The Forgotten Refugees

I know that I have blogged about this subject before, most recently here and here but until I can get back to proper blogging here's some video to get you thinking. Do please pass it onto any BBC propagandists that you know.

The video is The David Project's 'The Forgotten Refugees'

Part 1 sets out some background and explains what Islam means by a dhimmi in principle and in practice. Also the incidence of anti-Semitic hatred before 1967 and indeed 1948. The tales of Jews in Iraq strike many chords with me. However what I find very interesting is that the linkage between the Mufti and Hitler is repeated. This set me thinking as many of those on the left who even now attack the Daily Mail for having supported Hitler in the 1930s & therefore as being beyond the pale are quite happy to support the Palestinians whose leaders are the followers of people who fought alongside Hitler....

'A film about the mass exodus of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa in the 20th century

Produced by The David Project for Jewish Leadership and Isra TV, The Forgotten Refugees explores the history, culture, and forced exodus of Middle Eastern and North African Jewish communities in the second half of the 20th century. Using extensive testimony of refugees from Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, and Morocco the film recounts the stories - of joy and suffering - that nearly one million individuals have carried with them for so long. The film weaves personal stories with dramatic archival footage of rescue missions, historic images of exodus and resettlement, and analyses by contemporary scholars to tell the story of how and why the Jewish population in the Middle East and North Africa declined from one million in 1945 to several thousand today.

The Forgotten Refugees has helped raise awareness about this important period of Jewish and world history; an issue which has been tragically ignored in the media, world politics, and educational programs. On June 19, 2007, a fifteen minute version of The Forgotten Refugees was shown before the United States Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which convened for a special hearing on the mass violations of human rights of Jews under Islamic regimes in Arab Countries throughout North Africa, the Middle East, and the Gulf Region.

On March 31, 2008, the first-ever Resolution recognizing the rights of The Forgotten Refugees was adopted by the United States House of Representatives. The Resolution asks the President to ensure that when the issue of Middle East refugees is discussed in international forums, U.S. representatives will ensure that any explicit reference to Palestinian refugees is matched by a similar explicit reference to Jewish and other refugees.

The Forgotten Refugees has been screened at over twenty international film festivals, a dozen of television stations and numerous synagogues, churches and campuses. The Forgotten Refugees won the award for Best Documentary at the 2007 Marbella International Film Festival and the Best Feature Documentary Award at the 2006 Warsaw Jewish Film Festival.'

Part 2 explains why 'Jews are the dogs of the Arabs' and tells some horrific tales of anti-Jewish pogroms in Libya. Compare the tented camps that the Jewish refugees to Israel built & moved out of to the the refugee camps that the Palestinians still live in because their Arab brethren would rather they suffered so as to be a stick with which to beat Israel. Look also at the figures for how many Jews lived in Iraq in 1944 compared with 2004 (144,000 to 14), Egypt (80,000 to 40), Algeria (140,000 to 80) and Yemen (55,000 to 100). As well as the so called Jew friendly North African countries which certain British Jews think are trendy to visit: Morocco 285,000 to 5,000, Tunisia 105,000 to 1,500 and on and on and on.



It seems that the Jews who lived in Arab countries, many of whom were expelled from their homes, losing all their property and much of their possessions made a new life in Israel and so are forgotten by the world whilst the Palestinians who left their homes so the Arab armies of 1948 could destroy the newly reborn Israel still live in refugee camps and occupy so much of the attention of the world's media and trans-national organisations.


I have compared the way that Palestinian refugees are treated with those of other conflicts before but here is an extract from a speech that I think covers much of the same ground in an interesting manner:

'At the end of World War II, there were 50 million refugees. Today, all the refugee problems dating from before the 1950s have been solved. All, except one — the problem of the Palestinians.

Why did this problem not get solved? The reason is simple: Because the Arab countries did not allow it to get solved. And because Islam does not allow it to get solved.

In May 1948, the number of Jews in the Arab countries was estimated to be close to 1 million. Today, fewer than 8,000 Jews are left in the entire Arab world. In 1948, the Arab countries forced the Jews out and confiscated their properties. More Jews fled the Arab countries than Arabs fled Israel. Where are the Jewish refugee camps? There are none.

So, why are there refugee camps for Palestinians in areas surrounding Israel? Because the Palestinians were not welcomed in the neighboring Arab countries. There was no Arab solidarity; the refugees were forced into camps and slums, where many of their descendants still linger today.



Instead of blaming the inhospitable Arab regimes, many blame Israel.

