Benedict , Itentionally or not , ROCKED THE BOAT!!! lol

It's good to see someone give it back to them once in a while.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 11, 2006 12:43 PM

Redecker gets my vote for all the crap he has to go through for telling the truth in the ummah. He should emmigrate to the US already.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 11, 2006 12:47 PM

I vote for Geert Wilders, who doth bestride the world like a colossus as best he can, given that he is forced to don a hat and sunglasses and turn up his collar as he darts from day to day from one safe-house to the next under 24-hour bodyguards, for fear of being murdered by Muslims.

Posted by: remote_control at December 11, 2006 12:51 PM

Anders Fogh Rasmussen had to decide at a moment of crisis which side he was on. This is the most important test of a politician.

Geert Wilders does deserve attention and applause, I agree.

Jack Straw is a Dhimmi on immigration so he loses out. Moreover, Straw is pretending to be anti-Dhimmi because of BNP winning working class votes. He is not sincere, and wants to position himself for the greater betrayal.

Pope Benedict waffled. So he has to wait a year.

Howard is stalwart.

In the end, I agree with ISLAMSFORLOSERS, Robert Redeker gets my vote. His case is one of the common man being targeted for the uncommon courage in France to tell the truth about Islam in print without PC tears.

Let's hope he will run for Parliament, or Mayor of Paris.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 11, 2006 1:05 PM

The choices were quite good, but I had to go with John Howard. He's the only international leader who's been consistent about the duty immigrants have to adapt to their new home, not the other way around.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at December 11, 2006 1:18 PM

Considering he is a politician of a liberal western nation, and therefore more susceptible to PCitis, Howard's stance on islam has been the most brave. Gert Wilders is with him as well.

Posted by: August22 at December 11, 2006 1:21 PM

No Jens Byskov, yes I know it was last year he grovelled before Islam with his apology for the cartoons of Mo.

But a dhimmi of such (words fail me here) a level, will need to feature.

Posted by: fido at December 11, 2006 1:30 PM

I'd have liked to vote for John Howard as he has, unlike every other leader in the west, made some statements that give the impression he understands the Islamic threat.
But, if one examines his statements closely, it is obvious he is in the 'the terrorists are a tiny minority of extremists hijacking peaceful Islam' camp.
Lately, he is even talking about embedding Australian troops in Iraqi units (they'd last about 10 minutes before having their throats cut on the withdrawal of the Yanks) and Australians 'staying the course in Iraq' for heavens sake.
He doesn't really get it.
Still, what he has said is better than all the rest put together.

I voted for Pope Benedict XVI as I believe he has quietly raised awareness of the threat of Islam, in a subtle way, in an enormous number of Catholics (and Christians generally) worldwide.

Posted by: Mike_W at December 11, 2006 1:36 PM

Pope Benedict XVI, no doubt.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 11, 2006 1:39 PM

For me, either Robert or Hugh, or both shared
But since their names are not there, I would opt for Pope for creating the impact, but I feel discouraged because of his later softening.

Posted by: pagan at December 11, 2006 1:47 PM

Pope Benedict XVI (for reaching millions with his first message about Islam), and Geert Wilders a close second.

Posted by: Sasha at December 11, 2006 1:58 PM

Pope Benedict XVI should get it. When we look back say 100 years from now it could be seen as one of those turning points. I am not catholic but from a historical perspective is will be critical. It was a big stage and a big game and he took the big shot.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 11, 2006 2:05 PM

A little song for Jack Straw
https://www.cruxy.com/info/6927

and in the Holiday Spirit, too
heh

Posted by: FriarsTale at December 11, 2006 2:09 PM

Honourable mentions for all six , but the Pope gets my vote - Not because I'm Catholic , but because he visited a Muslim country after the controversy had broken and in so doing pur his life in jeopardy .
A hero !

Posted by: WeatherPermitting at December 11, 2006 2:13 PM

Benedict had my vote until the turkey debacle. But he is a man of inner strength and conviction, who clearly sees satan's work in islam, and will be back next year, mark my words.

