Turkish Police Raid Media Outlets Of Erdogan's Rival Fethullah Gulen

In a nationwide raid, 23 people affiliated with Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen have been arrested. Gulen- who is now based in the U.S.- was a former ally-turned-critic of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In what they termed "anti-terrorism" the police raided media outlets, including a TV station and the Anatolia news agency.  There were also attempts to raid the Zaman Daily, but crowds prevented that from happening. Some of those detained were an executive, producers and directors of the TV station, and employees of the state-run Anatolia news agency.  This seems to be payback for investigations into a mega bribery and corruption scandal involving members of Erdogan's administration.

The raids on Zaman newspaper and Samanyolu television marked an escalation of Erdogan's battle with former ally Gulen, with whom he has been in open conflict since a graft investigation targeting Erdogan's inner circle emerged a year ago.

"The free press cannot be silenced," a crowd chanted at the offices of Zaman as its editor Ekrem Dumanli made a speech defiantly challenging police to detain him, while elsewhere in Istanbul the chairman of Samanyolu TV was being detained.

"This is a shameful sight for Turkey," Samanyolu TV group chairman Hidayet Karaca told reporters just before he himself was held.

"Sadly in 21st Century Turkey this is the treatment they dish out to a media group with tens of television and radio stations, internet media and magazines."

Media reports said arrest warrants had been issued for 32 people. State broadcaster TRT Haber said 23 people had been detained in raids across EU-candidate Turkey, including two former police chiefs. As well as Karaca, a television producer, a director and scriptwriters were held.

More interesting info here regarding the arrests and the Gulen/Erdogan battle.

Tell me why Turkey deserves to join the E.U.?

Mozilla's CEO Forced To Resign Over Private Political Contribution Liberals Didn't Like

Mozilla's CEO Brendan Eich was forced to resign after it was discovered that he had made a private donation of $1,000 in 2008 supporting California's Proposition 8. You know that proposition that had every liberal and gay activist up in arms, the one that defined marriage as being between  a man and a woman.  Mozilla knew about his 'transgression' two years ago, but Eich was only senior management at the time, not the head honcho of the makers of the web browser Firefox.  As soon as he was promoted to Chief Executive last month, apparently half the board resigned, and there was an immediate call for his resignation. Which he did.

This is the reaction from one Heritage Foundation scholars:

Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society, warned that “bullies” were poisoning democratic discourse by attacking anyone who doesn’t share their view:

The outrageous treatment of Eich is the result of one private, personal campaign contribution to support marriage as a male-female union, a view affirmed at the time by President Barack Obama, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, and countless other prominent officials. After all, Prop 8 passed with the support of 7 million California voters.

So was President Obama a bigot back when he supported marriage as the union of a man and woman? And is characterizing political disagreement on this issue—no matter how thoughtfully expressed—as hate speech really the way to find common ground and peaceful co-existence?

Sure, the employees of Mozilla—which makes Firefox, the popular Internet browser—have the right to protest a CEO they dislike, for whatever reason. But are they treating their fellow citizens with whom they disagree civilly? Must every political disagreement be a capital case regarding the right to stand in civil society?
When Obama “evolved” on the issue just over a year ago, he insisted that the debate about marriage was legitimate. He said there are people of goodwill on both sides.

And:

Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and senior legal fellow, said the episode was an example of how the disclosure of political contributions served as a means to intimidate and harass an individual for his personal views:

Before Eich resigned, he pointed out that he had kept his personal beliefs out of Mozilla and that they were not relevant to his job as CEO. He was exactly right, although that did not prevent him from resigning.

In a startling display of irony that was obviously lost on her, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, who approved of Eich’s resignation, said it was necessary because “preserving Mozilla’s integrity was paramount.” She seems not to recognize that forcing a founder of the company to resign because of his personal beliefs that have nothing to do with his qualifications as a corporate officer is the exact opposite of “integrity.”

Eich is certainly not alone in his predicament. As The Heritage Foundation previously pointed out, other supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, death threats, and anti-religious bigotry. All committed by individuals claiming they are simply trying to gain “acceptance” and who complain about the supposed intolerance of society over their lifestyle.

Although Andrew Sullivan of The Dish claims he's a conservative, he's pretty liberal on most social issues, including redefining marriage. He also happens to be openly gay and proud, and he was outraged at what happened to Eich, saying it “should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society.”

