626 Australia's Jewish Lobby fights Repeal of Hate Speech Laws "that protect Jews and other minority groups"

Australia's Jewish Lobby fights Repeal of Hate Speech Laws "that protect
Jews and other minority groups"

Newsletter published on 25 December 2013

(1) Australia's Jewish Lobby fights Repeal of Hate Speech Laws "that
protect Jews and other minority groups"
(2) Minority & Rights groups urge Brandis not to Repeal laws against
Hate Speech
(3) New Rights commissioner: "I will be urging the full repeal of
section 18C'
(4) Spiked ex-Trots (largely Jewish) come out against Speech Codes
(5) Frederick Toben says he was imprisoned & bankrupted under the law
Brandis intends to Repeal
(6) Repeal of Hate Speech law will permit Holocaust Denial - AIJAC
(7) Gilad Atzmon: UN Human Rights Committee says "memory laws" contrary
to Free Speech
(8) Tim Wise (Jewish) calls Jesus a symbol of White Supremacy and
Genocide on CNN
(9) Air Force Base Takes Down Nativity Scene Following Complaint
(10) Military Religious Freedom Foundation (Jewish) opposes Religion in
US Military
(11) Progressive (Jewish) Professor urges White Male Students to Commit
Suicide during Class
  (12) Jewish establishment stays silent on Israeli plan to forcibly
displace Bedouins
(13)  Israeli government suspends plan to resettle 30,000 Bedouin "to
make way for a new Jewish community"

(1) Australia's Jewish Lobby fights Repeal of Hate Laws "that protect
Jews and other minority groups"

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/jewish-leaders-raise-fears-over-george-brandis-race-hate-law-changes-20131114-2xjof.html

Jewish leaders raise fears over George Brandis' race hate law changes

November 15, 2013

Jonathan Swan
National political reporter

Jewish leaders are preparing to fight Abbott government plans to weaken
race hate laws, saying they could encourage persecution and racially
motivated violence.

The head of the Jewish national peak body, Peter Wertheim, is concerned
Attorney-General George Brandis wants to amend sections of Commonwealth
law that protect Jews and other minority groups against hate speech.

"We don't really know what's intended," said Mr Wertheim, the executive
director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Advertisement

"Obviously we're concerned about the tenor of [Senator Brandis']
announcements and we do wish to consult with the Attorney-General.

"The time for talking is before any bill is drafted, not afterwards."

Senator Brandis has signalled that as his first legislative act he wants
to amend sections of the Racial Discrimination Act that make it unlawful
to offend or insult another person on grounds of race or ethnicity.

Senator Brandis has declared himself a champion of "freedom" and
disparaged the laws used against Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt over
an article he wrote in which he accused "white" Australians of
identifying as Aborigines to advance their careers.

Asked about concerns raised by members of the Jewish community, Senator
Brandis promised he would consult "stakeholders and interested parties,
including leaders of the Jewish community such as Mr Wertheim, before
introducing the legislation to Parliament."

Mr Wertheim has warned that the "wholesale repeal" of sections of the
Racial Discrimination Act would not only prevent vilified groups from
defending their reputations legally, but would also encourage more
sinister forms of hate speech.

"It would … open the door to the importation into Australia of the
hatreds and violence of overseas conflicts," Mr Wertheim said.

Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus said he had condemned Senator
Brandis' plans "from the moment he first opened his mouth".

The laws were aimed at stopping "extreme cases of hate speech," said Mr
Dreyfus, whose great-grandparents died in the Holocaust and whose father
and grandparents fled Nazi Germany for Australia.

"When Senator Brandis says that repealing these laws is in the interests
of freedom of speech, what he really means is freedom to engage in
public hate speech," Mr Dreyfus said.

Mr Wertheim said he had been given assurances by Senator Brandis' office
and Jewish Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg that the Attorney-General would
meet him to discuss changes to the Racial Discrimination Act.