Posted by: Infidel33 at December 11, 2006 2:23 PM

Where are Robert Spencer and Bat Y'eor on this list? Or, maybe there's a special category for scholars.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 11, 2006 2:42 PM

I vote for the no-nonsense John Howard. It takes a special breed to stand up to the "down unda dhimmis."

Posted by: kiwiviv at December 11, 2006 2:45 PM

This is a very weak ballot, so I took Howard as a last resort.

Pope B16's performance in Turkey was shabby, made me want to turn away and forget not just his trip, but his papacy.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 11, 2006 2:51 PM

It is a sad fact that with the battle of civilizations reaching a crescendo, the antidhimmi awards can only come up with the above list.

Western civilization hangs in the balance and we have yet to see anyone take a concrete and consistent stand against the Islamic march of war. If I must pick one it would be John Howard only because of his forthright statements regarding integration.

The Pope came out of the gates strong but his back peddling has only signaled weakness. And Jack Straw's attempts at anti dhimmitude are just posturing from the Labour government as they see their traditional powerbase switching to the BNP, too little too late I am afraid.

A sad bunch indeed. :-(

If I was allowed to contribte to this list I would have suggested Robert Spencer, Charles Johnston, or any other of the major bloggers who are leading the charge against the Islamic hordes.

Posted by: km at December 11, 2006 2:59 PM

Haid, I'm in complete agreement with you about Ratzinger. He possesses keen awareness, sharp intelligence, and a sense of the practical.
I offer more evidence:

12.10.2006 Sunday - ISTANBUL
ZAMAN ONLINE, A. TURAN ALKAN

The Vatican's Interesting Chess Moves

"[...] let’s not ignore the news sent from Rome by Yasemin Taskin of the “Sabah” newspaper. Published under the title, “The Vatican’s striking report on Turkey: There’s no secularism in Turkey,” the text of the news in the newspaper is very different from the copy on the Internet. I’ll refer to the Internet copy because it’s more comprehensive.

The event is this: Before visiting Turkey, the Pope ordered a broad report on Turkey from the premiership that he heads. The report prepared by the Vatican’s official historian, Giovanni Sale, is still on the Pope’s desk. The title of the report is, “Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey.”

Coming to the essential matters of the report prepared from the Vatican archives:

“There is no secularism in Turkey like that found in democratic and liberal European countries. Just as there is no freedom of religion in Turkey, religion has been completely expelled from the public sphere. Secularism has been imposed by the state. Turkey is described as a secular republic, but actually relations between politics and the state are close enough to get mixed up. Trying to imitate the French model of laicism, Turkish secularism has nothing to do with European enlightenment and liberal doctrines. While secularizing Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk did not separate religious and political powers as in Europe. He only expelled religion from the public realm and put religious affairs under the control of the government. The Ministry of Religion has a greater budget than the Ministry of Industry.”

What a photograph!

Is there any conclusion here that we can call “unfair, rough, exaggerated or false”?

We should take our hats off to the “institutional and intellectual” memory of the Vatican state which mainly owns the best and richest archives in the world. Beside, before he was elected Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger headed the Vatican’s center for dissemination of faith and doctrine. In his article in the Milliyet, Ilber Ortayli emphasizes the importance of Ratzinger’s being one of the people “who know the most languages in this time.” Compared to the seriousness of the Vatican administration’s reporting of the Turkish regime’s spiritual X-ray almost to the extent of its capillary vessels, the words of the Pope resemble a chess move that was designed taking into account the next four or five steps.

There are other interesting details in the report and they hint that the Pope approached his visit to Turkey more as a statesman than as a spiritual leader.

