economy, Stupid?”
Now it’s repeal of the 19th amendment, stupid.
Hildegard,
‘Member “It’s the economy, Stupid” – James Carville?
Well, now it’s the birthrate, Hildegard.
It’s the cycle of reductions in the populations leading to the importation of workers leading to the dilution and,
ultimately, the extinction of the population.
Seems like that’s what’s facing America, Germany, Europe and/or Western society.
Maybe the West should have issued “guest worker” passes and its women should have borne and nurtured
greater numbers of children.
Maybe the West should not have globalized.
Riesling,
“These are comments, not arguments. It’ s a blog, not law school.”
Seems like you’re familiar with law school. Can I ask you this? Why were all Presidents before
Obama “natural born citizens” that were “…born in the country of parents who are citizens” as defined in
the Law of Nations, the authority of which is acknowledged in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution?
Do they teach the Law of Nations in law school? Seems like they would since George Washington and John
Jay, in their letter of 1786, precisely and deliberately raised the presidential requirement from “citizen”
to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
Do they teach that the Law of Nations was used as a legal text and reference by lawyers in Europe and
America including the Framers.
Many people throughout history think the American Founders were intelligent people, yet everyone seems to
doubt the source of the phrase “natural born citizen.”
Funny. It’s right there in the Law of Nations. Since the American Founders all had copies and access to the
Law of Nations, do they teach in law school that the Founders actually read the Law of Nations?
Some say that “natural born citizen” is not “defined” in the Constitution but none of the other words are
either. Do they teach that in law school?
It’s funny, also, that they referred to the Law of Nations in Article 1, Section 8 and not to the “laws of
nations,” plural, as if they were discussing the Law of Nations not the laws of nations.
Do they teach in law school that the Speaker of the House has the duty to determine and promulgate the
eligibility of presidential candidates?
I wonder if Paul Ryan will tell us that all previous Presidents before Obama had TWO citizen-parents and
were “…born in the country of parents who are citizens” and that Cruz, Rubio, and yes, Obama, are not
eligible for the office.
Do they teach the truth and facts in law school?
Muslim woman explains..
How Feminism Was Created By The Rockefellers To Destabilize Society & Tax Women
John “The promotion of artificial, affirmative action careers and the feminization agenda leads inexorably to a birthrate that enters a “death spiral” and the dilution and extinction of American, European and/or Western populations and nations.”
To the demise of all of us the feminist agenda is anti-feminine. Feminism is making men out of women and women out of men. It’s SICK and unnatural. If a woman is more naturally masculine then so be it. If a man is more naturally feminine; not a problem. But to have a highly funded PUSH to make women more masculine and men more feminine is anti-nature and we’re all suffering for it, especially the children who no longer have healthy masculine and feminine role models.
Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society, Tax Women and set up the NWO – Aaron Russo
OK. Try this:
Tin,
In Anteglobalization America, men could afford their wives and families. America enjoyed global hegemony post-WWII. Somebody changed that, deliberately. Profits increased for corporations while wages and salaries stay the same and increase around the world. America has been berry berry god for the rest of the world. That’s fair but where does it lead? Americans used to make cars and build houses. Globalization, including domestic growth, has been achieved by paying the price of societal suicide. American, Germans, Europeans, etc. have no vision of the long term. Understandably, women have chosen careers over childbirth. The industrial future looks promising but there won’t be any Americans, Germans, Europeans, etc. there to enjoy it. The problem with women is that they have shirked they natural duties to their nations. Women don’t realize that there won’t be any careers if there aren’t any babies/people. Nations with diminishing birthrates will be subsumed by nations with high birthrates.
Looks like evolutionary and intellectual progress leads to the demise of the civilization through a birthrate in a “death spiral.”
To be sure, we don’t have to worry about that now.
And that is precisely the point.
It’s funny. Lincoln killed 1 million Americans and infused America with morality and minorities. Was that the “vision” thing? American women are “free, free at last” with great affirmative action, artificial “careers as they cause Americans to vanish into extinction through a birthrate that is in a “death spiral.”
I’m not complaining. There are a couple of things I’d like to see happen though.
1. Because it already prevails in America, remove the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights and the histories and references to the genius American Founders, and formally replace them all with the Communist Manifesto including:
Central Planning
Control of the Means of Production
Social Engineering
Redistribution of Wealth
2. Recognize that feminization will lead to extinction.
The promotion of artificial, affirmative action careers and the feminization agenda leads inexorably to a birthrate that enters a “death spiral” and the dilution and extinction of American, European and/or Western populations and nations.
John – if you read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, many of your questions would be answered.
Po – I come to this blog for an interesting exchange of ideas and opinions. One can learn a lot from the professor’s and guest bloggers’ posts and the resulting comments. If we all worried about building a logical argument it would get really boring really fast. These are comments, not arguments. It’ s a blog, not law school.
Riesling, sounds like you are making my point…this is the site to lose steam and slap people around…where facts and knowledge are devalued for the benefit of making claims one cannot support
You are in the right spot, enjoy! 🙂
Is the censor here today?