Neisse rivers, the Hungarians who fled Transsylvania, the Greeks who were ejected from the Aegean coast of Anatolia, the Hindus who fled the Punjab.

With each generation, the resentment of these refugees and their descendants slowly fades away. Time heals all wounds. Acceptance of the new situation is the norm.

Islam, however, conditions Muslims to hate Jews. It is a religious duty to do so. Israel must be destroyed because it is the homeland of the Jews.

Influential Islamic scholars, such as Muhammad Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar in Cairo, the most prestigious center of Muslim learning, call Jews “enemies of Allah.” Tantawi, who died last March (this speech was given in December 2010), was generally considered a moderate by the Western media and policy makers. But how did this “moderate” address a delegation of Palestinian Muslims who visited him in 2002?

He urged them to intensify suicide attacks against Israelis, stating that every so-called “martyrdom operation” against — I quote — “any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land.” — end of quote.

Nizar Qabbani, one of the most revered poets in the Arab world, praised the madness of those who are blinded by an ideology of hatred. In his poem Ode to the Intifada, he wrote: “O mad people of Gaza, A thousand greetings to the mad. The age of political reason has long departed. So teach us madness.”

That is the nature of the Islamic enemies confronting the Jews — sheer madness.

Israel, on the other hand, is a beacon of light; it is like a Hanukkah menorah whose lights have been kindled in a region that until 1948 was engulfed by darkness.

Friends, Israel is not to blame for the situation in the Middle East. The problem is Islam’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Only last month (November 2010), Fatah concluded its convention in Ramallah by declaring its blatant refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.'

The speech was given by Geert Wilders in Tel Aviv in December 2010 - thanks to Gates of Vienna for the spot.


Next week London's School of Oriental and African Studies will be showing the above film, Point of No Return has details of this, I predict problems as SOAS students seem to be almost as anti-Israel as those at the LSE. Oy Va Goy also has some interesting  thoughts on this matter.

Friday afternoon catch-up

Once again I have too many Firefox tabs and not enough time, so here we go:

1) Politics Home reveal why the LibDems control the coalition government.

2) The Telegraph reports that the Crown Prince of Iran is calling for aid for the demonstrators but unlike in Egypt Barack Obama and the western media are just not interested. Why the double standards Barack Obama? It is almost as though you want Islamists to keep and gain power in the Middle East.

3) The Blaze think that they may have video proof that Mexican authorities are operating inside of the USA.

4) Harry Phibbs in The Mail thinks that we should not get rid of the First Past The Post voting system.

5) Devils Kitchen agrees with me that National Insurance is a ponzi scheme and just as out of control as Bernie Madoff's and that the government's response will make us all poorer (except for the unemployed).

6) Gates of Vienna thinks that the BBC has broken its charter and explains at length why - all relating to Geert Wilders and radical Islam.

7)The Mail reports that the Royal Society has realised that 'A'Levels are now not fit for purpose - That's the comprehensive education system and 13 years of a Labour government dumbing down exams for you.

8) OyVaGoy has 10 facts that 'they' don't want you to know about the evil right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

9) CIF Watch have spotted that even The Guardian's travel section is influenced by the newspaper's anti-Israel agenda.

10) Daniel Hannan in The Telegraph thinks that the state can be successfully shrunk and that Ronald Reagan US Presidency should be the model.

11) The BBC report on a rather nasty comment made by one of their heroes - the Irish tax avoider Bono.

12) Harry's Place explains why iEngage should not be allowed to serve as the secretariat to the all party parliamentary group on Islamaphobia. Very sound stuff as always from Harry's Place now one of my favourite blogs.

13) The Mail managed to report the interesting fact that 'Road deaths dropped 14 per cent in three months while speed cameras were being axed or switched off.  Fatalities over a year fell 21 per cent to a record low, Department for Transport figures show.'

14) Finally The Mail reports on the Indian inventor who claims to have invented the flying car - unfortunately its a flying 1980s Maruti.

Geert Wilders speaking sense on Israel and the Palestinians

Below is the text of the speech given on Sunday in Tel Aviv by Geert Wilders. It is noticeable how many points he makes, I have also made on this blog. So read the whole piece as it is refreshing to find a European politician who knows and speaks the truth about the Middle East. If you are in a hurry I have marked the key passages.

'Shalom chaveriem,

Let me start by saying that it is with great sadness that I share your grief over the deaths of more than 40 brave Israelis who lost their lives — many while trying to save others in the great fire near Haifa. My country, the Netherlands, is amongst other countries helping to put down this fire, which is threatening the lives and property of thousands of your compatriots. I offer my heartfelt condolences to the families of those who perished. My thoughts are with them.