“Although Turkey expelled Islam from the political realm, it sprouted in civil society. Turgut Ozal’s being brought to power from Sufi circles with the approval of the military and America also took place in this period. Within political Islam and with Sufi leanings, the ruling JDP takes its place as a movement different from the Arabs’ understanding of political Islam. Describing itself as democratic and pro-Western, the JDP is creating an interesting political experiment. Hated by the Arabs, the “Christian” West can establish a dialogue with this party. The West can create a common area with the JDP based on great political themes. Islam fundamentalists see the Turkish model as its greatest enemy. It can be understood that they would like to end this (JDP) experiment with the bomb power. There’s a great probability that there will be followers of the Erdogan model outside of Turkey. This is extremely dangerous for those who don’t want dialogue between the Islamic world and the West.”

Let’s not ask the question, “How can a state report be leaked to the outside?” Maybe that’s one of the calculated moves."

Posted by: Malinois at December 11, 2006 3:00 PM

WRITE IN VOTE:

I VOTE FOR ORIANA FALLACI !!!!

Sorry for the caps but I cant believe she isnt on the list, she literally went to her grave in exile from the Dhimmis in Italy for her beliefs - please add her to your list of names !!

Posted by: deanayer at December 11, 2006 3:21 PM

John Howard, the way he said Islam is a religion of peace after 7/7 was a classic, he said it as if it was a throw away line and his actions and other speeches not least that one pointing out that the World Trade Centre happened before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to one hapless reporter was class.

Posted by: Daffersd at December 11, 2006 3:33 PM

Pope Benedict had it by several laps, then he fell off his horse.

Posted by: feralcat9 at December 11, 2006 3:34 PM

I made my selection based upon three criteria

1) Recognition of the scope of the problem, in its full historical as well as social context
2) Ability to move and form public opinion. This necessarily suggests the risk of taking heat for such moves
3) Actions actually taken in standing up for human rights and dignity, in the face of Islamic and secular deprecations

Benedict XVI was my choice. The recognized vicar of more than 1 billion Christians is a world renowned scholar and spoke to issues threatening Western culture long before most of the rest of us were aware of any such threats. He recently became the object of physcial threats for his comments made at Regensburg. He did later express regret, but regret only that anyone would take offense at his words, which were meant only to demonstrate the need for reason and faith to be melded. Finally, as vicar of the Catholic Church, his influence is a force to be reckoned with as evidenced by the Turkish management of his visit, their attempts to put words into his mouth and divert attention from the reason for his visit to Turkey: to continue dialogue with Ecumenical Patriarch Batholomew leading to reconciliation of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. That he went to a predominantly Moslem country to pursue this reconciliation is in my view an demonstration of anti-dhimmitude par excellence.

Posted by: Chatillon at December 11, 2006 3:37 PM

John Howard all the way.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 11, 2006 4:24 PM

I am not Roman Catholic, and I suppose that it could be said that I am anti-papacy in regard to what is supposed to be the Pope's "infallibility" and all, but I gave my vote to Pope Benny. While I agree that he isn't the strongest candidate when it comes to anti-dhimmitude, I believe he did more to put his money where his mouth is than anyone else. With all the pope-hatred that was generated by his speech, followed by the stop in Turkey to meet with Christian leaders there, I think he did much to express how Christianity differs from "the religion of peace."

Posted by: yohannbiimu at December 11, 2006 4:28 PM

The only two on the ballot who haven't wavered or waffled, though their lives have been turned upside-down by death threats from Muslims, are Wilders and Redeker, though unfortunately they are less well-known and less influential compared to the others.

The Pope gave us his truly remarkable (and theologically and historically accurate) statements in the Regensburg speech, but since then has been backpedalling, bowing toward Mecca etc., which for me is definitely over the line into the dhimmi, not anti-dhimmi, category. I think someone who deserves this reward should be at least fairly consistently anti-dhimmi, and should be anti-dhimmi in their present stance at the time of this poll.

Re John Howard, as far as I'm aware, he does not grasp the full extent of the Islam problem.

I agree with km: There is no major leader in the world who grasps the nature of the Islam problem .