(2) Minority & Rights groups urge Brandis not to Repeal laws against
Hate Speech

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/george-brandis-urged-to-drop-his-review-of-racial-discrimination-act

George Brandis urged to drop his review of Racial Discrimination Act

More than 150 community and human rights groups argue that repeal of
‘Bolt law’ will increase likelihood of racist violence

Oliver Laughland

theguardian.com, Tuesday 10 December 2013 16.23 AEST

Attorney general George Brandis met representatives from eight minority
groups on Monday, all of whom expressed lukewarm support for a review of
the act. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

More than 150 community and human rights organisations around Australia
have called on federal attorney general George Brandis to reconsider his
intention to repeal critical aspects of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The groups, including Oxfam Australia, the Australian Council of Social
Services and the Lowitja Institute, argue that a repeal of section 18(c)
of the act, which makes unlawful any public conduct that offends another
person on the basis of their race, would increase “the likelihood of
racial discrimination and racist violence”.

In an open letter to the attorney general, the groups continue: “The
Racial Discrimination Act has long played a critical role in combating
racial hatred and protecting individuals and groups against
discrimination and hate speech based on race, colour, descent or
national or ethnic origin.”

It adds: “Unfortunately racism remains widespread in our Australian
community. Racial vilification complaints to the Australian Human Rights
Commission increased 59 per cent last year.”

Brandis pledged during the 2013 election to repeal elements of the
Racial Discrimination Act and last month said the plans had not changed
since.

“You cannot have a situation in a liberal democracy in which the
expression of an opinion is rendered unlawful because somebody else . .
. finds it offensive or insulting," he told the Australian in November.

Section 18(c) of the Act has come to be known as the “Bolt law” after
right wing columnist Andrew Bolt was found to have breached it in 2011
in articles in which he argued nine high-profile, fair-skinned
Aboriginal people had used their heritage to gain entitlement.

In Bolt’s case, section 18(d) of the Act, which allows for exemptions in
cases of public interest and “fair comment”, was found not to apply as
the offending articles were not written in good faith and carried
factual error.

“Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experience racism
and hate speech on a regular basis,” said Rodney Dillon of Amnesty
International Australia, another of the 155 groups to co-sign the letter.

“Strong legal protections send a clear message that racist hate speech
is not acceptable and that people who experience such treatment will be
protected by law.”

Joe Caputo, chair of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of
Australia, another of the groups to sign the letter, added: “The repeal
of section 18(c) would be incredibly damaging, sending a signal that
hate speech is acceptable and allowing racism to get a foothold in our
proudly multicultural nation.”

On Monday Brandis met representatives from eight groups, including the
National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, representing minority
communities. They expressed lukewarm support for a review of the Act.

"The balance struck by the existing law in Sections 18(c) and 18(d) of
the Act was carefully reached after years of national inquiries and
debates in Parliament and the general community,” the group said.

"Any attempt to restrike that balance is not to be undertaken lightly.

"We encourage the government to continue its consultations with us and
the wider community."

(3) New Rights commissioner: "I will be urging the full repeal of
section 18C'

http://www.thestar.com.my/Opinion/Columnists/Legally-Speaking/Profile/Articles/2013/12/22/Freedom-from-hate-speech.aspx

Updated: Sunday December 22, 2013 MYT 6:57:49 AM

Freedom from Hate Speech

by Roger Tan

The debate currently raging in Australia about amending or repealing
section 18C of its Racial Discrimination Act, 1975 is rather interesting.

DURING the recent election, Prime Minister Tony Abbott and
Attorney-General George Brandis had pledged to repeal section 18C.

It all started after journalist Richard Bolt was found to have
contravened the RDA in two of his articles written in 2009 and published
in The Herald Sun and on its online site, titled "White fellas in the
black" and "White is the new black".

As reported in the case of Eatock v Bolt, 2011, Eatock had complained
that Bolt’s two articles had conveyed offensive messages about her and
people like her (that is high profile and fair-skinned Aboriginal
people) in that they were not genuinely Aboriginal and were pretending
to be Aboriginal so they could avail to the benefits meant for
Aboriginal people.

Justice Bromberg ruled that the defences and exemptions allowed under
section 18D of the RDA, such as if the act was done reasonably and in
good faith for purposes of artistic work or public interest or making a
fair comment, had no application because the articles contained factual
errors.

Hence, this has now appeared to be the first task of the Abbott
government, that is to remove this racial vilification law. In Brandis’
view, repealing section 18C would, in fact, strengthen and restore
freedom of speech in Australia.

"You cannot have a situation in a liberal democracy in which the
expression of an opinion is rendered unlawful because somebody else ...
finds it offensive or insulting," said Brandis in The Australian recently.