He posted this on his website:

The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. After an OKCupid decision to boycott Mozilla, the recently appointed Brendan Eich just resigned under pressure:

[snip]

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

Some of his readers took issue with his stance, so he wrote another post addressing those issues.

It's a sad day when our private lives can adversely effect our work life.

4/7/14:  Seems Eich founded Mozilla, so was basically forced out of his own company.

Portrait Of Putin In Woman's Slip Gets Russian Gallery Owner In Trouble

Some satirical portraits of Russian high-ranking politicians has landed a St Petersburg art gallery (Museum of Authorities) in major trouble.  Owner Aleksandr Donskoi's latest exhibition was raided, 4 paintings were confiscated, and the gallery was subsequently shut down.

One of the portraits that was seized was this one:

That's supposedly Vladimir Putin in a slip fussing with the hair of a bra and panty-clad Dmitry Medvedev. Not a great likeness of either, but some were not amused.

Donskoi believes the raid was initiated by Vitaly Milonov, a local lawmaker who has actively backed a new law targeting homosexuals in Russia.

"Vitaly Milonov arrived with a group of police officers, FSB officials, and representatives of the Prosecutor-General's Office," he said. "They shut down the museum on the grounds that it displayed works that are blasphemous and extremist."

One of the seized paintings depicts Milonov himself -- who has described the images as "pornographic" -- against a backdrop of the gay-rights movement's rainbow flag.

The other two were of Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill with tattoos, and Yelena Mizulina who also supports the banning of homosexual propaganda.

The portrait artist Konstantin Altunin has asked France for political asylum after his wife informed him of a police van waiting for him at home.  Donskoi is also scared.

This type of offense- insulting officials- can net up to a year in jail.  Donskoi plans on appealing to the European Court of Human Rights re. his right to free speech (which still doesn't fully exist in that country- see Pussy Riot):

"I don't know where to file a complaint because all the power structures work together," he said. "The judicial defers to the executive, and so on. This was a sanctioned move. So I hope I can find a lawyer who will help me lodge an application in Strasbourg. This is the only court that would consider this case, which is riddled with violations."

More at RFE/RL

Brian Lilley Talks About The Canadian Section 13 Thought Crime Going Bye-Bye

Brian Lilley, of Sun News, discusses the Canadian Senate finally repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The part of the CHRA  that made it an offense "to post something online that was likely to expose an identifiable group to hatred and contempt." Emphasis on likely.

For those who might not be familiar- it's the issue Canadian bloggers have been fighting against for years. Many have been sued over it, including Blazing Catfur. It will still be a crime to incite violence, it's just the 'thought crime" legislation that will go bye-bye next year. Finally.

Mark Steyn was the catalyst for inspiring Section 13. After excerpts from his book "America Alone" were posted on the website of McLean's magazine, Muslim activists set out to target both Steyn and McLeans, as punishment, thus Section 13 was born.

Congrats to our Canadian cousins. Keep up the good work. It's a first step.

Watch the video here.

Pat Condell's Latest On The OIC's Attempts To Squelch Free Speech

The latest from Pat Condell on the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its continuing attempt at squelching free speech.

Lars Vilks Has More Mohammed Drawings To Exhibit, In Spite Of Death Threats

Swedish artist and sculptor Lars Vilk- who gained international notoriety for  pushing the limits of freedom of expression by drawing  the head of the Prophet Mohammed on the body of a dog in 2007 and was subsequently targeted for death by offended Muslims, and was then attacked at a lecture on freedom of speech in 2010- has some new paintings of Mohammad ready to exhibit.  The exhibition is set for July this year, in Malmö, Sweden- a city that is heavily populated by Muslims. Vilks believes:

"It's important to continue because if you yield to the threats and back away, you have abandoned the democratic principle."

His Mohammed dog drawing was published in 2007 along with an editorial on freedom of expression in the Swedish paper Nerikes Allehanda after several gallery exhibits pulled the Mohammed drawings because of security concerns.

His latest creations will still portray Mohammed with the body of a  dog, but this time:

 ...in famous works by artists including Claude Monet, Peter Paul Rubens and Anders Zorn.

It was "hard to tell" whether the July exhibition at a gallery in Sweden's third largest city, Malmoe, would prompt more protests and threats, he said.

"At some point this has to be over and done with," he said.

That is, if the gallery doesn't pull the exhibit. And unfortunately, I think it will be a very long time before it's ever over and done with.

