The Brussels Process: for free speech and civil liberties

As a rule of thumb, anything political with "Brussels" in the title sets alarm bells ringing, and in the culinary world, mention of the word "Brussels" together with "sprouts" can cause near panic in some for entirely different reasons. However, on this occasion, something positive took place in Brussels this week which brought together a group of like-minded people from across Europe, and some from beyond, to initiate what they term the "Brussels Process", which is defined on the Gates of Vienna blog as "a continuing series of events that will strengthen free speech and civil liberties in the West, and provide an alternative to the notorious “Istanbul Process”." The occasion for its launch was provided by the International Conference for Free Speech and Human Rights, initiated by the International Civil Liberties Alliance and hosted at the EU Parliament with the co-sponsorship of two MEPs: Philip Claeys (Vlaams Belang, Belgium) and Magdi Allam (UDC, Italy). The ICLA press release states:

On 9 July, the International Civil Liberties Alliance presented an International Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Conference in the European Parliament in Brussels. Over 100 people from numerous, countries, cultures, and backgrounds took part in this milestone event at which Lars Hedegaard of the Danish Free Press Society received the “Defender of Freedom” award.

The conference was organised in response to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)’s Istanbul Process, which seeks to institute a global blasphemy law that would ban freedom of expression under sharia doctrine worldwide. Many governments are actively aiding the Istanbul Process, rather than opposing it as they should to preserve the liberties of their citizens. The European Union’s offer to host the next meeting of the OIC’s Istanbul Process shows that organization’s willingness to impose severe restrictions on traditional rights and freedoms of citizens within the European Union. The principal purpose of the International Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Conference was to encourage an open and fact-based public debate on these issues, and to provide policy guidance for political leaders, especially those who themselves are raising the alarm over the OIC’s totalitarian sharia doctrines against free expression, civil liberties, women’s rights, homosexual rights and religious freedom.

 The OIC Logo

 The launch of such an initiative can only be applauded, and the list of speakers was impressive. As the Gates of Vienna blog has provided extensive coverage of the content of the speeches, as well as videos and commentary, you should visit that site for further detail. The video below (hat tip to Vlad Tepes), although produced prior to the launch of the Brussels Process, is well worth watching, for in this the speaker outlines the structure, goals and values of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation), which underscores why the objectives of the Brussels Process are so important. Although this video was produced by the American 'Center for Security Policy' which has its own agenda, its content is sound.

 

Below is the full list of speakers at theInternational Conference for Free Speech and Human Rights:

• Mark Steyn (Canada), commenter and author of “America Alone” & “After America”
• Lars Hedegaard (Denmark), book author and President of the International Free Press Society
• Prof. Hans Jansen (Netherlands), retired Professor of Modern Islamic Thought at the University of Utrecht
• Mgr Ch.-C. Boniface, dit Pére Samuel (France), Bishop, Syrian-Catholic Church
• Nidra Poller (France), book author and commenter on challenges from Islam
• Alexandre del Valle, author, co-founder of the “Geopolitical observatory of the Mediterranean Sea”
• Sabatina James (Germany), apostate from Islam and author of three books
• Sam van Rooy (Belgium), editor of two books with essays on the dangers of Islam and of the crisis of the European Union
• Pierre Cassen, editor-in chief of “Riposte Laïque”, author
• Tommy Robinson (UK), joint vice-chairman of the British Freedom Party
• Ingrid Carlqvist (Sweden), President of the Swedish Free Press Society
• Magdi Allam (Italy), MEP, apostate from Islam, convert to Catholicism
• Gavin Boby (UK), Law and Freedom Foundation
• George Igler (UK), Discourse
• Jean Maher, (Egypt) president of l’Organisation franco-égyptienne pour les Droits de l’homme
• Conny Axel Meier German publicist, Chairman of Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa (BPE)
• Christian Jung, (Germany) writer and editor for blu-News
• Ned May, a freelance writer, editor, and computer programmer living in Central Virginia
• Alain Wagner (France), leader of the Stop Sharia campaign
• Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (Austria), lecturer on Islamic politics and victim of sharia-compliant “hate speech” laws
• Philip Claeys, (Belgium) MEP

EDL Website Removed: Islam placed above the Law in the UK

Aeneas of the International Civil Liberties Alliance yesterday published an article about an alarming development concerning the EDL: its website has been ‘taken down for telling the truth about Islam.’ It is deeply worrying that the EDL site has been removed by officialdom. The concepts underpinning the Racial and Religious Hatred Act were deeply flawed, and it was evident at the time that it was introduced that at some future date it would be used arbitrarily to stifle criticism of Islam. Strangely, despite the hate-filled verses of the Qur’an urging violence against anyone who resists Islam, our authorities have effectively deemed that this book and its attendant belief system are beyond criticism. Although the Qur’an can without doubt be objectively classified as ‘hate speech’, it has been placed above the law.