In other words, free speech is about allowing other people to say or
write bad and rude things about you which you do not like.

That was exactly what Abbott said in August when he was the Opposition
Leader: "If free speech is to mean anything, it’s others’ right to say
what you don’t like, not just what you do. It’s the freedom to write
badly and rudely. It’s the freedom to be obnoxious and objectionable."

What is even more interesting is that the Abbott government had last
Tuesday appointed a strong critic of the Australian Human Rights
Commission, Tim Wilson, to be a new commissioner.

Formerly a policy director of the Institute of Public Affairs which had
earlier advocated the abolition of the Commission, Wilson wrote at the
same time in an op-ed piece in The Australian, "The building blocks for
a free society", on Dec 18 that Brandis had asked him, as Australia’s
next human rights commissioner, to focus on traditional liberal
democratic and common law rights, particularly article 19 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

He added: "As human rights commissioner, I will seek to reorient the
human rights debate towards liberal democratic values and the philosophy
of individual freedom.

"The most obvious freedom of speech issue this parliament will face is
the Coalition’s promise to repeal section 18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act.

"Section 18C has recently been controversial because of the Andrew Bolt
case but, as its supporters are first to say, it has been used against
many other Australians.

"I will be urging the full repeal of section 18C. It (2) is an
unjustifiable limitation on free expression. The best way to undermine
offensive or hateful language is not to shut it down, it is to challenge
it, expose it for its flaws. The solution is more speech."

However, I wonder just how Wilson intends to go about doing it when
complaints to the Human Rights Commission about racial vilification in
his country have also increased over 50% last year.

It is, therefore, a matter of concern whether this would now become the
new direction of the Commission when human rights are certainly not just
about freedom of speech but also freedom from hate speech and
discrimination.

In a nutshell, section 18C makes it unlawful for a person to do an act
which is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult,
humiliate or intimidate another person because of the other person’s
race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

In this respect, I am rather surprised that Australian leaders such as
Nicholas Xenophon, who takes a keen interest in Malaysian politics, is
rather silent about this. This is especially so because a repeal of
section 18C may also increase xenophobic attacks and hatred against
foreigners who work and study in Australia.

To my mind, if the intention of repealing section 18C is to creat_e a
free-for-all environment which allows a person to indulge even in hate
speech as in America because it is allowed there by the First Amendment
of the American Constitution, then Australians must be prepared to face
with more right-wing anti-multiculturalism politicians like Pauline
Hanson or intolerant characters like Pastor Terry Jones.

In fact, there is no express provision, taking the form of a bill of
rights such as the First Amendment, in the Australian Constitution.

At best, there is only an implied freedom of communication at common law
which cannot be curtailed by the executive and legislature (see Lange v
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1997).

Of course, it is well and good to give effect to the words of Evelyn
Beatrice Hall that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it!"

But in my humble opinion, there is no country, not even America, which
practises absolute freedom of speech.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in Schenck v. United States (1919)
that there could still exist an exception, that is, if the words used
are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a
clear and present danger, for example, falsely shouting fire in a
theatre when there is no fire and thus causing a panic.

In this respect, Wilson should not have conveniently left out article
19(3) of the ICCPR in his afore-_mentioned article, which says that the
exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special duties and
responsibilities.

It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions as are provided by
law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others
and for the protection of national security or of public order or of
public health or morals.

Article 20(2) specifically prohi_bits any advocacy of national, racial
or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,
hostility or violence.

Similarly, there are also restrictions placed on freedom of expression
as stated in Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

In England, hate speech is an offence if it stirs up racial and
religious hatred as provided by the Public Order Act, 1986, as amended
by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, 2006.

It follows that it cannot be gainsaid that in most cases, hate speech is
targeted at the minorities and the racially marginalised. This is the
group that actually requires the most protection under racial
vilification laws.

To my mind, freedom from hate speech and discrimination is as much a
human right as freedom of expression simply because it is a humongous
task for a normal human being to balance between the person’s right to
offend and another person’s duty to tolerate the intolerant.

That said, this tolerance for intolerance approach has no application in
Malaysia. Our right to free speech under Article 10 of our Federal
Constitution is not absolute. It is still subject to laws relating to,
for example, national security, public order, morality and laws
providing against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any
offence such as the Sedition Act, 1948.

