Under the new proposed ‘Extremism Disruption Orders,’ if you are an opponent of sharia law, you could be considered as dangerous as ISIS and be branded an “extremist” under sweeping new powers planned by the Conservatives to combat terrorism.
UK Telegraph Theresa May, the Home Secretary, unveiled plans last month for so-called Extremism Disruption Orders, which would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission.
Mrs May outlined the proposal in a speech at the Tory party conference in which she spoke about the threat from the so-called Islamic State – also known as Isis and Isil – and the Nigerian Islamist movement Boko Haram.
But George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”.
He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.
He also disclosed that anyone seeking to challenge such an order would have to go the High Court, appealing on a point of law rather than fact.
The National Secular Society and the Christian institute – two organisations with often diametrically opposing interests – said they shared fears that the broad scope of extremism could represent a major threat to free speech.
Keith Porteous Wood, director of the NSS, said secularists might have to think twice before criticising Christianity or Islam. He said secularists risk being branded Islamophobic and racist because of their high profile campaigns against the advance of Sharia law in the UK.
“The Government should have every tool possible to tackle extremism and terrorism, but there is a huge arsenal of laws already in place and a much better case needs to be made for introducing draconian measures such as Extremism Disruption Orders, which are almost unchallengeable and deprive individuals of their liberties,” he said.
“Without precise legislative definitions, deciding what are ‘harmful activities of extremist individuals who spread hate’ is subjective and therefore open to abuse now or by any future authoritarian government.”
Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of the Christian Institute, said traditionalist evangelicals who criticize gay marriage or even argue that all religions are not the same could find themselves accused of extremism.
“Anyone who expresses an opinion that isn’t regarded as totally compliant with the Equality Act could find themselves ranked alongside Anjem Choudary, Islamic state or Boko Haram,” he said.
He added: “How many times a day do intellectually lazy political activists accuse their opponents of ‘spreading hatred’? “The left does it, the right does it, liberals do it, conservatives do it, it is routine.
“Hand a judge a file of a thousand Twitter postings accusing this atheist or that evangelical of ‘spreading hatred’ and they could easily rule that an EDO is needed.
“It’s a crazy idea – the Conservatives need to drop this like a hot brick.” A Conservative spokesman said: “Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are a vital part of a democratic society.
“In Government, Conservatives have always tried to strike the right balance on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to manifest one’s religion, and the need to protect the public. We have never sought to restrict peaceful protest or free speech, provided it is within the law.
“Our proposal to introduce Extremism Disruption Orders reflects the need to go further on challenging the threat from extremism and those who spread their hateful views so that we can keep that democratic society safe.”
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey jokingly asked a bearded man during a speech at Syracuse University whether he was a member of the Taliban, in an exchange first reported by Syracuse.com.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey
The Hill When a man stood up to ask Dempsey a question during a Q&A session, Dempsey asked him, “Are you Taliban?” before quickly adding that he was kidding. Yusuf Soule, the man who asked the question, converted to Islam in 1999, according to the report. Soule, who is Caucasian, said that he wasn’t offended by the crack and called Dempsey “a funny guy.”
But CAIR’s spokesIslamist Ibrahim Hooper, the communications director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told The Hill he didn’t share Soule’s sentiment. “I think this is yet another symptom of the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in our society,” Hooper said. “I would put this more in the category of casual Islamophobia. It’s joking and jovial, but it’s Islamophobia nonetheless.”
Hooper’s group is the largest Hamas-affiliated Muslim Brotherhood front group in America. He added that the joke coming from a top American military official makes it “all the more disturbing.” (Awwww, who cares what you think? Nobody)
CAIR’S Ibrahim Hooper (left) and Nihad Awadacrap (right)
Foreign jihadists from more than 80 countries have flocked to fight in Iraq and Syria on an ‘unprecedented scale’, according to extracts of a UN report.
American Muslim convert suicide bomber who blew himself up in Syria
UK Daily Mail Around 15,000 people have travelled to fight alongside Islamic State (ISIS) and other hardcore militant groups from ‘countries that have not previously faced challenges relating to Al Qaeda,’ it said.
The study found a new breed of terrorist was being attracted by the extremist group’s ‘cosmopolitan’ use of social media, pointing to examples when jihadists posted ‘kitten photographs’ on Twitter. ISIS leaders recognise ‘the terror and recruitment value of multi-channel, multi-language social and other media messaging,’ it added.