Israel is an immense source of inspiration for me. When I came to your country for the first time as a teenager, I lived here for a year.

I am not ashamed to stand with Israel, but proud. I am grateful to Israel. I will always defend Israel. Your country is the cradle of Western civilization. We call it the Judeo-Christian civilization with good reason.

Israel is often being treated unfairly. The world looks at the plight of the Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon, Gaza, and other places, and many blame Israel. The UN claims that there are over 4.7 million Palestinian refugees, and many blame Israel. These voices say the Palestinians should be allowed to return to “Palestine.” But where is Palestine? Many say Israel must solve the problems of Palestine. But is Israel guilty of the plight of the Palestinian refugees?

My answer is “No.” The Arab leaders are to be blamed — and Islam is to be blamed. Let me first tell you why, and then I will tell you where Palestine can be found.

At the end of World War II, there were 50 million refugees. Today, all the refugee problems dating from before the 1950s have been solved. All, except one — the problem of the Palestinians.

Why did this problem not get solved? The reason is simple: Because the Arab countries did not allow it to get solved. And because Islam does not allow it to get solved.
In May 1948, the number of Jews in the Arab countries was estimated to be close to 1 million. Today, fewer than 8,000 Jews are left in the entire Arab world. In 1948, the Arab countries forced the Jews out and confiscated their properties. More Jews fled the Arab countries than Arabs fled Israel. Where are the Jewish refugee camps? There are none.

So, why are there refugee camps for Palestinians in areas surrounding Israel? Because the Palestinians were not welcomed in the neighboring Arab countries. There was no Arab solidarity; the refugees were forced into camps and slums, where many of their descendants still linger today.

Under international definitions the status of refugee or displaced person only applies to first generation refugees. However, the UN makes an exception for Palestinians. Descendants of Palestinian refugees are granted the same refugee status as their ancestors. Consequently, the number of so-called Palestinian refugees registered with the UN increased from 711,000 in 1950 to over 4.7 million in 2010. These refugees are being used as a demographic weapon against Israel.

Instead of blaming the inhospitable Arab regimes, many blame Israel.

My friends, the blame should be laid where it belongs: with the Arab world. The Jewish refugees built new lives for themselves. They did what millions of refugees have done in the course of history, including, in the 20th century, the Germans who had to leave Sudetenland and the lands east of the Oder and Neisse rivers, the Hungarians who fled Transsylvania, the Greeks who were ejected from the Aegean coast of Anatolia, the Hindus who fled the Punjab.

With each generation, the resentment of these refugees and their descendants slowly fades away. Time heals all wounds. Acceptance of the new situation is the norm.

Islam, however, conditions Muslims to hate Jews. It is a religious duty to do so. Israel must be destroyed because it is the homeland of the Jews.

Influential Islamic scholars, such as Muhammad Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar in Cairo, the most prestigious center of Muslim learning, call Jews “enemies of Allah.” Tantawi, who died last March, was generally considered a moderate by the Western media and policy makers. But how did this “moderate” address a delegation of Palestinian Muslims who visited him in 2002?

He urged them to intensify suicide attacks against Israelis, stating that every so-called “martyrdom operation” against — I quote — “any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land.” — end of quote.

Nizar Qabbani, one of the most revered poets in the Arab world, praised the madness of those who are blinded by an ideology of hatred. In his poem Ode to the Intifada, he wrote: “O mad people of Gaza, A thousand greetings to the mad. The age of political reason has long departed. So teach us madness.”

Thát is the nature of the Islamic enemies confronting the Jews — sheer madness.

Israel, on the other hand, is a beacon of light; it is like a Hanukkah menorah whose lights have been kindled in a region that until 1948 was engulfed by darkness.

Friends, Israel is not to blame for the situation in the Middle East. The problem is Islam’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Only last month, Fatah concluded its convention in Ramallah by declaring its blatant refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The problem is also our Western leaders’ refusal to understand that Israel is the West’s canary in the coalmine: If the Jews are denied the right to live in freedom and peace, soon we will all be denied this right. If the light of Israel is extinguished, we will all face darkness. If Israel falls, the West falls. That is why we are all Israel.

But as long as the West refuses to understand how the Palestinians are used as a weapon against Israel, it will not be able to see who is truly to blame; it will not be able to see that it is not Israel’s duty to provide a Palestinian state — for the simple reason that there already is a Palestinian state and that state is Jordan.