Having said that, we too should seriously examine the need for having a
similar law such as section 18C in our statute books.

Perhaps the Sedition Act can be replaced by such a law which in my view
is all the more necessary in a multiracial, multicultural,
multi-religious and multilingual society like ours. It may well be the
elixir to national unity and harmony in our country.

The writer is a senior lawyer.

(4) Spiked ex-Trots (largely Jewish) come out against Speech Codes

Comment (Peter M.}:
Spiked-online began was an on-line continuation of LM Magazine, after it
was sued, bankrupted and shut down. Before that, the magazine was called
Living Marxism. Up until the fall of the USSR, the group was part of the
(Trotskyist) Revolutionary Communist Party.

Trots, Anarchists and the Green Left regard them as turncoats who have
switched to the Far Right. But I see them as Leftists who reject the
changes inflicted on society by those same "Minority" groups.

The Spiked/ LM crew are also Zionists, which makes it all the more
notable that they oppose Speech Codes, because the Jewish Lobby in every
country promotes them.
{end comment}

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/teaching_students_to_fear_free_speech/14391

Teaching students to fear free speech

Joanna Williams

Education Editor

Speech codes on UK campuses are killing free thought.

9 December 2013

Academic writing, especially when it uses complex rhetoric to hide a
lack of substance, can often seem deliberately impenetrable. But in my
experience, it’s rare even for universities to produce material that
says one thing and means precisely the opposite. But that’s exactly what
the codes of practice on freedom of speech adopted in English and Welsh
universities are doing. These codes set out the conditions with which
students organising meetings or demonstrations must comply. They
determine the limits to free speech in universities.

Free-speech codes emerged after the 1986 Education Act, which required
university managers to ‘take such steps as are reasonably practicable to
ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured’. Although this
may have seemed relatively straightforward in 1986, since then codes of
practice have expanded to incorporate successive acts of parliament,
each of which has added a further layer of restriction upon what can be
said on campus. The University of Birmingham’s code of practice on
freedom of speech on campus is now nine pages long and lists 13 examples
of legislation passed since 1986 that may ‘within the law’ impinge upon
freedom of speech. These include the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal
Justice Act (2003) and the Equality Act (2010).

These laws have chipped away at everyone’s right to free speech. A
particular problem in universities is the tendency for legal
requirements to be over-interpreted. Bolton University, for example,
details topics that might be considered controversial and ‘give rise to
a reasonable apprehension that disruption or disorder may occur’. The
list includes animal experimentation, immigration, current or recent
wars, and abortion – in other words, many of the things students with
even a vague interest in the world around them might want to discuss.
Students organising meetings or inviting outside speakers to discuss any
of these topics must apply for permission from the students’ union,
which may then accept or decline the request, or refer the matter to the
university secretary. I expect these bureaucratic procedures dissuade
most students from organising meetings on anything other than the most
banal topics.

The legislation that has had the biggest impact upon free speech on
campus is the Equality Act 2010, which offers people legal protection
‘against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and
victimisation’. As the code of practice from the University of Exeter
shows, statements stressing the importance of freedom of speech are now
immediately followed by declarations of the need to guard against speech
that might be deemed offensive. Again, we see how the law is
over-interpreted at Exeter: ‘While there is no legal prohibition on
offending others, the university nevertheless believes that discussion
that is open and honest can take place only if offensive or provocative
action and language is avoided. Students, staff, governors, the
students’ guild and visiting speakers are therefore required to
demonstrate sensitivity to the diversity of the university community and
to show others respect.’

Exeter University, like many others, uses the Equality Act to
reinterpret freedom of speech as meaning the freedom not to be offended.
As Greg Lukianoff puts it in Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and
the End of American Debate: ‘By following a "sensitivity for everyone"
as opposed to a "free speech for everyone" model, you create the risk
that nobody will be allowed to say anything interesting at all.’

(5) Frederick Toben says he was imprisoned & bankrupted under the law
Brandis intends to Repeal

From: "Fredrick Toben" <toben@toben.biz>
Subject: FW: Think on these things - from Australia
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:42:26 +1030

Just for your information -

From: Fredrick Toben [<mailto:toben@toben.biz>mailto:toben@toben.biz]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2013 9:04 PM
To: 'Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au'
Cc: 'senator.brandis@aph.gov.au'
Subject: Think on these things - from Australia

1. Now Section 18C of the RDA is forgotten as the Holocaust Law that was
used to imprison and bankrupt those who uncritically refuse to believe
in matters Holocaust.

