European Socialists decide to tackle IslamophobiaOnly one sentence into the article and we've encountered our first lie. That doesn't bode well, does it? And indeed, the 25 'person' strong committee of members of the toy parliament know in advance where the blame for 'islamophobia' is to be found:
European socialist organizations have decided to stem the increasing Islamophobia in Europe by breaking the monopoly on the debate which has, up until now, primarily belonged to far-right and ultranationalist groups.
Believing that Islam is now a European religion, the 25-member committee wants to "listen" to the 20 million Muslims now living in Europe in a bid to understand their problems, as well as provide solutions to alleviate their grievances.You mean grievances like raining ham? Or a small monument commemorating victims of the Nazi occupation? Reasonable and justified grievances like those?
But it gets even more dispicable. Not being able to come up with a good example of organized pogroms against the poor muslim community in Europe, they come up with this:
Prejudices against Islam and Muslims, who have sometimes been referred to as the “enemy within” by far-right elements, have been on the rise since Sept. 11, and also exacerbated in the wake of the al-Qaeda inspired terrorist attacks of March 11 in Spain and July 7 in Britain. An Islamophobic backlash was perceived in the publication of controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, with Pope Benedict XVI’s much publicized statement on the “violent” nature of Islam, for which he later apologized, further stoking the flames of anger.Got that? The dreaded 'islamophobic backlash' never actually materialized; it was perceived. Those poor sensitive souls! Ironically, the violent (without the scare quotes) nature of islam was well and truly demonstrated by the reactions around the world to both the Danish cartoons and the Popes Regensburg address.
It is not the 'ultra nationalists' that worry about islam. In fact, the real extreme right in the Netherlands for instance, sees islam as it's ally. The average citizens observe the special treatment meted out to, the ridiculous claims being made by and our politicians limp-wristed reaction to the RoP (tm). And it is average citizens who make their worries heard in the comments on articles in the magazines and weblogs. They are not all "far-right and ultranationalist groups", they are ordinary citizens, getting more and more frustrated as they see their country taken away from them without anything they can do.
We have seen the massively violent tendencies of the members of the religion of Perpetual Outrage in the reaction to cartoons, the Pope, Salman Rushdie and heaven knows what else. We've seen the riots in Paris, we've heard the stories about vicious gang rapes and brutal robberies. And we also know, consciously or not, that the authorities have abandoned us in favor of a multi-cult mirage that is slowly but certainly fading. And in their fevered attempts to maintain the mirage, our 'betters' (definitely WITH scare quotes) are trying to hit us upside the head with the completely absurd, contradictory and meaningless word 'islamophobia'.
And why? Because they can. Because they have the power. It seems a completely natural progression of states to assert ever more power over their citizens, unless a well thought out system of checks and balances is in place. Nowadays, as evidenced by the new-fangled islamohobia committee, this progression is perpetrated under the guise of Human Rights. In Resisting 21st Century Communism Fjordman observes:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, is a crucial document. The first 21 Articles of the Declaration all profess classical Western rights, also called liberty rights or “negative rights,” including the right to private property, freedom of speech and equality before the law. However, the Declaration also contains other concepts about rights. Articles 22-27 assert the right to a good standard of living, the right to a job, to limitations on work hours etc. These are “positive rights,” which can only be achieved if other people make an effort to achieve them for you.Just yesterday we linked to a post at EU Referendum detailing the massive concentration of power into the hands of EU 'institutions' if the Turnip is ratified (with or without a referendum). Here we have yet another reason why a referendum on the Turnip is crucial for those that value their freedom. If people like Emine Bozkurt (Dutch-Turkish PvdA MEP and vice-chair of the islamophobia committee) have their way, we will lose even more of our freedom of expression. And a big chunk of our ability to defend ourselves against those parts of the muslim community that see Western Europe as an islamic colony.
Negative rights imply the right to freedom from tyranny and oppression. They imply limitations on state power, and will thus help prevent totalitarian regimes. Positive rights, however, imply that the state has to increase its power to transform society and direct the activities of its citizens in order to achieve the desired result. Sadly, according to Mchangama and Arzrouni, at the UN and at Human Rights Institutes, as well as in NGOs and among many academics, even governments, there is a consensus that economic and social positive rights should be considered equal to negative political rights.
[UPDATE001] Fjordman calls it as he sees it:
Muslims are thus moderates if they support terrorism and want to smash Western civilization. We are extremists if we resist. Europeans, from Britain via the Netherlands to Italy, are supposed to meekly accept our gradual eradication, actively promoted by our own media, intelligentsia and political leaders.