What do these human rights organizations say about the mistreatment of non-Muslims in Muslim countries? Why do they think that someone who is set against the parameters of the society in which he lives has a natural right to stay in that society? "HR Organizations Warn EU Countries Against Deportations," from zaman.com, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
Deporting foreign national Muslims who pose a “terror threat” is becoming a wide spread policy among European governments in the wake of the London attacks.Following France and Italy, Britain now has declared deportation of radical community leaders who follow a course of violence. Human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (AI), however, indicate individual or collective deportations violate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). European countries, which implement that as a measure, may reportedly face many suits on the violation of rights at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Following the July 7 London attacks, many European governments announced possible deportations of those who advocated or encouraged terror. Just after the London attacks, the European Commission announced a project for the integration of radical ideological leaders back to their home countries.
The Union, however, remained reluctant to heed the Commission’s call. In July, France deported 12 Muslim clerics despite their French citizenship.
French Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy had assured at that time that they would not allow such hatred inciting clerics to confuse young Muslims’ minds.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s counter-terrorism plan envisaged the listing of radical web sites, bookstores organizations and the deportation of any foreigner involved in them. Italy in turn launched an investigation into about 200 individuals in order to deport the radicals.
Union countries that implement the deportation measure run the risk of facing many suits at the ECHR and paying millions of euros in compensation. As a matter of fact, the subjection of the deported to torture and ill treatment in their home country effects the violation of the ECHR’s third clause. In the Singh Chahal case, a Sikh activist deported by British authorities, in 1996 the Court had ruled that Britain had abused the fundamental rights of the plaintiff. Human rights organizations indicate that this case will constitute an example for others to come. Organizations such as AI, HRW and Liberty react against deportations to such destinations as Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Algeria where capital punishment is still in force.
So, any EU country can withdraw from ECHR any recognition. But do they have the nerve to do it? AI, HRW, ACLU, they are all harming the Infidels. It is amazing how these organizations are more concerned about Muslims than the people who are the target of Muslim enmity.
Fine - dont deport them then. Lock them up and feed them pork for breakfast lunch and dinner.
HR organizations should be challenged on this. All of you who are members or supporters of organisations like AI or HRW (I assume some JW readers are, as protecting human rights is a crucial concern of all of us who are wary of jihad, right?), withdraw your support; write them, tell them that you didn't mean to give it to fight for the rights of Islamic terrorists. Those stopped by AI activists in the streets, don't pass by; tell them why you're not interested: because you genuinely care for human rights, not for any PC show in defence of those who are doing everything in their power to undermine the whole human rights system as we know it. Ask them what they are doing for the human rights of the victims of Jihad and Sharia. Ask them, which "right" is more important: the right to blow up Infidels, or the right not to be blown up? The right to incite politically and religiously motivated violence, or the right not to have to be afraid of such violence?
I'm ashamed to have once donated money to Amnesty International. I won't make that mistake ever again.
Blair has already said Britian will amend the law if there are legal challenges to the deportations.I doubt citizens care anymore whether or not Muslims who hate the west are tortured when returned to their home countries.I know I don't care.
"Article 3 of the ECHR is an inaliable right that Nation States within the EU cannot deregate from". - I understand that Cherie Booth, the Prime Ministers wife, said such a thing in Thailand recently.
Well my friends, we will have to see about that.
The boom days of eternal growth of the Human Rights Industry in the UK are over - no matter what Cherie Booth says.
Amnesty International / HRW & all the other rights peddlars are little more than protective umbrella's for terrorists, peadophiles & illegal immigrants nowadays. I cannot recall the last time they actually represented someone I did not despise or believed to be responsible for their own predicament - the so called "British" inmates at Guantanamo Bay immediately spring to mind, or the poor deluded Muslim girl who took her Muslim School to Court because it wasn't Muslim enough, or the convicted killer suing the Courts for nervous stress because he had to wait 21 months to learn of his reduced sentence, or the prisoners suing to get access to pornography, or the taxi driver who ran down & killed a young teenager & then sued the boys parents...the list goes on & on & on...& I cannot find a worthy use for these new Laws & Rights in any instance. The only winners are the likes of Cherie Booth & the myriad of Lawyers of her ilk - & of course the pond life they regularly represent.