The number of foreign jihadists travelling to fight since 2010 exceeds the cumulative total of the 20 preceding years ‘many times’, the Security Council study found. ‘There are instances of foreign terrorist fighters from France, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland operating together,’ the report said, according to the Guardian.
Britain’s top police officer, Bernard Hogan-Howe, estimated last week that five people a week were leaving the country to fight with ISIS. Security officials estimate there are currently around 500 British nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq. Dozens have been arrested for preparing to leave to join the IS group or helping others to do so.
France is also moving closer to adopting an ‘anti-terrorism’ law which would slap a travel ban on anyone suspected of planning to wage jihad. The UN warned that more nations than ever face the problem of dealing with fighters returning from the battle zone.
The US Central Intelligence Agency last month announced figures showing that there were around 20,000 to 31,500 ISIS fighters active in Iraq and Syria, much higher than previous estimates. A US security official estimated that there were close to 2,000 westerners among the 15,000 foreign fighters.
Previous figures showed there were 7,000 foreign jihadists fighting in March and 12,000 in July suggesting 1,000 a month were travelling to fight, despite the launch of U.S. air strikes three months ago, although there is a lag of a few weeks in the figures.
The report was produced by a committee that monitors Al Qaeda and concluded that the once mighty and feared group was now ‘maneuvering for relevance’ following the rise of the even more militant ISIS, which was booted out of Al Qaeda by leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Despite the split, the UN concluded that the legal basis for US President Barack Obama’s fight against ISIS was justified by its ideological congruence with Al Qaeda and considered the two groups as part of a broader movement.
Tahmooressi, 26, who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, has been held since March 31, when he mistakenly crossed into Mexico with three legally-purchased and registered guns in his truck.
FOX News A court-appointed psychiatrist confirmed that Tahmooressi has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Family spokesman Jonathan Franks said the judge released him without making a determination on the charge against him.
The family issued the following statement: “It is with an overwhelming and humbling feeling of relief that we confirm that Andrew was released today after spending 214 days in a Mexican Jail.”
The Florida man said he got lost on a California freeway ramp that sent him across the border with no way to turn back. His long detention brought calls for his freedom from U.S. politicians, veterans groups and social media campaigns.
Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, immediately issued a statement saying, “I am elated that Sgt. Tahmooressi has been ordered released from jail in Mexico. This is great, but overdue, news. I am pleased that both Attorney General Jesús Murillo Karam and the judge on the case recognize that Sgt. Tahmooressi did not intend to violate Mexican law, and that his combat-related PTSD should be treated by specialists in the United States.”
Our military has to hide that they’re in the military on our own soil? Totally unbelievable. The Democrats have turned America into a safari park where the dangerous wild animals run free and the defenders of freedom are in cages. How about we put these Muslim threats in internment camps instead?
Clash Daily Through our confidential contacts in U.S. Military Special Operations, ClashDaily.com has been provided a copy of an unclassified Department of Defense directive, USNORTHCOM Force Directive 1-295, which essentially orders our troops into hiding here in their own sovereign territory and in Canada, whenever they leave their duty stations.
The directive, issued a week ago in close coordination with our Canadian allies, describes in detail the recent deadly sequence of Islamic jihad attacks on Canadian military members in Ottawa and near Montreal. It also describes the ongoing threats announced by ISIS, commanding their jihadi sleepers and “lone wolves” to murder any and all Americans possible (especially military members and their dependents) here at home.
The directive orders that all U.S. military personnel in North America who are in “public venues” or using commercial transportation are to refrain from wearing uniforms, insignias, or any other kind of identifying clothing or items which indicate their military affiliation, “unless complying with official travel instructions or other orders.”
While it is understood that the specific targeting of U.S. and Canadian military personnel by ISIS is very serious, very real, and has already proven disastrously deadly, one cannot help but consider the fact that we are basically, timidly, allowing the enemy to dictate the terms and rules of engagement here, on our turf.
It’s extremely unfortunate, and even more so because it doesn’t have to be this way.
How is it avoidable? As with other maddeningly timid rules of engagement during this long war — in areas of operation overseas and in anti-terrorism policies and operations everywhere — the present situation is the result of the craven politically-correct ideology that says when dealing with those who resemble the enemy and share the enemy’s nationalities, culture, and stated religion, we must err on the side of non-aggression and exert ourselves to avoid giving offense.