Indeed, my friends, Jordan is Palestine. Take a look at the map of this part of the world after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. Both contemporary Israel and contemporary Jordan were part of the British Mandate of Palestine.

In 1922, the British partitioned Palestine into Cisjordan and Transjordan — the latter comprising 78 per cent of the territory of Palestine. The British handed that territory over to their ally, the Hashemite strongman Abdallah ibn Hussein. Abdallah was the son of the emir Hussein bin Ali, guardian of the Islamic holy city of Mecca. The Hashemites belong to the Quraish tribe — the tribe of Islam founder Muhammad. They are a foreign body in Palestine.

In 1946, Transjordan became an independent state under Hashemite rule. In November 1947, the United Nations proposed to partition the remaining 22 per cent of Palestine. The territory between the Jordan River and the sea was divided into a Jewish and an Arab part. The Jewish representatives accepted the UN partition plan, but the Arab representatives refused. In an attempt to “drive all the Jews into the sea,” they began the 1948 war — which they lost.

They took revenge, however, on the Jews in East Jerusalem and the rest of Cisjordan — the ancient provinces of Judea and Samaria — held by the Arab forces. This entire region was ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Even the names of Judea and Samaria were wiped off the map and replaced by the ridiculous term “West Bank.” A river bank of over 40 kilometers wide. I come from a country full of rivers, and there the river banks are only a few dozen meters wide.

Israel, including Judea and Samaria, has been the land of the Jews since time immemorial. Judea means Land of the Jews. Never in the history of the world has there been an autonomous state in the area that was not Jewish. The Diaspora of the Jews, which began after their defeat by the Romans in AD 70, did not lead to the departure of all the Jews from their ancient homeland. Jews had been living in the Jordan Valley for centuries until the Arab invaders drove them out in 1948, when the provinces of Judea and Samaria were occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, which abbreviated its name to Jordan in 1950.

And until 1967, when Israel regained the ancient Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria, no-one, not a single Islamic scholar or Western politician, ever demanded that there be an independent Palestinian state in the so-called West Bank.
Must Israel trade land for peace? Should it assign Judea and Samaria to another Palestinian state — a second one, next to Jordan? My friends, let me be very clear: The conflict in the Middle East is not a conflict over territory, but rather an ideological battle.

People are mistaken when they assume that giving up Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem and letting the Palestinians have it, will end the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. In 2005, Israel sacrificed the settlements in Gaza for the sake of peace. Did it get peace?

On the contrary, because the conflict is essentially ideological, the situation worsened. Because the conflict is ideological, territorial concessions are counterproductive. Ideologies cannot be defeated by concessions. They are encouraged and emboldened by it.

Ideologies must be confronted with the iron will never to give in, “never, never, never, never — in nothing, great or small, large or petty.” That is the lesson which the world learned from Winston Churchill when he confronted the evil ideology of nazism.

This conflict here in the Middle East is not about land and borders, but about Islamic jihadism opposing Western liberty. From the moment that Israel was founded, the Arab leaders have rejected every partition plan and every initiative for a territorial settlement. The Islamic ideology simply does not accept the concept of a Jewish state. Neither Hamas nor Fatah are willing to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in their historic homeland. No territorial concession on Israel’s part can ever change that.

Israel’s ideological enemies want to wipe Israel out as a nation. They simply deny the Jewish state the right to exist and to live in peace, dignity and liberty.

For the sake of its own survival and security, Israel needs defendable borders. A country that is only 15 kilometers wide is impossible to defend. That is the strategic reason why Jews need to settle Judea and Samaria.

Therefore, the Jewish towns and villages in Judea and Samaria are not an impediment to peace; they are an expression of the Jewish right to exist in this land. They are tiny outposts of freedom, defying ideological forces which deny not only Israel but the entire West the right to live in peace, dignity and liberty.

Let us never forget that Islam threatens not just Israel; Islam threatens the entire world. Without Judea and Samaria, Israel cannot protect Jerusalem. The future of the world depends on Jerusalem. If Jerusalem falls, Athens and Rome — and Paris, London and Washington — will be next.

Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting our common civilization. When the flag of Israel no longer flies over the walls of Jerusalem, the West will no longer be free.

However, a peaceful solution must also be found for the many Palestinians in the refugee camps in Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere. Each year, hundreds of millions of euros and dollars are spent on the Palestinian refugees in international aid.

