Raw footage from Glasgow Airport Terror Attack
Symbolik
Quo Vadis, Europe? Sweden or Switzerland?
Two of the most neutral countries in Europe are Sweden and Switzerland. How they perceive the threat of Islam to their national and cultural identifies is as different as night and day. In Sweden, the critics of what Islam is doing to their country are frightened into silence while in Switzerland the Swiss are who see what’s happening in other European countries are determined to nip and Islamofication of their county in the bud.
From the BBC:
Members of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, currently the largest party in the Swiss parliament, have launched a campaign to have the building of minarets banned.They claim the minaret is not necessary for worship, but is rather a symbol of Islamic law, and as such incompatible with Switzerland’s legal system. Signatures are now being collected to force a nationwide referendum on the issue which, under Switzerland’s system of direct democracy, would be binding.
Supporters of a ban on minarets say they have no intention of preventing anyone from practising their faith. “We don’t have anything against Muslims,” said Oskar Freysinger, member of parliament for the Swiss People’s Party. “But we don’t want minarets. The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam, it’s a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over.”
I’d say that was a fairly logical perspective given the attempts of Muslims to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims in Europe.
“We have our civil laws here,” insisted Mr Freysinger. “Banning minarets would send a clear signal that our European laws, our Swiss laws, have to be accepted. And if you want to live here, you must accept them. If you don’t, then go back.”
That shows a real determination to defend their culture. And what about Sweden? How do they defend their national culture?
The state scientist Lisbeth Lindeborg on Swedish timidity to conflict around Islam:
Unlike our neighboring countries and the large countries of the EU, Sweden sweeps every inconvenient matter under the rug. Sweden is a European country characterized by a distorted and conflict-averse debate about Islam. In Sweden, representatives who offer constructive criticism of Islam are being attacked and pointed to as Islamophobes, with the purpose of frightening them into silence. This is particularly unfortunate, given that the UN’s Human Rights Commission recently adopted a resolution which in principle prohibits the criticism of Islam. The resolution is a scandal, since the UN commission ought to be aware that human rights exist to protect individuals, not religions. For the Muslims who risk their lives for the reform and modernization of Islam, the UN resolution is a slap in the face.
Sweden is essentially ending as a nation. Fjordman has a biting essay on the future of Sweden.
Gathering Storm Blog
Jødeboykottens genkomst
Af Helle Merete Brix og Lars Hedegaard, redaktører af Sappho
I et indlæg i avisen fredag peger kulturredaktør Iver Høj Nielsen på det mærkværdige i, at det britiske journalistforbund i april vedtog en boykot af israelske varer. Vi er enige i kritikken, og det kunne være interessant at høre, om Dansk Journalistforbund har protesteret over for de britiske kolleger. Men en endnu mere ubehagelig boykot blev i slutningen af maj vedtaget med et snævert flertal af Storbritanniens største organisation af undervisere, National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NAFTHE). Lærerne vedtog ganske enkelt at boykotte israelske undervisere og institutioner, der, som det formuleres, ikke tager afstand fra Israels »apartheidpolitik«. [..]
- Hvordan er det kommet dertil, at man overvejer at boykotte et lands akademikere og forskningsinstitutioner på grund af den politik, landet fører, og som her, helt grotesk, kaldes en apartheidpolitik? Ikke siden Anden Verdenskrig har vi i Europa oplevet så massive angreb på jøder og jødisk ejendom, som vi gør i disse år.
De aktuelle boykotter minder mest af alt om den kampagne mod jødiske forretninger, læger, sagførere og dommere, som nazisterne iværksatte i marts-april 1933. »Køb ikke hos jøderne«, stod der på skiltene, når stormtropperne tog opstilling foran Berlins jødiske butikker. Og ligesom det tyske jødehad havde tag i store dele af befolkningen, har antisemitismen, forklædt som antizionisme, et vist medløb i den britiske befolkning. Således vedtog Storbritanniens største fagforening, Unison, der organiserer 1,3 millioner offentligt ansatte, den 21. juni en total boykot af Israel – økonomisk, kulturelt, akademisk og sportsligt. Det var der trods alt ingen af Weimar-republikken frie fagforeninger, der fandt på.
Antisemitismen er blevet stueren og har tilslutning inden for journaliststanden, på de højere læreanstalter, blandt opinionsdannerne og i fagforeninger. Og blandt Europas rabiate muslimer. Den amerikanske (Israel-venlige) akademikersammenslutning Scholars for Peace in the Middle East har samlet flere tusinde underskrifter mod den britiske boykot og har fået tilslutning fra 20 nobelpristagere og 14 universitetsrektorer. Hvad mener de danske af slagsen?