In the aftermath of the 1941 attack by the Imperial Japanese on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, our country’s leadership ordered the rounding up all of those here on our soil who had at least some surface liability to sympathize or otherwise be aligned with our mortal enemies. We didn’t screw around and unnecessarily put more American lives at risk. The threat was real.
While World War II escalated, we didn’t excessively wring our hands and worry more about whether we were violating the rights of people whose loyalties were legitimately in question than we did about preventing further attacks — we were at war, and our leaders made the clear decision to protect the homeland, and to win.
At that time, rounding up the second generation Japanese, and certain others related to the Axis powers, was the right thing to do given the circumstances. In her phenomenal and exhaustively researched book titled In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror, author Michelle Malkin details the specifics of our government’s systematic evacuation of the Japanese and others away from critical areas and into comfortable, secured communities (“internment camps” replete with recreation facilities and movie theaters, etc.) until the threat was eliminated and the war was over.
Those who go around apologizing for all of that today are in the same league of dhimmis, derelicts, doofuses, and outright traitors who squashed the Phoenix Memo prior to Sept. 11th, 2001, and who prevented FBI counter-terrorism agents from ever communicating with each other at all out of excessive concern for “sensitivities” and “appearances” (recall Clinton deputy Jamie Gorelick’s increased “wall of separation” between law enforcement and intelligence units).
They are the same “progressives” who still refuse to secure our borders against illegal and dangerous foreign invasions and crime networks, and who continually release the worst of the worst of our enemy’s warriors and top commanders from Guantanamo Bay. They are the same worthless enablers of terror attacks who ignored numerous red flags to let the underwear bomber get on the plane in Africa, bound for Detroit, and who poo-pooed the Russians’ warnings about the Tsarnaev brothers prior to the Boston Marathon bombings.
They are the same people among the liberal vanguard of multiculturalist Canadian political bureaus who made sure that the murderous jihadis of last week, already known to security personnel as posing some degree of threat, were left free to plot and carry out their attacks.
They are the psychotically stubborn people in the media and in office who do everything they can to not call last week’s jihad hatchet murder rampage against New York City cops exactly what it was, lest that assessment “contribute to negative stereotypes” of Muslims/minorities — until they have completely exhausted the fetid reservoir of diversity-correctness and are forced to acknowledge the facts.
They do everything they can to marginalize and vilify voices like mine and ours, when we call for more aggressive measures to contain and eliminate the broader threat posed by followers of Mohammed in this modern era.
They are the alleged “authorities” who say that instead of aggressively rounding up and/or otherwise profiling young Muslim men who pose at least some degree of threat of being aligned with jihad extremism, we must order our military personnel to go incognito in the very land our security forces and citizens could, instead, readily secure, if those so-called authorities would simply let us do it.
Unfortunately, all of that makes perfect sense, given the circumstances — circumstances which have resulted from the ongoing failure of leadership and deliberate policy decisions guided by the groveling, apologetic, anti-American ideology which says it’s more important to protect the feelings and the military academies (mosques) of the enemy than it is to protect innocent lives like little 8-year-old Martin Richard, murdered by a Tsarnaev brothers’ bomb at the Boston Marathon.
If we ever have sound leadership in this country again while the threat of Islamic jihad exists, any Muslims on our soil will cautiously hide their religious garb/affiliation while our troops proudly wear their uniform of our nation on their way home off-base or on their lunch break at the McDonald’s outside the post gate.
The alert is titled “Recent Threats and Individual Protective Measures.”
The alert lists 11 protective steps that require employees to alter their ways of life, including:
⦁ Remove decals and other identifiers from clothing and vehicles.
⦁ Vary travel routes.
⦁ Avoid large gatherings and places where people congregate.
⦁ Guard what you post on Facebook and Twitter.
⦁ Do not post anything that links you to the Defense Department.
Sheikh Motlab al Nabet, spokesman of Saudi Arabia’s religious police, announced that the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice will cover any women’s eyes that are deemed tempting. “The men of the committee will interfere to force women to cover their eyes, especially the tempting ones. We have the right to do so,” he said.