The financial assistance, however, did not provide the refugees a new home, a place to live and build a future for their children and grandchildren. It is obvious where this place should be. It should be Palestine, just as, after the Second World War, the obvious place for the German refugees from the East to go to, was Germany. Since Jordan is Palestine, it is the duty of the Jordanian government to welcome all Palestinian refugees who voluntarily want to settle there.

Until the late 1980s, Jordan’s Hashemite rulers did not deny that their country was Palestine. They said so on numerous occasions. In 1965, King Hussein said: “Those organizations which seek to differentiate between Palestinians and Jordanians are traitors.” As late as 1981, Hussein repeated — I quote — “Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.”

In March 1971, The Palestine National Council, too, stated that — I quote — “what links Jordan to Palestine is a national bond […] formed, since time immemorial, by history and culture. The establishment of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine is illegal.” — end of quote.

By the late 1970s, however, the Arab authorities began to differentiate between Jordanians and Palestinians. What was previously considered to be treason and illegality suddenly became the propaganda line.

In March 1977, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein admitted in a candid interview in the Dutch newspaper Trouw: — I quote —

“Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot lay claim to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” — end of quote.

In 1988, as the first Intifada raged, Jordan officially renounced any claim of sovereignty to the so-called West Bank. In recent years, the Jordanian authorities have stripped thousands of Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship. They do so for two reasons.

First, because the alien Hashemite rulers fear that the Palestinians might one day take over their own country. And second, because stripping Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship supports the falsehood that Jordan is not a part of Palestine. And that, consequently, the Palestinians must attack Israel if they want a place of their own.

By arbitrarily reducing thousands of their citizens to statelessness, the Jordanian authorities want to force the Palestinians to turn their aspirations towards the establishment of another Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. This decision is a great injustice committed by the Hashemite rulers of Jordan — this foreign clan which the British installed.

I am not naïve. I am not blind to the possibility that if Jordan were to be ruled by the Palestinians, this might lead to political radicalization in Jordan. However, a continuation of the present situation will most certainly lead to radicalization. We need a paradigm shift. If we keep thinking along the same lines as we have done so far, no peaceful solution of the Palestinian problem is possible without endangering the existence of Israel and disrupting the social and economic fabric in Judea and Samaria. Resettling millions of Palestinians in these small provinces is simply impossible and is not going to happen.

To the skeptics, I say: What is the alternative? Leaving the present situation as it is? No, my friends, the world must recognize that there has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the Kingdom of Jordan.

Allowing all Palestinians to voluntarily settle in Jordan is a better way towards peace than the current so-called two-states-approach (in reality a three-states-approach) propagated by the United Nations, the U.S. administration, and governing elites all over the world. We only want a democratic non-violent solution for the Palestinian problem. This requires that the Palestinian people should be given the right to voluntarily settle in Jordan and freely elect their own government in Amman. If the present Hashemite King is still as popular as today, he can remain in power. That is for the people of Palestine to decide in real democratic elections.

My friends, let us adopt a totally new approach. Let us acknowledge that Jordan is Palestine.

And to the Western world I say: Let us stand with Israel because the Jews have no other state, while the Palestinians already have Jordan. Let us stand with Israel because the history of our civilization began here, in this land, the homeland of the Jews. Let us stand with Israel because the Jewish state needs defendable borders to secure its own survival. Let us stand with Israel because it is the frontline in the battle for the survival of the West.

We must speak the truth. The truth that Jordan is Palestine, the truth that Samaria and Judea are part of Israel, the truth that Jerusalem may not fall, the truth that Israel is the only democracy in a dark and tyrannical region, the truth that Israel is the linchpin of the West.

Of course, I am just a foreign guest and should be modest. Israel is a democracy and I respect every decision which its people and government will make. But I am proud to be here and grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts and beliefs with you.

Because it is here that our civilization is under attack as we speak. It is here that we, men and women of the West, must show our resolve to defend ourselves. It is here that Israel has lit the light of freedom and that Europeans and Americans must help the Israelis to keep that light shining in the darkness. For Israel’s sake and for the sake of all of us.

Toda raba… And shalom to all of you.'

Thanks to Gates of Vienna for the spot.

Geert Wilders warns

Geert Wilders warns the US of its future; becoming Europe mk2. Here's the beginning of the warning:

'In a generation or two, the U.S. will ask itself: who lost Europe? I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.'

The Netherlands election result

The BBC are upset that 'A Dutch anti-Islam party has more than doubled its seats in parliament in a national vote'. The BBC fervently hope that a governing coalition can be formed without Geert Wilders' party. Stand by for some vilification of Geert Wilders by the BBC in the coming weeks.