I would like to add an important name that did not make this ballot: Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is consistently anti-dhimmi to the point that she has been living under a death threat for some time now (at least since Van Gogh's death), knows the full extent of the Islam problem, and is probably more influential than Wilders internationally.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 11, 2006 4:31 PM

In the end, I agree with ISLAMSFORLOSERS, Robert Redeker gets my vote. His case is one of the common man being targeted for the uncommon courage in France to tell the truth about Islam in print without PC tears.

He is a common man, a high school teacher. He risked his life and future and didn't have a Swiss guard or Secret Service to guard his body. He said it in plain words and in a country with 10% population which is Muslim... that means at least 4% of the country would support his violent death for the words he wrote.

That, my friends, takes huge stones.

Think about it... would you sign your name to a polemic in France?

It's easy to come on this sight and say the things we say. Robert Redeker did it in the light of day without anonymity or protections. What utter balls!

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 11, 2006 4:40 PM

Archimedes,

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a great choice for All Time Anti-Dhimmi.

Cheers,

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at December 11, 2006 4:40 PM

Archimedes

Correct!

Lets also not forget two people who should be remembered: Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has been playing it low after her removal from Holland (now at AEI) and Oriani Fallaci who is not with us any more.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 11, 2006 4:45 PM

As I see it, we are not voting on the anti-dhimmi event but the anti-dhimmi of the year internationally.

The Pope's Regensburg speech is probably the anti-dhimmi event of the year, but the event became high-profile from some unlikely sources in the media, as well as the irate Muslims worldwide. Without the media and irate Muslims, that speech (to a limited audience at the university) would have probably gone unnoticed.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 11, 2006 4:46 PM

I think the lesson learned in such polls is to have a longer nomination period with some idea of who the top candidates are in advance.

Definitely the winner should be Orianna Fallaci.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at December 11, 2006 4:53 PM

Dr. Bulldog, yes, hopefully we'll hear more from Hirsi Ali...she has promised some kind of big project, as I recall.

Greatcomet, last year, Fallaci won the prize in this category, see
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009364.php

Posted by: Archimedes at December 11, 2006 4:55 PM

Heck I have one the beats Robert Redeker although very worthy...

The unnamed Nigerian Girl (14 or 19 depending on reports) in June who was stoned to death for attacking Muhammed in a mosque. She walked into the mosque and gave them a letter negative to Muhammed and then she was arrested and stoned to death.

Now that takes REAL STONES!

I completely forgot about her and she should be remembered. There are many unnamed people everyday who die fighting against this menace and perhaps a tomb of the unknown anti-dhimmi would right and proper.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012029.php

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 11, 2006 4:56 PM

I agree with Old Atlantic and km. Jack (man of) Straw doesn't belong in this list. Normally, he'd be nominated as a dhimmi, and his belated suggestion that Muslim women abandon the niqab alone can't possibly qualify him for this award.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 11, 2006 4:56 PM

I also agree that Jack Straw doesn't qualify for this list. I would suggest that Cardinal Pell's public statements on Islam should have earned him a place on this list.

Posted by: Ozi_bloke at December 11, 2006 5:28 PM

Why can I only vote for the six most-often-nominated people? That's an uncharacteristic limitation on the expression of my opinion. Jihadwatch had not looked like the sort of place where bureaucrats could take control..

I wanted to vote for Oriana Fallaci, as a posthumous recognition of a lifetime's work against all fascisms, and islamofascism in particular. Sge was the scourge of all dhimmis, wherever they lurked.

Posted by: martyrmaker at December 11, 2006 5:31 PM

Robert Redeker is my absolute choice. The pope, after giving such a great hope to the anti-Jihad forces, went in submission to Turkey and prayed toward Mecca as opposed to Redeker who is still in hiding for his words. I posted Redeker's article in English to my blog at http://islamthreat.blogspot.com for all to read the words of this brave soul.

Posted by: stevedecatur at December 11, 2006 5:49 PM

John Howard received my vote. He was the one world leader who stood out amongst all of his peers and called it as it was.

This is a huge step from someone in elected office not giving a damn about votes, but saying what needs to be said.