As a law abiding, tax paying Englishman with no criminal record, I cannot for the life of me remember when I exactly needed all these new rights - & indeed organisations to watch over those rights for me.
rahel: Bang on mate. I couldn't agree with you more.
A good many of these so-called "Human Rights" organizations are staffed by those who either see no difference between the moral standing of the West, or never did much like that West.
These people, many of whom are corrupt morally, intellectually, and in other ways. The biggest NGO of them all, the King of Ngolandia, is the United Stations. Think of what preoccupies it, and what is ignored. Think of how it has handled, for example, the mass murder in Biafra (1967-1969), or the mass murder and mass slavbery in the southern Sudan (1980- present), or the mass murder in Darfur, or the Arab enslavement of blacks in Mali and Mauritania. Think of the amount of attention it gave to the mass murder by Arabs of Kurds, or the cultural and linguistic oppression by Arabs of Berbers. Think of how often the U.N. has addressed the destruction of thousands of churches, and the attacks on Christians, in Indonesia, or the persecution and attacks on Hindus in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, in Kashmir. Think of how much time has been spent, on the other hand -- is it 1/3 or 1/2 of the total -- spent on the issue of the recently-invented "Palestinian people" and The Mighty Empire of Israel, that doth bestride the world like a menacing colossus. Think of the oil-for-food business. Think of the U.N. soldiers and civilians, with their sex slaves in situ, and their use of diplomatic immunity to engage in all sorts of smuggling of valuables. Do you think it is the U.N. alone? Those who have made it their business to study the efficacy of NGOs, of their programs, of what they turn a blind eye to and what they pocket whhile "doing good" (some may join NGOs -- the ones that presume to preach to America and the West -- out of less base motives, but many are.
A few years ago the British historian of the Empire Professor David Carradine noted that imperialism did not always make sense economically for Great Britain as a whole. It was sometimes a drain. But what it did do was provide a rise in status for a great many English men and women who, if they were lower-middle-class at home, could find themselves in Africa, or in India, enjoying a standard of living, and the ability to order around others, that they could not have enjoyed if they had remained at home.
Many of these NGO people, flying hither and yon on expense accounts, presuming to tell this country or that country what it should do, and wrapping themselves in the mantle of righteousness (which, on closer inspection, they often appear not to deserve), have escaped from the more boring lives of those they went to school with, but who are now toiling in the vineyards of law firms or departments of government or economics. And the salaries, and the benefits, and the opportunity for all sorts of lording it over others with all that comes with that, makes many of these waBenzi ("the People of the Mercedes Benz" as they are called by us jaded Swahili speakers in East Africa) of Ngolandia deserve, not automatic respect, but automatic skepticism, and cynicism. A few of these organizations are legitimate, or were --= just look at what the ACLU has become, in its personnel and therefore in its policies, or perhaps one might say, in its policies, and therefore in its current personnel.
Ngolandia deserves investigation, and not the kind of free pass it has heretofore received. These "new imperialists" -- the American law students brightly spending their summers refashioning the world -- eight weeks here in Moscow, or 4 weeks in Cambodia, or 5 weeks over here in Venezuela -- who of course are simply pad-pad-padding their resumes, and whose proud parents can tell others about how their children spent their summer vacation -- the complacency of it all, and the hollowness of so much of it, infuriates.
That dangerous cocktail of false Marxism (because the Soroses of this world have no intention of really changing the system from which they have so handsomely profited, but merely to hand out, to recycle, to "launder" their ill-gotten gains as los medicos de Medellin "launder" their drug money), of Third-World-ism (tiersmondisme)in which, somehow, the fabulously and entirely undeservingly rich plutocrats of such Muslim oil statesas the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are allowed to present themselves as members in good standing of this "Third World" without anyone collapsing in laughter, and finally, a dislike of their own societies, or a pretend-alienation which may not really be felt, but which colors what they do, what they say, what they think they should think -- these are the three strands that explain so many of the denizens of Ngolandia.