Geert Wilders opening speech at his trial

Inciting violence and inter-community hatred

Geert Wilders was, and by some still is, accused of inciting violence and creating inter-community hatred. To me it looks as though the hatred is there but it's on the other side...
"We'll have his head"
"the punishment... is capital punishment"
"warn him"
"Islam will dominate... so no matter where he runs, Islam will be implemented..."
"Islam will come and will conquer the UK, Islam will conquer Holland, it will conquer Rome, it will conquer the world."
"Islam will conquer the house of every person..."
"We will see Israel destroyed"


And the banners:
"Islam will dominate the world"
"Sharia for the Netherlands"
"Sharia will dominate the world"


The TV reporter is from the Iranian funded Press TV station and were the comments by the last interviewee about "two minutes" a threat?


Will the Metropolitan Police take any action against what may be incitements to violence? Somehow I doubt it.

A victory for free-speech (in fact 2)

To add to the vanquishing of Messrs Carter-Ruck's injunction granted to prevent reporting of a question to be posed in the House of Commons, see Guido for the story today, we now have the news that Dutch MP Geert Wilders has won his appeal against a Home Office decision barring his entry to the UK. He now plans to visit the UK next week and show his film alongside Lord Pearson in the House of Lords. I presume that the usual suspects will launch protests (possibly violent ones) at this disgraceful use of free speech, free speech that they would like banned.

I wonder if the Home Office will now launch a further appeal on the grounds that no Muslim must ever be upset by the truth.

The UK is less free than Jordan

I see that

"Geert Wilders has travelled to Jordan on the next leg of his Fitna World Tour. His day will start at the Royal Palace where he will be giving a special screening of his short film Fitna to His Majesty King Abdullah II. He will then give a speech about his film in Amman’s newly completed ‘Freedom Square’. Unfortunately he will not have the opportunity to pray, as originally planned, at the famous Abu Darweesh Mosque which is closed for renovations."

What a great day for the UK when we prevent someone from showing a film, nay from even entering the Country, in case his mere presence inflame some to violence; whilst he is allowed free entry and can even make a speech in Jordan. Any comments Jacqui Smith?

Has Jacqui Smith been listening to such as me?

It seems unlikely but at least Jacqui (Peter Principle personified) Smith has denied Ibrahim Moussawi a visa to enter Britain.



In case you don't know, the Peter Principle says that "in a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence."

My apologies to Jacqui Smith

Earlier today I blogged about the seemingly odd decision of Jacqi Smith, the personification of the Peter Principle, to ban Geert Wilders from entering the UK whilst allowing Ibrahim Moussawi to return. I thought this was odd bearing in mind Ibrahim Moussawi's connections to Hezb'allah.

I have just read that our Labour government in its wisdom has decided to re-establish

"contacts with the political wing of the Lebanese movement Hezbollah.

...

It comes about 10 months after Hezbollah signed a unity accord in Lebanon and joined the government.

Only last year, the government put Hezbollah's military wing on a list of proscribed organisations over its alleged training of insurgents in Iraq.

"We are exploring certain contacts at an official level with Hezbollah's political wing, including MPs," said a spokesperson for the Foreign Office.

...

The spokesperson said Britain would continue to have no contact with Hezbollah's military wing. "

Ah so the decision makes sense now, Ibrahim Moussawi is only linked to the political wing of Hezb'allah not the military wing. I am still not sure how that explains why we are letting in a man who describes Jews as "a lesion on the forehead of history" and has happily explained the religious basis for suicide attacks, but then I am not as intelligent as the former Home Economics teacher* currently occupying the position of Home Secretary.


* Wikipedia now shows Jacqui Smith as having taught Economics rather than Home Economics, are they right or has the truth been polished on Wikipedia? If someone can give a definitive answer I will correct the above assertion.

Geert Wilders banned but Ibrahim Moussawi welcomed

Our ridiculously over-promoted Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, banned the elected Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering the Country as she deemed that his

"presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

Meanwhile Jacqui Smith seems perfectly happy to let Ibrahim Moussawi make yet another visit to the UK. That's Ibrahim Moussawi the former political editor of Hezbollah's television station, which is banned in many countries including France, Spain and the U.S. where its output is seen as anti-Semitic. Ibrahim Moussawi who wrote an article for the Daily Star in 2002 to explain the religious basis for suicide attacks. Ibrahim Mousawi who has also been reported in the New Yorker magazine as saying that Jews are "a lesion on the forehead of history".

