Do not Object to Islaaaaaaaaam

European Union set to outlaw objections to Islamic practices

This would, of course, render us mute and hence defenseless in the face of the advancing jihad -- and that is just what it is designed to do. Free Speech Death Watch Alert: "Objections to Muslim and Homosexual Practices to be Unlawful in Europe - Media MIA," by Paul Belien for Hudson NY, October 26 (thanks to Magnus):

If all goes as planned, the 27 member states of the European Union will soon have a common hate crime legislation, which will turn disapproval for Islamic practices or homosexual lifestyles into crimes. Europe's Christian churches are trying to stop the plan of the European political establishment, but it is not clear if they will be successful.

Last April, the European Parliament approved the European Union's Equal Treatment Directive. A directive is the name given to an EU law. As directives overrule national legislation, they need the approval of the European Council of Ministers before coming into effect. Next month, the Council will decide on the directive, which places the 27 EU member states under a common anti-discrimination legislation. The directive's definition of discriminatory harassment is so broad that every objection to Muslim or homosexual practices will be considered unlawful.

On April 2, the European Parliament passed the "directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation," 363 votes to 226. The directive applies to social protection and health care, social benefits, education and access to goods and services, including housing. American citizens and companies doing business in Europe are also required to adhere to it.

Originally intended to serve as an equal treatment directive for the disabled by prohibiting discrimination when accessing "goods and services, including housing," activist European politicians and governments had the directive's scope expanded to include discrimination on the basis of religion, age and sexual orientation.

Under the directive, harassment - defined as conduct "with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment" - is deemed a form of discrimination.

Harassment, as vaguely defined in the directive, allows an individual to accuse someone of discrimination merely for expressing something the individual allegedly perceives as creating an "offensive environment." The definition is so broad that anyone who feels intimidated or offended can easily bring legal action against those whom he feels are responsible. Moreover, the directive shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, who has to prove the negative, i.e. demonstrate that he or she did not create an environment which intimidated or offended the complainant. If the accused fails to do so, he or she can be sentenced to paying an unlimited amount of compensation for "harassment." [...]

The same phenomenon, a lack of interest on the part of European and also American public opinion, is apparent with regard to the semi-legal initiatives taken at the level of the United Nations. On October 2nd, the UN Human Rights Council approved a free speech resolution, co-sponsored by the US and Egypt, which criticizes "negative racial and religious stereotyping." American diplomats said the decision to co-sponsor the resolution was part of America's effort to "reach out to Muslim countries." The resolution passed unanimously, with the support of all Western nations. Though the resolution has no immediate effect in law, it provides Muslim extremists with moral ammunition the next time they feel that central tenets of Islam are being treated disrespectfully through the creation of what they perceive to be an 'offensive environment.'

Comments

[dented_uk]

Pat Condell's latest video, talks about Obama and for Americans to wake up!

[moderationist]

So nobody can object to muslim genocide, muslim murder, muslim rape???

[En français]

So when they come to cut off your gdmf head, you're not supposed to make a sound. The promoters of this bs need to be hanged on the square.

[David Chrisman]

Religious belief is a choice, while race, age, and sexual orientation are not. By mixing the two categories together, the law violates the freedom of conscience provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The absurdity of this law is obvious if, for example, Ford owners were forbidden from telling Chevy owners why Fords are better cars.

[lilredbird]

Exactly how do they plan to forbid the Muslims from preaching death to homosexuals without objecting to Islamic practices? These people aren't even trying to make sense any more.

Many people like to use the the fact that one cannot "prove" a negative to claim that anything is "possible". Theoretically, at least, Muslims can "prove" that infidels are "creating an environment" that offends them simply by refusing to believe in and submit to Allah. If they haven't thought of that yet, they will. In the meantime, under such a directive with its potential to silence all critics through financially devastating lawsuits it will soon become impossible to defend ones right of free speech from physical assault. If someone is beaten in the street for holding a sign criticizing Islamic practice, exactly how does that person go about obtaining justice when the assailant can countercharge that his victim was violating the law by "intimidating" and "offending" him?

This is why censorship and the criminalization of free speech must necessarily lead either to complete abject submission or physical resistance. The gunpowder has been piling up for years. The EU is about to light the fuse.

lilredbird/rra

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1817917771]

I agree with David Chrisman that religious belief is a choice. As is the right to say you disagree with that persons religious choice. If that becomes a crime we are all doomed! I disagree with all religious fanatics that want to kill, mame, rape, hurt, destroy other people because they are of a different religious or cultural group, or because they believe they can because their religion says they can!

I think people should say they dislike or disagree with something - but that should not lead to a religion or a sexual identity being outlawed. The right to be free (a very difficult concept in reality but stay with me) and the right to be free to say what you feel must be accepted. A difficult agenda for sure, but the concept must remain.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000052479761]

This is one big bloody joke.

Ok, I'm a lesbian. I'm also an objectivist and a member of Mensa.

I do want fully equal rights, including the right to marry and adopt in the exact way straight people can. Some people see that as extreme. Some, especially where I live (Poland) see that as far left-wing, ROTFL!

But I want rational Equality before the Law. I don't want special treatment, I don't want the right to sue the **** out of anyone who looks at me funny, I want the same protection from libel, slander and other forms of defamation as any other citizen, just that and exactly that.