2. I have never advocated violence, nor am I in favour of the BDS
campaign against Israel, which I have stated publicly, because it
offends against basic free expression.

3. Remember, it was international Jewish interests that began a boycott
against Germany in 1933 - and we now know that Hitler made over 40 peace
offers, all of which were rejected.

4. Anyone who takes on international predatory capitalism faces the
wrath of those who control our money supply. Note that Iran, Syria,
North Korea - and formerly Iraq and Libya - are still autonomous/autark
in that they create their own money supply.

5. Remember that the Commonwealth Bank financed the East-West railway
line at about 1 per cent interest, and when the Darwin-Alice Springs
line was built it was financed at around 9 per cent from overseas borrowing.

Fredrick Toben
Sydney
13 November 2013

(6) Repeal of Hate Speech law will permit Holocaust Denial - AIJAC

http://www.smh.com.au/national/holocaust-denialists-back-calls-for-reform-of-australias-race-hate-laws-20131220-2zr0u.html

Holocaust denialists back calls for reform of Australia's race hate laws

December 21, 2013

Australia's leading Holocaust denial group has backed the Abbott
government's intention to water down the nation's race-hate laws.

The Adelaide Institute, founded by convicted Holocaust denier Fredrick
Toben, says section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and other laws
on racial vilification stifle "legitimate" historical debate.

Attorney-General George Brandis and newly appointed Human Rights
Commissioner Tim Wilson have both publicly called for the abolition of
laws, last used against News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt over articles
about light-skinned Aborigines.

Mr Wilson described the views of Dr Toben and his institute as
"repugnant" and "fantasyland rubbish" but said he believed the courts
were not the way to confront them. Advertisement

Adelaide Institute director Peter Hartung said he did not have a view on
Mr Wilson's appointment to the commission but that the denialist group
supported the repeal of section 18C. "These laws stop discussion of
things that can be proved with facts and figures so it cannot be
debated," he said.

"These laws were brought in to shut people up when they have no rational
argument against what they're saying."

Critics have branded 18C the "Bolt laws" after the News Corp columnist's
prosecution in 2011 for his "inaccurate and offensive" attack on a group
of Aborigines. However, Section 18C has mostly been used by Australian
Jewish groups against Holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathisers.

Mr Hartung said the Adelaide Institute was sympathetic to Mr Bolt's
cause. "What Andrew Bolt said was basically true and factual."

Mr Wilson said that free and untrammelled public debate was a better way
to confront Holocaust denial than anti-hate speech laws.

"Rather than hide in their caverns of hate, these people should be
exposed for the stupidity and absurdity of their commentary in public
debate so their names can be dragged through the dirt for all time," the
newly appointed commissioner said. "I disagree with people having
recourse to the law to shut down public debate because there is a big
difference between recourse to the law to protect yourself from physical
violence, and protecting yourself from stupid and childish ideas."

Dr Toben went to jail in 2009 for defying Federal Court orders to remove
material from his website that claimed there were no gas chambers at
Auschwitz, and describing the murder of millions of European Jews during
World War II as the "Holocaust myth". He was convicted and jailed in
1999 in Germany for the specific crime of Holocaust denial.

Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council spokesman Jeremy Jones, who
has prosecuted Dr Toben using 18C , said he was "not surprised" the
denialists wanted the laws scrapped. "The minimum you would expect in a
country like Australia is that people who are vilified by this material
have some recourse to the law," Mr Jones said. "The recourse that we're
talking about is asking people to stop what they're doing; nobody was
suggesting that people have any sort of onerous penalties.

"Under 18C you do not have an untrammelled right to destroy the quality
of life of any other Australian with your words."

A spokesman for Senator Brandis said he wanted to stop section 18C being
used to stifle "freedoms of speech". "The government wants to ensure
that laws which are designed to prohibit racial vilification are not
used as a vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech," the
spokesman said.

"The two values - protecting people against racial vilification and
defending freedoms of speech - are not inconsistent."