Is Jacqui Smith saying that Ibrahim Moussawi is less of a threat to "community harmony and therefore public security in the UK" than Geert Wilders? If so is this because Jews will, as usual, accept the verbal attacks on them by the likes of Moussawi whilst Lord Ahmed "threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House"?

It is odd that the UK government of which Jacqui Smith is supposedly a senior member recognizes Hezb'allah as a terrorist group but is happy to let a spokesman for the group into the UK to give a lecture?

The more the British government accedes to the demands of one minority in the interests of "community harmony", the more members of other minorities and indeed the majority population may feel that the government is not acting in their interests. The more these feelings are allowed to grow, the more nasty the results may be.

Interesting news from the Netherlands

Radio Netherlands reports that:

"According to a recent opinion poll, if parliamentary elections were held today, the Freedom Party (PVV) headed by right-wing populist leader Geert Wilders would become the largest party in the Netherlands.

It would win 27 seats in the 150-seat parliament, as opposed to the nine it currently has. The Christian Democrats - the largest party in the governing coalition - would win only 26 seats.

It is not the first time for a populist opposition group to score high in opinion polls, although it is rare for them to come out as potentially the biggest parliamentary party.

In October 2007 a survey carried out like this week's one by pollster Maurice de Hond, predicted 27 for another right-wing populist group, Rita Verdonk's Proud of the Netherlands party. Such a result would have made hers the second largest party in parliament.

Ms Verdonk currently has one seat in parliament - her own - into which she was elected when still a member of the conservative liberal party VVD. Mr Wilders, too, is a VVD renegade. "

If Geert Wilders' Freedom Party won a general election I wonder if the UK Labour government would let him into the Country, might be tricky to refuse access to the head of government of another EU country...

Geert Wilders banned from the UK but here's what he would have said

"Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.

This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.

The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned — all throughout the 1930’s — for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.

In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.

What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.

Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands you respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.
- - - - - - - - -

Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.

Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.

For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.

Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.

But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.

I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of Islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.

You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all its calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?

Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.

I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trail.

The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.

Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?

We have to defend freedom of speech.

For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.

What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?

The choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much."

Printed for the sake of free speech and democracy.

Geert Wilders on Radio 4's The Choice

Take a listen to The Choice and hear the BBC incredulity in the voice of Michael Buerk.

Will Jacqui Smith end up in court

Not over her expenses but over her exclusion of Geert Wilders as apparently the Dutch is "seriously considering" taking steps to sue Jacqui Smith over her decision to ban him from the UK.

Fitna

Beware both of the parts of the film contains images that are extremely graphic and may be deeply upsetting. The viewing of this film is unsuitable for minors and people of a sensitive disposition. Please do not show these videos to a minor.


Posted so that Keith Vaz has the opportunity to watch the film before he is next interviewed about Geert Wilders and feels he can comment on it because he has read a review.

More on the banning of Geert Wilders (update)

The Geert Wilders/Fitna affair took another turn today when Geert Wilders was denied entry by the Home Office and was questioned by immigration officials at Heathrow. Also in attendance was the Dutch Ambassador who made clear his government's opposition to the ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK. Lord Pearson still intends to show Fitna at the Houses of Parliament today and to hold a debate afterwards.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, told the BBC's Hardtalk that: "The home secretary made a decision on an individual case as she is required to do." and that the film contained "extreme anti-Muslim hate and we have very clear laws in this country". He added "We have profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and there is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred, according to the laws of the land."

The Home Office issued a statement that included this: "The government opposes extremism in all forms... "


Meanwhile Jacqui Smith allowed Ibrahim Moussawi into the UK to address an anti-war rally at Birmingham City Council's offices last year, that's the same Ibrahim Moussawi who has been reported in the New Yorker magazine as saying that Jews are "a lesion on the forehead of history".

Meanwhile the Labour government continually listened to and consorted with Azad Ali the president of the Civil Service Islamic Society, to whose advantage.

Meanwhile a report claimed that some Muslim schools in the UK teach "repugnant" beliefs about the wickedness of Western society and Jews.

Meanwhile Anjem Choudary can host a live feed from the Lebanon by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad and himself say that "As Muslims, we will not submit to any man-made law, any government, or any prime minister - Bush or Brown - or [to] Jacqui Smith. We submit to Allah." as well as "Jihad is a duty and a struggle and an obligation that lies upon the shoulders of us all. We will not rest until the flag of Allah and the flag of Islam is raised above 10 Downing Street."