AINA What are “tempting” eyes? One Saudi journalist mused on condition of anonymity that they are “uncovered eyes with a nice shape and makeup. Or even without makeup, if they are beautiful, the woman will be in trouble.”
The Orwellian-named committee did not provide a definition of tempting, but if they happen to rely on Merriam-Webster, then it means “having an appeal.” What is an appeal? According to the dictionary, it is “arousing a sympathetic response.” And what is sympathetic? “Showing empathy,” according to Merriam-Webster.
So there you have it. To allow a women’s eyes to capture the unfettered glory of the world, one must empathize with her very existence. But the religious police–massively funded by King Abdullah–cannot do this. “It’s so stupid,” the Saudi journalist tells me. “I don’t know what to say. They have to stop this. Many people will oppose this in the country. They won’t be silent.”
Perhaps they won’t be, but the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice has some of the most powerful backers in the country. Prince Naif, recently appointed heir to the throne, has said: “The committee is supported by all sides … It should be supported because it is a pillar from Islam. If you are a Muslim, you should support the committee.” No surprise, then, that King Abdullah awarded this draconian body an additional 200 million riyals (about $53 million) in March.
How should America respond to this latest affront to Saudi women? Perhaps it can sponsor a contest of the most tempting eyes in Saudi Arabia. Women will send in pictures of their most tempting look and the winner will get to accompany President Obama during his next meeting with the Saudi dictator.
If Congress reconsidered the recent $60 billion U.S.-Saudi arms deal, the religious police might quickly find it “tempting” to stop treating women as property.
Parents of a boy enrolled in Manhattan Beach Middle School are pulling their son out of class because the school is teaching children the tenets of the Islamic faith, Los Angeles news station KTLA reports.
Breitbart The father said, “The audacity of this school, to think that they can sit these children down and teach ’em whatever religion they please; it’s preposterous. This is illegal, basically. You can’t teach religion in schools any more, but apparently, in this particular school, at least, that’s not the case.”
Parents said they discovered that what their children were learning about Islam was more about the tenets of the faith than the history of the religion, according to KTLA. One question asked the students to write down teachings from the Koran.
The father continued, “What I saw written in these bubbles was, ‘The one true God, Allah’ in one of the bubbles. In one of the other bubbles was ‘All people must submit to Allah,’ in another bubble. The I turned the page over and I see the five pillars of Islam.”
The parents talked to the principal, but the school refused to change the schoolwork, prompting the parents to remove their son from the class. The school would not respond to questions from KTLA.
For those with a dog in this fight, i.e. locals, and all American patriots, please address your concerns forcefully but peaceably to the superintendent or principal:
Michael D. Matthews, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Manhattan Beach Unified School District 325 S. Peck Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Phone: 310-318-7345, x5900 email@example.com
If you get this person, ask to speak to the butcher, not the block (no not literally!), because you’re talking to the wrong person:
Nancy Bogart Executive Assistant to the Superintendent firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 310-318-7345 x5902
Manhattan Beach Middle School 1501 North Redondo Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Phone: 310.545.4878…Local: Principal John Jackson 3000 Assistant Principal Dr. Karina Gerger 3002
CAIR spokesIslamist with eye makeup blames growing anti-Muslim sentiment in America on Islamic terrorism around the world which she says is “not part of Islam.” Apparently, she thinks if she claims that “Islam is a religion of peace.” people will believe her! (HAH!)
The U.S. Marine veteran who is protesting his daughter’s school’s teaching of Islam in the classroom is interviewed in the video below.
VOTE IN THE POLL that asks if the 5 pillars of Islam should be taught in school at this link: NJ1015Be sure to check the box that says:
Officer in hospital with non-life threatening injuries. No word yet on whether the attacker was a Muslim like the one in New York City last week.
D.C. police are looking for a suspect who attempted a violent attack on an officer with an ax. According to Gwen Crump, spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police Department, a man armed with an ax attacked an officer in the 3800 block of 13th Street NE shortly after 3:00 a.m. Crump says the attack was unprovoked. The officer was not struck by the weapon, but was injured while trying to disarm the suspect.
UPDATED The officer, who hasn’t been identified, wasn’t injured by the ax, but he chased the suspect and suffered a shoulder injury in a scuffle before the attacker ran away, police said. No motive is known and the suspect remains at large. Police said he was an African-American man about 6 feet tall and of stocky build.