He's certainly a courageous man, but I suppose things can't get any worse since he's already received death threats, and was the intended target of  American Colleen LaRose, aka Fatima LaRose, aka "Jihad Jane"- one of seven jihadists who  planned on killing Vilks in 2009.

 We'll see what destruction ensues if they do get exhibited.

Irvine 11 Appeal Conviction In Michael Oren Shoutdown

Back in 2010 during a speech at U.C. Irvine, Israel Ambassador Michael Oren was relentlessly heckled by a group of rowdy, disruptive, disrespectful Muslim students. They eventually left after some of them were escorted out. 11 of them- known as 'the Irvine 11'- were prosecuted for conspiring to disrupt and disrupting Oren's February 8, 2010 speech. Ten of them were convicted.

The students, who faced up to a year in jail on the misdemeanor counts, were sentenced to three years of probation, 56 hours of community service and fines. 

Naturally, there were the typical cries of Islamophobia, and claims that their free speech rights were violated, but no mention of the flagrant attempts to censor Michael Oren.

Now the Irvine 11 have just filed an appeal, after having completed their community service. Not sure what they hope to accomplish, it's quite evident in the video below they violated Oren's freedom of speech.

Hopefully they have learned that everyone has a right to speak, even those they disagree with, but somehow I doubt it.

Qatari Poet Sentenced To Life For "defamation of the crown prince"

Qatar, a country that apparently supported the Arab Spring in other countries and considers itself a promoter of free speech has proved it is far from being as progressive as it would like the world to believe. Mohammed al-Ajami (aka Ibn al-Dhib), a famous Qatari poet who has spent a year in prison, will spend the rest of his life there for a verse in a poem he wrote that authorities deemed subversive. He was arrested after publication of his "Jasmine poem', which was critical of all governments in the Gulf, not just Qatar:

“we are all Tunisia in the face of the repressive elite."

According to his lawyer Nejib Naimi, al-Ajami was sentenced

“after six hearings, most of them in secret.”

for

"..incitement against the regime, defamation of the crown prince, Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, and attacking the constitution."

Naimi intends on appealing the charges since al-Ajami should have only received five years max. Life in prison is only applicable with attempted coups.

Al Arabiya criticized Al Jazeera for not reporting the news about the sentencing, but they're headquartered in Doha, after all.

Philip Luther of Amnesty International was quick to condemn the sentence:

“It is deplorable that Qatar, which likes to paint itself internationally as a country that promotes freedom of expression, is indulging in what appears to be such a flagrant abuse of that right.”

It's foolish to think that Arab/Muslim nations will easily embrace the inherent freedoms that are part and parcel of a democracy, if they feel it threatens their sovereignty. It's just not going to happen. So al-Ajami could spend his life in jail for a few critical words.  How pathetic is that?

Macy's Says No To Petition To Dump Trump

30-year-old Angelo Carusone, the guy who credits himself for getting Glenn Beck off of Fox News (@StopBeck) by targeting the advertisers, is at it again; but this time he's set his sights on Donald Trump. Why? Because he didn't like Trump's anti-Obama campaign.

Angelo who now has a new Twitter account @GoAngelo- in case you feel inclined to engage- is now trying to get Macy's to drop Trump's line of clothing, accessories and fragrance. On October 24, he started an online petition on SignOn.org (part of MoveOn) urging Macy's to dump Trump:

Macy's: Donald Trump does not reflect the "magic of Macy's." We urge you to sever ties with him. Macy's says it has a strong obligation to be "socially responsible" and that "actions speak louder than words." Indeed. It's time to act.

Carusone said: “Trump’s public conduct had been especially abominable,” criticizing him for his  "birther" stance, and his $5 million charity offer to Obama if he shared his college records and passport application with Trump.

As of now there are well over 574,000 signatures on his petition, just shy of his 575,000 goal.

Carusone also said of Trump:

”Trump’s brand is consequence-free bullying. That doesn’t reflect well on Macy’s. People expect more from Macy’s. I’m more interested in what they have to say and less interested in what Donald Trump says.”

And trying to get a company to dump his products isn't a form of bullying?  What happened to free speech?  Can we not criticize a particular candidate or political party without liberals jumping on the boycott or "dump" bandwagon?  If we don't conform to your way of thinking we suffer the consequences?  This is so wrong.

Thankfully Macy's hasn't buckled.  Spokesman Jim Sluzewski emailed this statement:

 “Macy’s marketing and merchandise offerings are not representative of any political position. Many of the individuals associated with products sold at Macy’s—or at any retailer, for that matter—express personal opinions that are not related to the merchandise we sell or to the philosophies of our company.”