Two of the most neutral countries in Europe are Sweden and Switzerland. How they perceive the threat of Islam to their national and cultural identifies is as different as night and day. In Sweden, the critics of what Islam is doing to their country are frightened into silence while in Switzerland the Swiss are who see what’s happening in other European countries are determined to nip and Islamofication of their county in the bud.
From the BBC:
Members of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, currently the largest party in the Swiss parliament, have launched a campaign to have the building of minarets banned.They claim the minaret is not necessary for worship, but is rather a symbol of Islamic law, and as such incompatible with Switzerland’s legal system. Signatures are now being collected to force a nationwide referendum on the issue which, under Switzerland’s system of direct democracy, would be binding.
Supporters of a ban on minarets say they have no intention of preventing anyone from practising their faith. “We don’t have anything against Muslims,” said Oskar Freysinger, member of parliament for the Swiss People’s Party. “But we don’t want minarets. The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam, it’s a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over.”
I’d say that was a fairly logical perspective given the attempts of Muslims to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims in Europe.
“We have our civil laws here,” insisted Mr Freysinger. “Banning minarets would send a clear signal that our European laws, our Swiss laws, have to be accepted. And if you want to live here, you must accept them. If you don’t, then go back.”
That shows a real determination to defend their culture. And what about Sweden? How do they defend their national culture?
The state scientist Lisbeth Lindeborg on Swedish timidity to conflict around Islam:
Unlike our neighboring countries and the large countries of the EU, Sweden sweeps every inconvenient matter under the rug. Sweden is a European country characterized by a distorted and conflict-averse debate about Islam. In Sweden, representatives who offer constructive criticism of Islam are being attacked and pointed to as Islamophobes, with the purpose of frightening them into silence. This is particularly unfortunate, given that the UN’s Human Rights Commission recently adopted a resolution which in principle prohibits the criticism of Islam. The resolution is a scandal, since the UN commission ought to be aware that human rights exist to protect individuals, not religions. For the Muslims who risk their lives for the reform and modernization of Islam, the UN resolution is a slap in the face.
Sweden is essentially ending as a nation. Fjordman has a biting essay on the future of Sweden.
Gathering Storm Blog
Jødeboykottens genkomst
Af Helle Merete Brix og Lars Hedegaard, redaktører af Sappho
I et indlæg i avisen fredag peger kulturredaktør Iver Høj Nielsen på det mærkværdige i, at det britiske journalistforbund i april vedtog en boykot af israelske varer. Vi er enige i kritikken, og det kunne være interessant at høre, om Dansk Journalistforbund har protesteret over for de britiske kolleger. Men en endnu mere ubehagelig boykot blev i slutningen af maj vedtaget med et snævert flertal af Storbritanniens største organisation af undervisere, National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NAFTHE). Lærerne vedtog ganske enkelt at boykotte israelske undervisere og institutioner, der, som det formuleres, ikke tager afstand fra Israels »apartheidpolitik«. [..]
- Hvordan er det kommet dertil, at man overvejer at boykotte et lands akademikere og forskningsinstitutioner på grund af den politik, landet fører, og som her, helt grotesk, kaldes en apartheidpolitik? Ikke siden Anden Verdenskrig har vi i Europa oplevet så massive angreb på jøder og jødisk ejendom, som vi gør i disse år.
De aktuelle boykotter minder mest af alt om den kampagne mod jødiske forretninger, læger, sagførere og dommere, som nazisterne iværksatte i marts-april 1933. »Køb ikke hos jøderne«, stod der på skiltene, når stormtropperne tog opstilling foran Berlins jødiske butikker. Og ligesom det tyske jødehad havde tag i store dele af befolkningen, har antisemitismen, forklædt som antizionisme, et vist medløb i den britiske befolkning. Således vedtog Storbritanniens største fagforening, Unison, der organiserer 1,3 millioner offentligt ansatte, den 21. juni en total boykot af Israel – økonomisk, kulturelt, akademisk og sportsligt. Det var der trods alt ingen af Weimar-republikken frie fagforeninger, der fandt på.
Antisemitismen er blevet stueren og har tilslutning inden for journaliststanden, på de højere læreanstalter, blandt opinionsdannerne og i fagforeninger. Og blandt Europas rabiate muslimer. Den amerikanske (Israel-venlige) akademikersammenslutning Scholars for Peace in the Middle East har samlet flere tusinde underskrifter mod den britiske boykot og har fået tilslutning fra 20 nobelpristagere og 14 universitetsrektorer. Hvad mener de danske af slagsen?
posted by Steen at
mandag, juli 02, 2007
<< Home