Olly says:
As you and I both know, the number of believers of a given religion is insignificant if those same believers place the security of natural rights for all above the teachings of their faith. Is that possible with Islam without violating its teachings?
———————–
As I keep saying, Olly, unfortunately, the security of Christian Americans deems that other faiths should not have the exercise and security of their natural rights.
Americans place a higher priority on preserving the religious freedom of Christians than for other faith groups, ranking Muslims as the least deserving of the protections, according to a new survey.
Solid majorities said it was extremely or very important for the U.S. to uphold religious freedom in general. However, the percentages varied dramatically when respondents were asked about specific faith traditions, according to a poll by The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
Eighty-two percent said religious liberty protections were important for Christians, compared with 61 percent who said the same for Muslims. About seven in 10 said preserving Jews’ religious freedom was important, while 67 percent said so of Mormons. People who identified with no religion were ranked about even with Muslims in needing support to live out their beliefs.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765682951/AP-NORC-Poll–Religious-rights-most-vital-for-US-Christians.html?pg=all
In light of that, Olly, your claim to support natural rights is just an empty statement, practically, it means absolutely nothing.
As to whether “”Is that possible with Islam without violating its teachings?””, read the quran, read the life of the Prophet, read the letter to baghdadi I posted above…do your readings,watch this http://www.loonwatch.com/2016/01/dalia-mogahed-on-the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah/… you’ll see that the WHOLE premise of the Quran is to allow for the security of one’s natural rights, whomever you are and wherever you are.If people can be Muslim while American, and have been so since the slaves landed on these shores, and have served us in any capacity one can imagine, including the Congress, military and the White house (yes, Obama is a secret Muslim, right Paul), then to question whether the two are compatible is again either ignorant or deceptive.
Olly
1, January 10, 2016 at 3:29 pm
For me a Muslim country is one whose supreme law of the land is Islamic and not secular. Since securing the natural rights of all its citizens equally is the primary purpose for ANY government; the further away from this purpose the government functions the more extreme is their view of Islam.
—————————————–
I don’t disagree with either your definition and its conclusion, Olly.
Now lets take it a step further and identify such countries.
Republics: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan
Monarchies/Sultanates/Emirates: UAE, S. Arabia, Jordan, Qatar Sultanate of Brunei, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman,Bahrain, Kuwait.
Among those, Malaysia and Morocco are known as democracies.
Our conclusion is that most muslims do not live under an islamic law.
Let me repeat that:
MOST MUSLIMS DO NOT LIVE UNDER AN ISLAMIC LAW.
MOST MUSLIMS LIVE UNDER SOME FORM OF DEMOCRACY.
Now, when you speak of the rest of Muslimhood, more than 60%, I think, of the numbers, under the characteristics of the worse elements of that list…is that just ignorance or hypocrisy?
Thanks for the reply, Randy, one good thing about you is that you don’t shy away from answering a question even when it will end up dooming you.
Idiotic,tactically, but integre, morally and intellectually.
Many here could learn from you.
Your reply suggests a distinction of note between a legally Christian country and a culturally Christian country.
Based on that then, your claim that atheism and /or apostasy is illegal is fundamentally wrong. It can ONLY be illegal under an legal framework, not a cultural one.
Which limits the number of “Muslim”” countries where apostasy and atheism is illegal to perhaps 10? (which is too many, I give you, but that ain’t the point, and by illegal it may mean various things)
Now if we add up only majority muslim countries around the world, we may get over 50…which reveals your argument as false.
(By the way, bambam, Nick, ralph, Karen, this is how you develop an argument, based on facts and logic…)
po One problem with your count is that if you put Indonesia among the secular Muslim countries, you are wrong since on this site we just had a piece about Sharia law being enforced there. Turkey,which was a truly secular government, it is now rapidly reverting back to the old days of the Sultan. I would like to know just which countries you posit as being secular Muslim states.
For me a Muslim country is one whose supreme law of the land is Islamic and not secular. Since securing the natural rights of all its citizens equally is the primary purpose for ANY government; the further away from this purpose the government functions the more extreme is their view of Islam.
There you go Po. There is an operational definition you can use whenever I say Muslim country. It’s not open for debate because it is MY definition. If you don’t like it then you provide your own so that I know what your frame of reference is. So now perhaps your dodging will cease. I won’t be holding my breath.
As you and I both know, the number of believers of a given religion is insignificant if those same believers place the security of natural rights for all above the teachings of their faith. Is that possible with Islam without violating its teachings?
Have it your way, Tom!
Anyone interested in the activities of Bagwhan Shree Rajneesh, and his disciples, can google the 1984 poisoning of hundreds of residents of The Dalles, Oregon.
I can understand why somebody would try to palm off his name as “Osho”, given his credibility issues.
Ralph Adamo; I would like you to read Osho’s interaction with Mohammedans posted above and get your opinion. I don’t know how typical his interactions were but the outcome of them is worrying.
Po; I would like you to read Osho’s interaction with Mohammedans posted above and get your take on it.