Of course, liberals don't see it as a question of free speech. They just want to silence any dissenting voices.

Egyptian Cleric Who Burned Bible In Front Of U.S. Embassy Faces Blasphemy Charges

At least Egypt isn't just targeting non-Muslims for blaspheming against Islam, they nabbed an uber-conservative cleric Ahmed Mohammed Mahmoud Abdallah, aka Sheikh Abu Islam, in Cairo for ripping up  some New Testament bibles and then burning them in front of the U.S. Embassy. Little does he realize, fool that he is, that although some might find his actions offensive, unlike them, we aren't going to take to the streets in violent rage and tear down and burn Egyptian flags at Egyptian embassies and consulates around the world.  That's the difference between them and us: we don't fly off the handle at religious slights, and what we consider as 'freedom of expression', right or wrong, offensive or not, they consider blasphemy. Unlike the Egyptian government calling for the arrest of Florida Pastor Terry Jones and several Coptic Christians who either were involved with or promoted (like Jones) the anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims", we're not about to issue an arrest warrant for Abu Islam.

Abu Islam- who co-owns Al Uma, a private Islamic TV station along with his ultra-conservative son- could face blasphemy charges against Christianity, something that rarely happens in that country.  The case goes to trial on September 30.

I'm sure Morsi couldn't care less that a bible was ripped up and burned, this isn't the first time it's happened, he's just trying to show the West that arresting blasphemers is the way to go,  which is probably what he wants us to do with all those involved in the "Innocence of Muslims" film.  But that isn't going to happen.

Obama Wants To Send $450 Million To Islamist Egypt

Although it was blocked by Republican congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas, Barack Obama wants to transfer $450 million to Egypt in spite of the fact that Egypt's new Islamist president Mohamed Morsi pretty much allowed our embassy in Cairo to be attacked and vandalized on 9/11, and is trying to tell us what is and isn't appropriate as far as free speech goes. At the recent U.N. General Assembly session Morsi responded to Obama's defense of free speech saying while "Egypt respects freedom of expression", Mohammed, Islam, and the Muslim culture are totally off limits. In reference to the "Innocence of Muslims", the anti-Islam film that unleashed a swath of violence across Muslim lands, he said:

“The obscenities that I have referred to that were recently released as part of an organized campaign against Islamic sanctities are unacceptable. We reject this. We cannot accept it,” Morsi said, his voice thin with anger. “We will not allow anyone to do this by word or deed.”

No? Maybe in your country, Mr. Morsi, you have control over what people say, but not in ours!

And that $450 million cash infusion is above and beyond what we already are giving them, including $1.5 billion per annum to maintain the Israeli/Egypt peace treaty. And yet when he spoke at the U.N. it was all about the Palestinians and their 'rights', and  no mention of the peace treaty.

Morsi also said Egypt would argue forcefully for the rights of Palestinians and for an end to what he called illegal occupation of Arab lands, a reference to Israeli occupation of the West Bank. He said nothing about Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, the basis for about $1.5 billion in annual U.S. aid, but has in the past said he wants to make changes.

The Egyptian president denounced Israel’s presumed nuclear weapons, a stockpile built outside the international arms control treaty. And in a further challenge
to Israel and its U.S. ally, Morsi warned against “irresponsible policies or arbitrary threats.” That was a reference to the looming possibility of a unilateral Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Islamists are no friends of the West, as moderate as some might seem. Egypt under Mubarak, as nasty as he might have been, at least kept the West, and Israel, safer from terrorists, not so with Islamists. And why are we sending money that we don't have, considering we are in major debt,  to countries that are not true allies?

France Bans All Protests Over Mohammed Cartoons

It looks like France is finally growing some balls. One of the first countries to ban the full Islamic face veil (niqab), the French have now banned all protests that the Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cartoons might happen to inspire.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls said prefects throughout the country had orders to prohibit any protest over the issue and to crack down if the ban was challenged.

"There will be strictly no exceptions. Demonstrations will be banned and broken up," he told a news conference in the southern port city of Marseille.

Normally I would condemn leaders banning their citizens the right to peaceful protest, but since 'peaceful' doesn't seem to exist in the vernacular of the Muslims who usually take to the streets, then I say, good on you.

French Muslim leaders were critical, but asked for calm. Not that it's ever a deterrent.