Presuming to lecture the peoples and polities of Europe as to what they can, or cannot do, to protect themselves from what is both a physical and a civililzational threat -- as described in the article above -- is merely the latest example of their tendentiousness, their indifference to reality, their cruel and stupid assumptions about the Western world and its need to make amends.
Meanwhile, these well-paid, plumply self-satisfied "public servants" of Ngolandia -- servants of their own agendas, that is -- are paid for by the long-suffering taxpayers of the Western world. These are the same taxpayers who, by allowing these organizations preferential tax status, are asked to refrain from sensible measures to protect themselves by these Ngolandians.
And meanwhile, as those taxpayers who, through the jizya of foreign aid to practically every Muslim state that happens not to share in the oil bonanza, the Arabs and Muslims they help support in their Al-Jazeera and Qur'an-Hadith-Sira-fueled hostility, or even hysteria and hate, go through the tran-tran of the commute, the job, and sleep, the routine of metro-boulot-dodo, all over the Arab and Muslim world, there is either the fabulously luxurious life, entirely the result of an accident of geology,, lives of indolence and luxury, or there are those who, sitting in cafes playing cards or other games, or lips affixed to hubble-bubble pipes, while eyes of both game-players and sheeshs-sippers remain fixed on the Al-Jazeera programs being blared out from the television that sits atop a shabby shelf, pouring out its hate, its hysteria, its untreatable poison.
I hate to use a cliché, but "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" seems to apply here. While it would be great if deporting these clerics would help, I am not convinced it would. They would simply move to a country that already allows jihadists to operate (see Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran) with relative impunity and they would still be able to contact jihadists who live in the shadows in Western countries. At least if they live here they can be constantly surveilled. We can keep tabs on them far better this way.
My next comment may be extremely unpopular, but I'm glad that the ACLU and Amnesty International are fighting for the right for these clerics to say what they want. Until something that is illegal according to a government's laws is said or done, they do have the right to say these things in a democracy -- regardless of how vile and disgusting the statements may be. Surely, if it can be proven that they provided "aid and comfort" to a designated enemy they should be deported. But until then, this is a democracy and they have a right to say what they want. If HR groups are willing to suck it up and defend these people (and I'd imagine it is not easy for them to do all of the time), then I know they will also defend my right to speak. Let CAIR sue people for slander all they want. The ACLU would have no problem defending both sides' right to speak out. That's what makes democracy such a beautiful thing - there is beauty in chaos after all.
Finally, I have to call out thomas ato. What good does saying "Fine - dont deport them then. Lock them up and feed them pork for breakfast lunch and dinner." do? That is complete ignorance. It's great that you have the right to say it, but again - it serves no purpose and shows absolutely no insight on your part. I would have to say this is one of those comments that Mr. Spencer was alluding to when he informed us of the imminent end of comments. People who come to this site looking for information about the threat jihad poses to the West will not be better informed because of that comment. On the contrary, they will most likely associate this wonderful, informative site with angry people who are just venting their anger.
--Stephen
Irene Khan, a Bangladeshi "Moslem"- did it for me: When she came out declaring 'Gitmo is a Gulag'- that very moment the dubious business of Amnesia Intentional came to an end,-
for me.
Obviously there are many who still support AI, but people shouldn't forget what they really stand for. And when Mohammedans are at the helm of such organizations, like in this case Irene Khan, or Mohammed el Baradei for the International Atomic Energy Agency, then you know, should know, they they don't have our interests at heart.
The Muhammedan agenda is different...
Let CAIR sue people for slander all they want. The ACLU would have no problem defending both sides' right to speak out. That's what makes democracy such a beautiful thing - there is beauty in chaos after all. posted by Steven
Democracy is a beautiful thing to you and me, or perhaps just to me, but to the deranged muslims who are working tirelessly to destroy it, it is blasphemous and odious, an insult to allah.
When the virulent, obsessed clerics spew their vile rhetoric, thousands of malleable young muslim males are listening very carefully. How do you think terrorists are created?! Their threats to destroy the West, impose a worldwide caliphate, kill the infidels, etc. are REAL; they intend to destroy the U.S. first and then the rest of Western civilization! Is that ok with you?