God Bless John Howard, and may the world find more leaders like him before it's too late.

I also agree with post above Robert Spencer, Bat Yeor and the secretive and mystical Hugh Fitzgerald should be on the list also.

By the way does anyone know anything about who Hugh is? I know he's well read, well versed and an excellent writer, but I can't find anything on who you are Hugh. I can't help but be curious.

Niv

Posted by: The fanatic at December 11, 2006 6:16 PM

Pope Benedict XVI

The fanatic said

the secretive and mystical Hugh Fitzgerald

Based on the sureness of his convictions, I once thought Hugh was a precocious 20-or-30-something-year-old. It's uncommon to watch the world for decades and still be sure of anything. But now I realize that no-one could have gained that much knowledge, or read that extensively, in less than 150-200 years. I hope they've been good ones.

Posted by: special_guest at December 11, 2006 7:00 PM

Benedict gets my vote.

Though he seemed to backtrack, I feel a special burden for the Christian church being "dhimmitized". Benedict can be a major force for anti-dhimmitude if he has the courage.

Posted by: Foreign at December 11, 2006 7:28 PM

Pope Benedict XVI

Posted by: Foehammer at December 11, 2006 7:40 PM

I think the list is fair. Sure, plenty of people can come out and say very anti-dhimmi things, but how many of those people are leaders on the world stage? Such leaders do have to be careful of what they say.

With that in mind, and although I admire the Pope as a man of great intelligence and humility, I'll go with John Howard for consistently keeping his eye on the ball.

Posted by: Brett_McS at December 11, 2006 8:08 PM

Pope Benedict did a good thing with the Regensburg speech, and he may yet turn out to be anti-dhimmi, but some aspects of his Turkish trip give cause for concern. I hope the Catholic commenters on here turn out to be correct; we'll see.

Robert Redecker was brave to write what he did, but it will take many more of him to have any real effect. Geert Wilders is anti-dhimmi, but also not very influential yet. Jack Straw is nothing but a political opportunist, though it is good that being anti-dhimmi is beginning to look like a political opportunity in Britain.

John Howard is a great anti-dhimmi, but Australia is a much more powerful country than Denmark. Rasmussen, therefore, is the winner for sheer courage, upholding his convictions in the face of threats, violence, and boycotts against his tiny country.

Posted by: tvdog at December 11, 2006 9:17 PM

I vote for Narendra Modi
Since 2002, he has kept muslims under check in Gujurat

He has actually dealt with islamists on the street level instead of just jawboning

Posted by: Shyamsunder at December 11, 2006 9:38 PM

All the above were great, some better, l voted for PM Howard for this year he has had to be more vocal over the rape charges and beach riots, and then the uncoverered meat imman scandal, and then sending men to Afganistan. so thumps up for PM Howard!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 11, 2006 9:55 PM

Benedict for anti-Dhimmi?
You have got to be kidding me.

Isn't this the man who prayed toward Mecca after visiting Attaturk's tomb? What am I missing? Where is the courage you all must see?

I can only see an islamic butt-kissing appeaser.

Did he ever once mention the Armenian genocide while in Turkey?

Didn't he publicly call for Turkey to be included in the EU?

You people are losing me. I'm not anti-Catholic. But this makes me sick to see the bar set below sea level like this. The apostles of the Christian faith all stood for the gospel of Jesus Christ and every one paid with their own blood for taking a stand. How is this successor to St. Peter at all in that same tradition?

Come on--show me.

Posted by: BB at December 11, 2006 10:38 PM

Could I include George Cardinal Pell of Australia to the list of potential anti-dhimmi of the year.

He's made quite a few strong speeches, has read Bat Yeor, Andrew Bostom, et al, and when challenged, didn't give an inch. In fact, he went out there and expanded on his previous and powerful remarks.

I'm not sure whether he would be the winner, but surely he should be up for consideration.

And he's made a few remarks in defense of the West, in defense of the Australian culture.