Thankfully, the EDL Extra blog is still up and running, and I urge you to visit and read some of its excellent articles: http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/

The disappearance of the EDL site comes less than a fortnight after Simon Bennett pulled the plug on the BNP website. Now that a replacement is up and running, will the authorities attempt to shut that down too? I fear that Cameron and Clegg will introduce beefed-up ‘hate speech’ legislation which will firmly entrench Islam’s privileged position in our country. Where is this leading? To the political internment of all who oppose Islamisation? Given the fact that exceptionally violent Muslim gangsters effectively dominate the inside life of many of our prisons, such a fate would make life in the Soviet gulag look appealing by comparison. The future suddenly looks a lot bleaker, but we must not give up. To give up is not an option. Our redundant out-of-touch political elite will try to destroy us, but we shall survive and we shall win.

Here is Aeneas’ article in full:

English Defence League Website Apparently Taken Down For Telling The Truth About Islam

By Aeneas • on May 17, 2010

Today the English Defence League Website has been suspended, apparently because of an article that describes, using suras from the Quran, how Islam looks on the Kuffar (non-Muslims). This latest act of censorship is reminiscent of the way Geert Wilders’ short film, Fitna, has been demonised for revealing truth. Wilders juxtaposed Quranic quotes with acts of terror, the article in question did not even go that far. It seems that the thought police are about their work again, suppressing debate, denying reality, and bolstering established interests.

Apparently the reason provided for this blatant act of censorship was that the article ‘contravenes UK racism laws’. If this is the case then it means one of two things, that the Quran itself contravenes UK racism laws or Islam has an exemption from UK racism laws, and is treated as a special case. Since the Quran is still available for sale on the shelves of UK bookshops it must mean that the latter is true. That being so effectively means that the UK is already under a form of Sharia law which demands that Islam is above criticism and completely outside the realm of rational debate. When the Racial and Religious Hatred Act was put before Parliament the British people were assured that freedom of expression would not be a casualty. It would appear that the British people were seriously misled and that the Racial and Religious Hatred Act was nothing other than a Sharia enabling act designed specifically to usher in a period of Islamic rule.

Promoting hatred is wrong and if our legislation exempts religiously inspired hatred then the laws currently on the statute book is not fit for purpose. All the law seems to do these days is empower those who want to undermine freedom and equality before the law, and discriminate against those who want to protect the British way of life. This is wrong and is an affront to our democratic system of government because it acts as the handmaiden of tyranny. Far from promoting multiculturalism, such legislation is effectively promoting the monoculture of Islam. Our legal system has effectively been subverted and is now simply a crude instrument of Islamic da’wa.

It is amusing to think of the great and the good cowering in their holes simply because they are chilled to the bone over the revelation of the truth. They construct a picture of the world that is not based on reality but on their feelings, and their desire to push forward the programme of globalisation without regard to culture or popular will.

The elephant is in the room, and the EDL is pointing to it. The ‘elite’ is acutely aware that the EDL is fully capable of mobilising large scale support and making it impossible for them to continue to hide their distortions and false premises. They worry that the truth will be revealed to the masses with such clarity that only the imbecilic and the corrupt can deny its presence.

It seems that the authorities really fear the EDL, and fear it because it occupies the intellectual high ground. Those who currently rule Britannia perhaps spent too much time in the smoky haze of the 1960s if they imagine that people cannot see what they are up to and that people will fail to peacefully oppose them and their nefarious scheming.

Hate Speech in the Qur'an

Hat tip to Aeneas of the International Civil Liberties Alliance for posting this video on their site. So accustomed are we to hearing that we must not offend Muslims for criticising their religion and their Prophet, it is instructive to look at verses from the Qur'an itself, and substitute the term "Muslims" for "unbelievers" in a number of unambiguously hate-filled qur'anic quotes. The effect is quite striking. Watch for yourself and ask the question: if we were to defend a book saying such things about Muslims, might we not be sitting behind bars?


is koran hate speech? from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.