I'm delighted to hear that you revel in C.A.I.R.'s frivilous lawsuits that make a mockery of our legal system, diminish our right to free speech, and empower Islamic groups to subvert our goverment. C.A.I.R.'s stated goal is to impose Islamic law in the U.S. If you really believe that the communists in the ACLU are devoted to preserving American democracy and upholding the U.S. Constitution, you are delusional. The ACLU does not defend BOTH sides; they defend the side that is anti-American and that includes Islam/muslims. The ACLU defends terrorists and obstructs every effort to defend Americans against terrorism. The ACLU is the most destructive, insidious, traitorous organization in this country.
Islam is incompatible with democracy and Western civilization. That is obvious to anybody who understands Islamic doctrine, and it should be obvious to anybody who listens to the rhetoric of those clerics you seem to admire so much. I don't want the demonic creatures anywhere near me; their very presence in America is offensive and revulsive to me. They have no right to come here and promulgate their hatred, intolerance, and delusions of superiority. Whose side are you on?
Stephen
Thanks for your last para. You articulate what I and, I hope, many other visitors to this site feel. I supported its owner's decision to end comments here, but I feel bad about what is going to be lost. At its best this site is a serious forum for discussion and exchange of information about a shrill and self-aggrandising religion that is both eroding the freedoms and preventing the social emancipation of people all around the world. At its worst it's a depository for ill-informed remarks, pointless name-calling and occasionally the kind of hate-filled venom that mirrors exactly the jihadist mindset.
I want Robert Spencer to be given a proper platform for his message. If he ever makes it across the pond I hope one day to see him on the BBC. So long as people ignore his pleas to represent this site in the spirit in which it was intended, the likelihood of that happening is diminished.
Until something that is illegal according to a government's laws is said or done, they do have the right to say these things in a democracy -- regardless of how vile and disgusting the statements may be.
I don't know of any democracy where you can say anything you want. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater nor can you engage in speech that amounts to incitement, sedition or treason.Muslims are beginning to find that out.
A Muslim "cleric" and "scholar" was just sentenced to life in prison in the United States for soliciting treason, soliciting others to wage war against the US and soliciting the use of firearms and explosive.These were all speech crimes and all are illegal.BTW- these also federal crimes and there is no parole in the federal system in the US.
Albion:
Couple of good articles in the DT opinion columns on this subject.
The Blair government is terrified of the muslim community. It talks big and backs away even when considering the Bakri case, though Bakri is not a UK citizen/subject, and can be made to leave with his harem and offspring. All this talk of deporting 500 fanatic muslim preachers is just talk, mainly to pacify the general population.
The Blair govt is good on sound bites but is in total confusion on how to deal with muslims.
Muslims, including British born muslims are waging war on Britain. In effect they are waging war on the Crown or Her Majesty. The govt and the PM as the First Minister of the Crown, has complete authority to deport these traitors. And that would be a lenient sentence, considering the magnitude of the offence.
Hugh:
And then think of what was done to the Serbs in their own land as they tried to defend their national integrity and way of life.
UNHOLY ALLIANCE
There seems to be an unholy alliance between illegal immigrants, human rights organizations, political parities, and terrorists. In Canada, for example, this quartet involves multiple NGOs, Islamic and Sikh terrorists, illegal immigrants from North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, the Punjab, and Bangladesh, and political parties (particularly the governing Liberal Party of Canada).
As an example, the large and powerful Sikh community, which still strongly supports Sikh terrorism in India, is allied with the ruling Liberal Party and there a number of powerful MPs from the community. Consequently, the government of Canada has turned a blind eye to Sikhs who finance terrorism in Canada. And it seems the government has done very little to destroy Sikh terrorist cells opeating in Canada, even after the Air India tragedy of 1985.
The Sikh community also benefits from massive illegal immigration and corrupt and ineffectual immigration and refugee policies in Canada. Almost all of the refugee claimants are fake, but most are allowed to remain in Canada because of the political clout of the Sikh community and their supporters among the NGOs. The NGOs are well aware that the refugees are fake, but lobbying from the Sikh community has led them to sell their services to it.