Mohammed Moussaoui, leader of the French Muslim Council (CFCM), described both the film and the cartoons as "acts of aggression", but urged French Muslims not to take to the streets for unauthorised protests.

"I repeat the CFCM's call not to protest. Any protest could be hijacked and counterproductive," he told French radio station RFI.

In anticipation of trouble (we have all witnessed the violent backlash that the anti-Islam film produced, including the death of diplomats in Libya), France shuttered its embassies (along with schools and cultural centers) in 20 or so Muslim-majority countries on Friday. A very smart move, since that's the day clerics usually take to their mics to encourage retaliation for offending their prophet.

And back on the home front, police were poised to take action on any impromptu protests that might occur on Friday and over the weekend. So far, so good- not much going on in the streets of France,  although that could change.

This particular magazine edition was so popular it sold out soon after it hit the streets, and Charlie Hebdo had to reprint. The satirical weekly, which has poked fun at pretty much everyone and everything, said it did this not to sell papers, as some have suggested, but to highlight the silliness of the furore over the film.

Besides banning the street protests, Valls took it a step further:

"Neither will I allow street prayers, which have no place in this republic. And naturally the law will apply to anyone who wears the full face veil."

But Charlie Hebdo had its critics in the new government of socialist President Francois Hollande, which called Charlie Hebdo irresponsible.

"When you are free, in a country like ours, you always have to measure the impact of your words," French European Affairs Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said.

Letting the threats of violence dictate what we in the West do, is setting a terribly dangerous precedent.  We better be very careful how we proceed, or we'll lose our freedoms over a vocal, violent minority.

Source: Huffpo

France's 'Charlie Hebdo' Publishes More Mohammed Cartoons- Update

Charlie Hebdo, the French (mostly leftist) weekly satirical magazine that had the guts to republish the Danish Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons back in 2006, and was subsequently sued by a group of Muslims in 2007, is at it again.  In today's edition, it plans on publishing a few more Mohammed cartoons that the editor claims will "shock those who will want to be shocked." And, no doubt, there will be plenty.

However, those champions of 'freedom of expression' don't seem to be too worried about being the next targets of Muslim rage; after all, Charlie Hebdo survived a firebombing of its offices last November over the "Charia Hebdo" edition. If you recall, that was the one "guest edited" by the "Prophet Mohammed", and captioned with "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter."  Well, we all know there is no humor in Islam, or at least its adherents are sorely lacking.

Naturally, everyone is panicking in that country- considering the amount of disenfranchised, unemployed Muslim youth just waiting for an excuse to rampage.

Jean-Marc Ayrault, the prime minister, issued a statement expressing his "disapproval of all excesses."

The magazine's editor, originally a cartoonist who uses the name Charb, denied he was being deliberately provocative at a delicate time.

"The freedom of the press, is that a provocation?" he said. "I'm not asking strict Muslims to read Charlie Hebdo, just like I wouldn't go to a mosque to listen to speeches that go against everything I believe."

Muslim leaders have also piped in, not that anything they might say will change the minds of those hell bent on revenge.

Dalil Boubakeur, the senior cleric at Paris's biggest mosque, appealed for France's four million Muslims to remain calm.

"It is with astonishment, sadness and concern that I have learned that this publication is risking increasing the current outrage across the Muslim world," he said.

"I would appeal to them not to pour oil on the fire."

France's Muslim Council, the community's main representative body, also appealed for calm in the face of "this new act of Islamaphobia."

Muslim leaders need to control their wayward followers, and not simply try to appease them.

In the meantime, I'll be waiting for the news about the angry mobs taking to the streets in France.

UPDATE 9/19/12:  Here is one of the cartoons published on the front of Charlie Hebdo.

The cover of Charlie Hebdo (seen above) shows a Muslim in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew under the title Intouchables 2, referring to an award-winning French film about a impoverished black man who helps an aristocratic quadriplegic. Another cartoon on the back page of the weekly magazine shows a naked Mohammed exposing his backside to a film director.

Asked if it was a provocation, Editor Stephane Charbonnier said:

“The freedom of the press, is that a provocation? I’m not asking strict Muslims to read Charlie Hebdo, just like I wouldn’t go to a mosque to listen to speeches that go against everything I believe.”

Many people do. But as Charbonnier says, if you are offended by something just turn your head. No-one is forcing you to watch or read something you might find offensive.