(7) Gilad Atzmon: UN Human Rights Committee says "memory laws" contrary
to Free Speech

  Writings <atzmon.gilad@gmail.com> 3 January 2013 05:21

UN Article 19: Human Rights and History Revisionism

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 05:02 AM PST

An Introduction by Gabi Weber and Gilad Atzmon

http://othersite.org & gilad.co.uk

UN Human Rights Committee, July 2011: General Comment on Article 19 –
Freedoms of Opinion and Expression

  Just a few days ago we came across the following from the UN Human
Rights Committee – an independent body tasked with supervising
compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR).

The document, from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OCHR), dates from July 2011 and concerns freedom of opinion and
expression. It states that "anti-blasphemy laws and restrictions on
criticism of governments are incompatible with existing norms and that
free expression is essential for the protection of human rights."

This report, entitled General Comment, is an interpretation of the 1966
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – a
covenant with 167 state signatories, signed and ratified also by
Germany, France, Switzerland and other European countries.

  Crucial to the committee´s comments are the so-called "memory laws,"
which it defined as "laws that penalize the expression of opinions about
historical facts" and sees these laws as "incompatible with the
obligations that the covenant imposes on States parties in relation to
the respect for freedom of opinion and expression." and goes on to say
that, "Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the
realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that
are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights" .

In spite of the significance of this document, it was not reported by
any media outlet.

Reading it makes it abundantly clear that governments and political
organizations that prohibit the elementary right to present alternative
historical accounts are in clear violation of the United Nations’
position on freedom of opinion and expression. This obviously applies to
Germany, France and Austria but it also applies to many 'progressive'
organizations (Jewish and Non-Jewish) and individuals that are engaged
in relentless harassment campaigns against dissent voices within the
(Jewish and Non-Jewish) communities and beyond.

  The document states clearly that "It is incompatible with paragraph 1
to criminalize the holding of an opinion. The harassment, intimidation
or stigmatization of a person, including arrest, detention, trial or
imprisonment for reasons of the opinions they may hold, constitutes a
violation of article 19, paragraph 1.", and in the footnotes are
references to many relevant cases.

Think about it.International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right
shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in
print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this
article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may
therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be
such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre
public), or of public health or morals.
Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited
by law.

GE.11-45331
Human Rights Committee
102nd session
Geneva, 11-29 July 2011
General comment No. 34

Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression

General remarks

1. This general comment replaces general comment No. 10 (nineteenth
session).

2. Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable
conditions for the
full development of the person. They are essential for any society.(1)
They constitute the
foundation stone for every free and democratic society. The two freedoms
are closely
related, with freedom of expression providing the vehicle for the
exchange and
development of opinions.

3. Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of
the principles
of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the
promotion and
protection of human rights.

4. Among the other articles that contain guarantees for freedom of
opinion and/or
expression, are articles 18, 17, 25 and 27. The freedoms of opinion and
expression form a
basis for the full enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights. For
instance, freedom of
expression is integral to the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of
assembly and association,
and the exercise of the right to vote.

(8) Tim Wise (Jewish) calls Jesus a symbol of White Supremacy and
Genocide on CNN

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/12/tim-wise-calls-jesus-a-symbol-of-white-supremacy-and-genocide-on-cnn/

Tim Wise calls Jesus a symbol of white supremacy and genocide on CNN

Once again, CNN featured the extremist Tim Wise, who last year called on
his followers to murder members of the TEA Party. Tim Wise, who is
Jewish, says that Jesus Christ is a symbol of "white supremacy" and
"genocide." Wise stated "The image of a white Jesus has been used to
justify enslavement, conquest, colonialism, the genocide of indigenous
peoples. There are literally millions of human beings whose lives have
been snuffed out by people who conquered under the banner of a white god."

See collection of Tim Wise Tweets

Tim Wise is an extreme left-wing Cultural Marxist. Despite living in a
ritzy all white neighborhood in Nashville, one of America’s whitest
metro areas, he constantly spews venom at white people. On November 5th,
2012, he has even publicly called on his followers to murder members of
the Florida TEA Party. Despite his public call for murder, CNN continues
to put him on the air. Tim Wise writes books saying that white people
make too much money and should share with black people. Wise, who has
make a fortune with this schtick, is substantially wealthier than most
Americans of any race. Apparently, sharing your money with black people
is only for the little guys!