The Muslim community has learned from the Sikh community and illegal Muslim migrants now exceed Sikh migrants. And the Muslim community now plays a major role in sponsoring terrorism worlwide. Consequently, one of Canada's major exports now is terrorism.
Sadly, illegal immigrants are a tremendous political, security, and economic liability to Canada. Many of the fake refugees, support terrorism, oppression of women, female infanticide, are anti-Semitic and anti-Hindu, and do not believe in the equality of mankind.
Canada's immigration policies, which essentially selects for refugees which are the best liars, bodes ill for our future and that of the US. The Sikh terrorists who blew up the Air India flight (targeting Hindus) are still on the loose. Some of the explosives used in that brutal attack may still be available to the highest bidder. It is thought by some inteliigence circles that the Pakistani government or Pakistan-supported Islamic extremists may have colluded with their Sikh counterparts in the Air India bombing. The Sikh terrorists may consequently sell these explosives to the Islamic militants or hand it over to them in a gesture of gratitude.
This could prove a major threat to Canadians and Americans.
Barry
From the Times
In other words, common sense went the same way as treason, Asian-British and every other catchphrase the PR corps of the War on Terror has concocted since carnage came to town. It was a stunt, a scam, a skit, a diversion. It served its rabble-dousing purpose and was quietly consigned to the bin.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,21131-1730030,00.html
SR
Sheesh, lighten up. Admittedly not my most considered thought of the day, but a long long way from some of the other stuff.
And it was meant 'lightheartedly', sorry if anyone took it any other way.
Tom
Albion, I'm also a law abiding tax paying BRITISH citizen. Didn't you know, we're right at the bottom of the pile? Our only "right" is to carry on funding these lamentable cases that make a mockery of us all and enriching the scumbag lawyers who take them to court. Our dirty money is OK for that. People like us are considered too ignorant by these people to know any better. The Human Rights Law has been used and abused over and over again to prove that some people have more rights than others like that Luton schoolgirl - defended by Mrs Cherie Blair. Some smarter countries like Spain and France opted out of certain clauses so they could deport troublemakers. Blair signed up for the full package. Those lawyers must have been sharpening their pens with glee after they realised they had carte blanche to twist the law any which way they choose.
Barry, we are facing the shame shambolic system that permits failed asylum seekers, only 23% of whom are genuine, to escape through the net and stay on illegally in the UK. There are appeals and counter appeals sometimes going on for five or more years. This is a multi million pound business for the HR industry. One of these illegal so called asylum seekers, an Algerian who turned Jihadist, plotted to poison thousands of Londoners with ricin and murdered a policeman during capture. The main point of entry for Muslims is through arranged marriages in Pakistan. This is also a veritable industry.
Stephen (SR)
Re: "Until something that is illegal according to a government's laws is said or done, they do have the right to say these things in a democracy -- regardless of how vile and disgusting the statements may be."
They may have that right - but do they have the right to enter into our countries to say this. No one has the right of entry - it's a privilege, not a right. When such guests decide to piss all over your rug it's time to throw them out. End of story. BTW - calling for the overthrow a duly elected government to be substituted by an un-elected caliphate is sedition and should be treated as such.
I wholeheartedly agree with Rahel's recommendations. And while we are at it, how about trying to reclaim our language from the perversion of the "NGO" doublethinkers and doublespeakers. Ideas like "Civil liberties" and "human rights" are too important to be defined by those who seek their destruction.
SR-
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Repeat until it penetrates.
It is hard to know where to stand here. On the one hand, I cannot have much sympathy with albion and londongirl's attitude. On the other, it is nonsense to say that all kinds of speech ught to be free. All Western legal systems have laws against incitement, apology of crime, and conspiracy. Freedom of speech, like the freedom of motion of my fist, ceases where it can injure my neighbour's nose.
I used to think that Brits were basically tolerant and accepting of differences. Having read the entries into this web page, I now realize that you guys are more hate filled than Bush's "Christian" right wingnuts ever thought of being. Are there any of you who are not members or fellow travelers of the Aryan Nation?