GEICO Fired Drill Sgt Lee Ermey For Criticizing Obama

Just to prove that I am fair and balanced I'm going to weigh in on the latest GEICO firestorm.

In April, 2010 GEICO fired Lance Baxter aka D.C. Douglas for calling Tea Party members "retarded". He stupidly left that message on the answering service of FreedomWorks, along with his name and phone number. There was enough outrage that he was fired. I explained in a post back then the reasons why this might happen:

When you represent a product, even if it's just your voice, you're the face (or voice, in this case) of that company, and anything you do reflects on said company. You certainly don't want to make them look bad, and you definitely do not go around acting badly without suffering the consequences. Not necessarily because the company disagrees with your actions, but there are enough people in this country who might, and they'll have your ass.

Yes, it's censorship, but it's their product, and ultimately their right to censure those who 'represent' their product, even if that means firing.

Jump ahead 2 years, and we discover GEICO  fired someone else for being political, but this time it was a conservative. According to drill sergeant Lee Ermey- of "Full Metal Jacket" fame- he told TMZ that he was fired for criticizing Obama (see video below). He claims he apologized but that wasn't enough. He then went on to say that:

 "If you're a conservative in this town, you better watch out."

Yeah, that's very true, but in this case I think it was simply the bottom line.

If you want to be a spokesperson or represent a particular  'product', you need to keep your mouth shut about politics.




H/T The Blaze, TMZ

"Throw Putin Out"- Russian Punk Group Faces Jail For Blasphemy

An anti-Putin protest song has landed 3 members of a Russian female punk rock group 'Pussy Riot'- yes, that's the name- in major trouble. They could be sentenced for up to 7 years in prison, for- get this- blasphemy against the Russian Orthodox Church. Apparently, during the numerous anti-Putin riots in February four of them barged into a Church and performed their impromptu punk protest- see video below- and as a result are facing the charge of "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred or hostility." Other than some obscenities, all they were asking was to "throw Putin out." I'm trying very hard, here, to figure out the blasphemy angle. Do the Russians consider Putin a religious figure, or maybe God? Is that where the blasphemy comes in?

Glad to see the Russian government continues to be as repressive as it was during Communist rule, and that the Russian Orthodox Church is so enamored of Putin and his ways.



UPDATE 8/17/2012:

Pussy Riot members sentenced to 2 years in jail!

Source BBC, TelegraphUK

Suspended! NC Teacher Who Told Student Not To Bad Mouth Obama

I'm sure small-town Spencer, North Carolina (half-way between Charlotte and Greensboro) had no idea it would be put on the map because of the conduct of one of its high school teachers whose rant was caught on tape, posted on YouTube, and then went viral.

The long, rambling raw audio of a few students being harangued by North Rowan High teacher Tonya (or Tanya) Dixon-Neely for standing up for Mitt Romney and, in her mind, being critical of Obama is definitely worth the 9 minutes. It's truly astounding, on so many levels. Not only does she tell one of the boys that he could be arrested for criticizing Obama, she falsely claims the Bush administration did it all the time.

"Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things bad about Bush?"

If that were true, there would be no room in our jails. George W. Bush has been one of the most maligned presidents in history.

The argument started after Dixon-Neely brought up the fact that Romney was a bully in high school. The Blaze has a mini breakdown of the turn of events, after one kid responds:

“Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?”

The teacher started to get angry and said:

“Not to my knowledge.”

A couple of students relayed the story about Obama admitting that he bullied someone when he was younger. And that seemed to light the fuse on his teacher’s anger. A couple of the students exchanged words with the angry teacher.

“Stop! Stop! Because there’s no comparison. He’s running for president. Obama is the president.”

As one student attempted to argue for a fair, two-sided debate on the history of the candidates, he was shouted down and talked over by the teacher. She continued:

“You got to realize, this man is wanting to be what Obama is. There’s no comparison.”

Once again, the students pressed for equal discussion of the histories of both men, with one saying:

“If you’re gonna talk trash about one side, you gotta talk trash about the other.”

The teacher just seemed to dig her heels in deeper and press her defense of Obama telling the defiant teen:

“You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.”

Again the student persisted and invoked his First Amendment right.

“I’ll say what I want.”

The still unidentified teacher read the student her rules…her Obama rules.

“Not about him, you won’t!”

The back and forth continued and the most strident of the two students reminded his teacher that President Bush was constantly treated to negative statements about him while he was in office:

“Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked sh-t about him.”