He should be on the list.

Posted by: Dan at December 12, 2006 1:52 AM

It can't be Benedict XVI because he backed away from his splendid speech. His actions in Turkey left a great deal to be desired, and he clearly refused to tell the many Foreign Ministers, and Condi Rice where they could get off.

There is something unseemly about a man who gets his credentials by the movement of the Holy Spirit, backing down to squalid diplomats who have the backing of the ephemeral establishment.

He backed down, and do any of us really expect him to make a similar speech like the one he delivered at Regensburg. I don't think so, although he should be delivering similar speeches every week. The muslims should no sooner start complaining of his last speech, when he hits them with another.

This time, there will be no "Double Strike" on Regensburg. {Air Corp amateur historians might get that allusion...}.

Posted by: Dan at December 12, 2006 1:58 AM

Yea, I like DEANAYER's idea.

Let's have a write in candidacy for Orianna Fallici. Sure, it'll be a posthumous selection, but she deserved it nonetheless, for those three books of hers are the stuff of legend.

Posted by: Dan at December 12, 2006 2:01 AM

I voted for ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN!

Simply because of the fact that he didn't let hysterical muslims get their way, when the drawings of Muhammed were published.

Freedom of speach is something that he was one of the only ones to protect in those days of the Muhammed-drawings. Horrifying to see how the politicians from other political parties, were pro-censorship. Unbelievable.

Posted by: littlegreenfeetball at December 12, 2006 2:53 AM

Tough choice.
Straw and B16 are on the wrong list, though.

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at December 12, 2006 4:17 AM

Geert Wilders 4 life!

Posted by: Wim Heitinga at December 12, 2006 5:33 AM

If anyone is wondering about the sudden upsurge of Geert Wilders, just take a look here: http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/044872.html

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at December 12, 2006 6:22 AM

Geert Wilders is the only dutch politican who dares to face the islam. All other Dutch politican piddle in their pants when they see a moslim. The MP, Jan Peter Balkende and his opponent, Wouter Bos, will surrender to the moslims soon and had over Holland to the jihad.
Poor country

Posted by: schoonmoederstrots at December 12, 2006 6:29 AM

Geert Wilders is the only Dutch politician who dares to fight for our western civilization and against islamic oppression.

Posted by: Giuseppe Melone at December 12, 2006 9:18 AM

How many of these cadidates have consistently said that the problem is Islam, rather than "radical" Islam?

One man who consistently does so and needs protection 24/7 is Geert Wilders. No dillution with "radical" Islam or "interpretation" at all.

About the Pope. He may have been "careful" not to endanger Christians, but this election is for greatest anti-dhimmi, not who is best at taking into consideration the safety of Christians in Islamic nations.

By that line of reasoning, ALL politicians should keep mum about Islam to keep in mind the safety of people abroad. This excuse is used way too often by fans of the Pope, and magically, hardly ever used for politicians. This is a double standard most likely derived from a certain level of "Pope-worship" by creationists.

Posted by: Dan Cannon at December 12, 2006 12:06 PM

I think Wilders should get the win here. I see no foul in his come-from-behind victory here.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at December 12, 2006 3:02 PM

Geert Wilders deserves his win.
Even though lots of votes came via dutch
www.geenstijl.nl
Lots and lots of voters for Wilders in dutch
parliament are also frequent visitors of the
site geenstijl.nl
That and that only may explain the explosive
overnight win for our hero Geert.

Posted by: Dokter Terpstra at December 12, 2006 6:16 PM

"UPDATE: I've asked Cox and Forkum to put both Wilders and Howard in the cartoon."

I do not know if this means Wilders "wins" in any sense of the word, but at least he gets recognition. I still believe that he should have "won" the poll by himself. The use of steering people to the poll via another website shouldn't be a problem.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at December 12, 2006 7:06 PM

I hope that those of you from the Netherlands who have found this site due to this poll will continue to visit. You're all welcome.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at December 12, 2006 7:08 PM