Meanwhile Abu Rumaysah at the same meeting can say: "Women need to be covered up, men lashed for fornication [outside marriage] and hands cut off for theft and breaking Sharia law," When a woman in a burkha asked how he could justify this when Islam was supposed to be a religion of peace, the crowd mocked her. But it was Choudary who rose to put her in her place. "Islam is not a religion of peace," he said. "It is a religion of submission. We need to submit to the will of Allah."

Meanwhile the King of Saudi Arabia is accorded the honour of a full state visit and The Mall is hung with flags bearing the text (in Arabic) that: "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger". That's the King of Saudi Arabia, the Country where:
1) No symbols of any faith other than Islam are allowed and the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited.

2) Only Muslims are allowed into Mecca & Medina, the street signs are really quite shocking when you see them.

3) The Saudi government does not permit non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the purpose of conducting religious services.

4) According Saudi policy for tourists, it is not permissible to bring Christian or Jewish religious symbols and books into the kingdom and they are subject to confiscation

5) Until March 1, 2004, the official government website stated that Jews were forbidden from entering the country - the situation now is less clear


But it is Geert Wilders who is prevented from entering the UK to speak at a meeting whilst Ibrahim Moussawi, Anjem Choudary and Abu Rumaysah can say what they like without fear of censure. It is Geert Wilders who is prevented from entering the UK whilst those who march chanting "death to the Jews" or call for the beheading of cartoonists carry on regardless. It is strange Country we live in, is it not?

More on the banning of Geert Wilders

Take a listen to today's Radio 4 World at One from around 19:50 and hear Geert Wilders being interviewed and then Lord Ahmed not being asked about his threat to "to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House" but being allowed to make unsubstantiated claims. Lord Pearson is also interviewed and uses the word "appeasement" to describe the banning of Geert Wilders. Lord Ahmed seems very concerned about threats to him but the threat is not from the film but the reaction of some elements of some Muslim extremists to the film. The "debate" ends oddly; Lord Pearson explains that the film will be shown with or without Geert Wilders along with another film to be followed by a discussion. Meanwhile right at the end and over the top of Lord Pearson, Lord Ahmed claims that the "Islamic scholars" who will be taking part in the debate are "scholars who hate Muslims". Hmmmm.

Maybe Lord Ahmed is getting a little anxious, after all on the 25 February he faces a court date that could result in him being sent to prison for up to two years for the admitted crime of dangerous driving that resulted in the death of Martin Gombar. "Lord Ahmed admitted sending and receiving five text messages on his phone while driving shortly before the crash, and pleaded guilty to the charge before him. He was banned from driving until his sentencing. On 22 December, Sheffield Magistrates' Court referred the case for sentencing at the crown court on 19 January due to its "aggravating features". This was later put back until 25 February. Lord Ahmed faces a maximum of two years in jail."

odd how the BBC hasn't drawn attention to this piece of back-story. As I said back in November:

"The way that the BBC report the alleged misdeeds of politicians is almost childlike in its bias. Any misdeed of a Conservative politician no matter how minor is front page news for days, to be discussed and analysed at length. Meanwhile any alleged infraction by a Labour politician, no matter how senior the politician or serious the allegation is reported as quietly and for as short a time as possible. Can you imagine the BBC coverage if this had been a Conservative member of the House of Lords? I would imagine it would be front page news for days."

Who supports terrorism (update)

Further to my earlier post about Jacqui Smith's decision to ban Geert Wilders from the UK as she deemed his

"presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

I am reminded that last year the same Home Secretary decided to allow Ibrahim Moussawi into the UK to address an anti-war rally at Birmingham City Council's offices. Ibrahim Moussawi at the time edited Hezbollah's newspaper and was the former political editor of Hezbollah's television station, which is banned in many countries including France, Spain and the U.S. where its output is seen as anti-Semitic. Moussawi wrote an article for the Daily Star in 2002 to explain the religious basis for suicide attacks. Mousawi has also been reported in the New Yorker magazine as saying that Jews are "a lesion on the forehead of history".

So is Jacqui Smith saying that Ibrahim Moussawi is less of a threat to "community harmony and therefore public security in the UK" than Geert Wilders? If so is this because Jews will, as usual, accept the attacks on them by the likes of Moussawi whilst Lord Ahmed "threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House"?


The more the British government accedes to the demands of one minority in the interests of "community harmony", the more members of other minorities and the majority population may feel that the government is not acting in their interests. The more these feelings are allowed to grow, the more nasty the result may be.



If you want to read about more Islamic extremists that our expense claiming Home Secretary thinks are not worthy of a ban on entering the Country, then Harry's Place has a more comprehensive list than I do.