To which the teacher responded:

“Because he was sh-tty.”

The social studies educator went on for a full minute with more ranting, saying that people were arrested for saying derogatory things about President Bush.

Unbelievably, the students are far more knowledgeable than Dixon-Neely with respect to our freedoms. I guess she has no clue that in this country we're free to criticize our presidents, as long as we don't threaten them.

Listening to the audio it's hard to believe the woman is actually a teacher.

Dixon-Neely has since been suspended after an investigation (and the obvious outrage by free-minded people across the nation), but stories differ as to whether it was with or without pay.

UPDATE:  Watch student Hunter Rogers who taped the teacher's rant (and his mom) interviewed on Fox and Friends.

Kuwaiti Writer Gets 7 Years Jail For Insulting Shi'ite Minority

Mohammad al-Mulaifi, a Sunni Muslim Kuwaiti writer, will spend seven years of his life in jail for allegedly insulting the Shi'ite minority via Twitter. He has also been fined around $18,000.

The court said Kuwaiti Mohammad al-Mulaifi posted falsehoods about sectarian divisions in the Gulf Arab country and insulted the Shi’ite faith and its scholars with comments that damaged Kuwait’s image.

He was arrested in February and his comments triggered protests by Shi’ites, according to Kuwaiti media. His lawyer was not immediately available for comment.

But Shi'ites are also targets.  Last month a man was arrested for blasphemy, though he denies it, for insulting Mohammad, Aisha et al, also via Twitter. He claims his account was hacked, and that he would
"....never attack the Holy Prophet." 

Blasphemy is punishable in Islam, but being critical of fellow Muslims?  Where is that in the Quran? And seven years for that?  I realize there is no freedom of speech in Muslim-majority countries, but come on.

This just makes it even more imperative that the push for global anti-blasphemy laws NEVER gets any traction.

PA Muslim Judge Mark Martin Dismisses Assault Charges Against Muslim Using Sharia

During Halloween last year in Pennsylvania, some members of an Atheist group joined a local parade dressed as a Zombie Pope and a "Zombie Muhammed". Talaaq Elbayomy (a Muslim immigrant) also happened to be there with his wife and kids, and when he saw Ernest V. Perce dressed up as said Zombie Muhammed, he attacked Perce (all caught on tape) to defend the Prophet's honor.  After the scuffle, both men tracked down a police officer for obviously different reasons: Perce, because he was assaulted for no justifiable reason, and Elbayomy because in his supreme ignorance believed dressing up as Muhammed was a crime.

Now one would think that in America, where it might be tacky but certainly not a crime to dress up as Muhammed, the person who assaulted another individual would have to pay the piper, but not so in Judge Mark W. Martin's court.  You see, Judge Martin also happens to be a Muslim convert who spent several years in Muslim countries while serving in the military. And rather than being able to separate his newly adopted religious beliefs from his constitutional duties as a judge, he dismissed the case against Elbayomy in spite of the police officer's testimony on Perce's behalf, all the while admonishing Perce for his insensitivity and lecturing him on Islam and Sharia (also caught on audio- with the judge's permission.)

Opposing Views, transcribed some of Judge Martin's diatribe:

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.

Well,  Judge Martin, this is the U.S. and here we don't execute people for blasphemy, and although we might be offended by someone dressing up as a Zombie Jesus, Pope, Buddha, Muhammed or whomever, it is their right to do so.

Then Martin goes on to say (as per Opposing Views):

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”


“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”

And,

“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “

And,

“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”

Apparently, Martin refused to allow the video of the attack to be admissible in court.

As for ignorance of the law, had Elbayomy killed Perce in the melee, would he have sided with Elbayomy?  If Judge Martin is unable to follow the rule of American law, then he has no place in our judicial system.

Video coverage by local news channel.
Perce's video of his ordeal.

You can voice your complaints to the following (H/T Pamela Geller):

Wanda W. Sweigart, Court Administrator
wanda.sweigart@pacourts.us
phone: 717-772-3771

The Court of Judicial Discipline of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 5500
P.O. Box 62595, Harrisburg, PA 17106-2595
Phone: (717) 772-3771 • Fax: (717) 772-3774

Here's the homepage.

The Court of Judicial Discipline of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Judicial Conduct Board
601 Commonwealth Ave
Suite 3500
PO Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17106-2525

Salman Rushdie Bashes Indian Government For Not Protecting Free Speech At Literary Fest

It's been almost 23 years since Sir Salman Rushdie had a death fatwa placed on his head by then Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. On February 14 1989, Khomeini issued the following:

"We are from Allah and to Allah we shall return." (Qoranic verse). I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Koran, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah Willing. Meanwhile if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions.