I certainly don't want so-called "tolerance", "tolerance for everything", "tolerance for the sake of tolerance". The simple fact that the idea of "tolerance" calls for us to accept Islam with all its atrocities as "just another culture, not to be judged" shows how morally and intellectually bankrupt this whole concept is.

"with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment" - this is not a Law, it's an abomination, something which only a small-minded bureaucrat parasite could conceive or support. It's so vague it means nothing. It's not anti-discrimination, it's exactly the kind of moral nihilism Ayn Rand warned us about.

"Exactly how do they plan to forbid the Muslims from preaching death to homosexuals without objecting to Islamic practices?" - that was the third thing that crossed my mind. The first and second were mostly profanities and disbelief.

And exactly what are they going to do about honor killings and FGM now? It's part of their culture and religion, so it's acceptable and can't be punished, at least according to that joke of a directive.

[jj]

friends:

let the killing begin. civil war is the only way this will be resolved, and the yoke of the euro union cast off from the necks of europeans.

lilredbird & lilanne blaze:

pertinent comments, and they show there is no resolution of these issues. save one. and, that is "differential" prosecution of whites and indiginous populations, and virtually no prosecution of muslims for offenses, as is the standard practice now in europe. so, muslims call for executions and beheadings, as is their practice, and they are not prosecuted. phillippe dewinter says he is an "islamaphobe," ... , utters one word, and he is hauled before a court, fined, and his political party is disbanded and prohibited from taking part in euro politics. over one word. no incitement to violence, no threats, no intimidation.

the disparity could not be clearer.

it is time for europeans to decide. it is either abject surrender, or it is to take the fight to the streets, and killing. there seems to me no middle ground.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

[jj]

correction: "indigenous"

[jj]

friends:

do the europeans not have the native wit to understand that this is simply the muslim conquest of europe?

time to fight, if they are to preserve themselves. do they simply not care?

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

[attilashrugs]

Hmm, what to do when the Muslims execute Sharia Law on homosexuals!

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000052479761]

I'm not convinced "conquest" is the right word.

But sure as hell that it's begging to have Sharia shoved down our throats.

Don't they realize they're for all intents and purposes legalizing abominations such as honor killings, marriage rapes and FGM?

Time for some serious church-state separation. Start by treating religion-motivated crimes exactly the same as 'ordinary' ones, no more leniency. All crimes, from slander to murder.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000052479761]

I guess if one of them tries to hang me and I kill him in self-defense I'm either walking free with a pat on the back or spending the next zillion years in jail depending on... depending on what exactly? A roll of bloody dice?

Does not compute.

[jj]

lilianne blaze:

time for catholicism, judaism and the protestant denominations to step up, officially oppose islam, and for the western churches to issue authorization to their faithful adherents to protect the churches, protect civilization, protect their nations and nationality, ... , and to authorize war against islam in said defense of all that is holy, and just and good.

during the crusades and after the popes issued "papal bulls" that made the various knights templar possible, and gave the church a military arm independent and superior to the nations then extent, and authorized the faithful to kill and commit murder against islam without fear of divine retribution & earthly punishment for committing mortal sin. the bulls were dispensation from sin, amongst other things.

it worked then. if the pope and the spiritual leaders of judaism and protestism were to do the same today, it would unleash those who remain faithful to oppose the onslaught of islam: in short, the issuance of bulls and the like would work today.

i believe that if the churchs were to challange civil authority on this issue, enough people would ally with the churchs to shove the civil authority out of the way, to do what must be done.

and, yes, lilianne, what islam is doing is a conquest, and it is freely described by them as such. you need to pay more attention to what islam says it intends, and stop regarding it as merely vaguely amusing & irritating. it is a dire threat to the existence of europe, and, as you are a self professed lesbian, it is a dire threat to your life. period.

you are a member of mensa. apply that considerable intelligence to understanding the peril that faces you.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

p.s. time to start running guns to europe. lots of 'em. little & big ones. but, mostly assault rifles, most useful for urban warfare.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000052479761]

Fanatics are fanatics, Islam or Christian. I strongly oppose empowering one religion to fight the other, that's just trading one problem for another. Anyone who feels he can do whatever he wants to "save souls" or "fight infidels" is dangerous, period.

"stop regarding it as merely vaguely amusing & irritating" - I never did.

"what islam is doing is a conquest, and it is freely described by them as such. you need to pay more attention to what islam says it intends, and stop regarding it as merely vaguely amusing & irritating. it is a dire threat" - In case I wasn't clear - I question the use of that particular word, I don't question the threat. Yes, it is a grave threat, and yes, it needs to be stopped. I'm just not so sure if "conquest" is the right word (and note I don't say it isn't - I just say I'm not sure it is) because it suggests organized action - and what I see in directives such as this one is not "organized action", but monumental stupidity and blindness. But no matter if it's "organized action", "stupidity and blindness" or some of the first, some of the second, I fully agree with the assessment that it's "a dire threat to the existence of europe" and a dire threat to lives of all "infidels" (and to fanatics all are infidels except the most devout of their own faith). I 99% agree with all you said except with using one religion to fight another.

"time to start running guns to europe. lots of 'em. little & big ones. but, mostly assault rifles, most useful for urban warfare." - Oh how I envy you the 2nd Amendment!

[jj]

lilianne blaze:

the muslim brotherhood, high ranking islamic clerics, ... , all speak of a muslim demographic conquest of europe.

john jay

p.s. its true. trust me. it is a conquest, and it is planned.