Less then a month later that fatwa was the catalyst for the breakdown of diplomatic relations between Britain and Iran.  It wasn't until 1998- in order to reestablish relations with the U.K.- that then President Mohammad Khatami had to make a statement claiming Iran would "neither support nor hinder assassination operations on Rushdie."  However, in 2005 they backtracked and the current Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared it was still cool to kill Rushdie for writing his 'blasphemous' novel "The Satanic Verses".  Banned in all but one Muslim-majority country (Turkey), it was also banned in several other nations including Venezuela and Rushdie's birthplace India.  It is no longer banned in Egypt and Libya, but still banned in India.

But what's most astonishing (or maybe not) is that after all these years people are still taking that fatwa to heart.   Rushdie was scheduled to speak at the Jaipur Literary Festival in India this week, but had to cancel because of assassination threats, and threats of violence.  Even a video-linked appearance was cancelled, although Rushdie has "doubts about the accuracy" of the intelligence sources that warned of  "paid assassins from the Mumbai underworld may be on their way to Jaipur to "eliminate" him.  Rusdhie believes the Indian government is kowtowing to Muslim extremists, and bashed officials for being more concerned about Muslim votes in upcoming elections than protecting free speech. He was also highly critical of

"Muslim groups that were so unscrupulous, and whose idea of free speech is that they are the only ones entitled to it". "[If] Anyone else, who they disagree with, wishes to open his mouth, they will try and stop that mouth. That's what we call tyranny. It's much worse than censorship because it comes with the threat of violence."

Rushdie has never been harmed but others affiliated with the work were not so lucky a publishers in Norway and Italy were shot and knifed respectively, and a Japanese translator was killed.

Sadly, Muslim extremists have long memories, great patience and unforgiving hearts.

Sources: DailyMailUK, GuardianUK, TelegraphUK

Richard Landes On Charlie Hebdo and Freedom Of Speech

Richard Landes, an American professor, writer and historian, has written an excellent response  to Bruce Crumley's commentary (on Time's website) regarding the Charlie Hebdo firebombing incident.

Crumley, is your typical apologist/appeaser who believes anyone critical of Islam is 'Islamphobic', and wants that criticism to stop:

Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren't going to tell “us” what can and can't be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

Landes, on the other hand, believes  Muslims should just "grow up". Although he does agree "in principle" with Crumley's objection to "gratuitous insult", he does not believe the criticism should stop.

Gratuitous insult is not what we need. Much better purposeful, serious criticism. If Crumley really embodied the maturity he pretends to, then he’d have serious challenges to Islam to his credit. That would attest to his readiness to treat Muslims as adults, capable of listening to as well as proffering criticism, to his faith that “the vast majority of Muslims are moderates.”

But if he is primarily trying to spare Muslims’ feelings – if he secretly believes that they are incapable of playing by the minimal rules of civil society; that they are not far from sympathising with jihadis for whom violence is a legitimate response to any form of criticism of Islam – then he unconsciously reveals that he thinks Muslims are primitive, violent people who must be appeased at all costs.

Here’s where Crumley and I part ways: he treats Muslims as animals or little children, and believes that he can win them over with carrots. Sticks will just spook them. So he finds Charlie Hebdo’s behavior “childish, futile, Islamophobic [sic!]… inflammatory… obnoxious, infantile… outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable.”

[snip]
I’d rather treat Charlie Hebdo as a teaching moment, as a shibboleth for detecting genuinely moderate Muslims. Here’s an occasion to teach our Muslim co-citizens about “sticks and stones.” If we can’t find Muslims to whom we can say: “this part of modern civil society, and your learning to get past the implied/imagined insult constitutes minimal adherence to principles of reciprocity,” then what does it mean to carry on about “moderate Muslims”? This reciprocity is especially significant given how virulently critical of infidels many of the most vocal Muslims are.

This radical (and pre-modern) asymmetry of “us” and “them” reflects one of the most disturbing – and to liberals, incomprehensible – principle of Wala wa bara - “loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels.” It constitutes the exact opposite of the modern principles that underlie civil polities in which citizens are guaranteed “human rights.”

Landes is spot on in his analyses, and it's worth a read. Click here for the whole article.