Recently Tim Wise spoke at Indiana University. Before his speech,
several of his fanatical supporters turned violent and attacked a group
of protesters with pepper spray and other weapons. Police apprehended
one of the thugs and he is being charged with a felony.

(9) Air Force Base takes down Nativity Scene following Complaint
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/12/10/air-force-base-takes-down-nativity-scene-following-complaint/

December 10, 2013 1:58 PM

SHAW AIR FORCE BASE, S.C. (CBS Charlotte/AP) — Officials at Shaw Air
Force Base are trying to determine what to do about a holiday display
after a Nativity scene was taken down last week.

Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Keavy Rake said Tuesday a Nativity display was
set up Friday by a group of volunteers from the base chapel at a small
lake on the installation. The site was near where a tree lighting
ceremony was scheduled Friday evening.

Rake says the Military Religious Freedom Foundation lodged a complaint
about the display through the Air Force in Washington.

Paul Loebe, spokesman for the foundation, said the Nativity scene was in
violation of the Constitution.

"It was very sectarian in nature and a direct violation of the US
Constitution as well as a blatant violation of Air Force Instruction 1-1
Section 2.11," Loebe said in a statement.

Rake says Air Force officials want a holiday display that reflects more
than a single group, so the Nativity scene was taken down and officials
are trying to determine the proper placement and arrangement of a new
display.

Loebe thanked the Air Force for taking the Nativity scene down quickly.

"Within 2 hours and 15 minutes of initially being contacted by MRFF, the
nativity scene had been promptly removed," Loebe’s statement read. "MRFF
wants to congratulate the Air Force on acting so swiftly to reverse this
egregious violation and hopes that in the future they will ensure that
no such violations continue to occur."

(10) Military Religious Freedom Foundation (Jewish) opposes Religion in
US Military

http://theweek.com/article/index/247830

The U.S. military has a problem with atheists

Apparently, the Marine Corps thinks a "lack or loss of spiritual faith"
could be dangerous

By Dana Liebelson

August 7, 2013

When an active-duty Marine was given a Marine Corps training document
describing "potential risk indicators" commanders should look for to
prevent loss of life among service members, he found one checkbox that
didn't seem to fit. Among warning signs like substance abuse and prior
suicide attempts was "lack or loss of spiritual faith."

Concerned that this was a discriminatory policy, the Marine notified the
Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a nonprofit dedicated to
keeping religion separate from the U.S. military. The organization,
which told me that it plans to sue the U.S. Marines unless the
government backs off this policy, says this is the military's latest
effort to discriminate against service members who don't believe in God.

Advocates for the policy say the military is simply doing everything it
can to promote emotional well-being among troops, especially in the face
of its growing suicide epidemic. (Last year, the U.S. military saw more
active duty soldiers commit suicide than die in combat — 48 of them
Marines.)

"The whole concept of judging service members based on their
spirituality is completely unconstitutional," says Mikey Weinstein, a
former Air Force officer and founder and president of MRFF. "This
country was founded on a very critical principle — the Founding Framers
looked at the horrors that occurred throughout history by mixing
religion and war, and they said, 'We're going to separate church and
state.' And that means they cannot test for religion in the military."

The training document does not specify how a commander is supposed to
test whether a Marine has spiritual faith — Weinstein claims that in a
preliminary computer test, Marines are asked questions like "what do you
think of when you see a sunset?" — but it does say that when a Marine is
identified as high risk, a "Force Protection Council" will interview,
monitor, and recommend further action at the council's discretion. (The
Marine Corps did not respond to our questions about this policy.)

This is hardly the first time the military has tried to govern the
religion of its service members. Until 1972, each U.S. service academy
required soldiers to attend weekly religious services — and only
Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish worship services were available,
according to Blake Page, special assistant to the president of MRFF.
Until 2011, the Army required soldiers to take a survey that measured
"spiritual fitness," and soldiers who failed were told that "improving
your spiritual fitness should be an important goal."

Defending the test in 2011, Brig. Gen. Rhonda Cornum told NPR,
"Researchers have found that spiritual people have decreased odds of
attempting suicide, and that spiritual fitness has a positive impact on
quality of life, on coping and on mental health." The Marine Corps
document also notes that its risk indicators for early death are
"derived from scientific studies."

But Page argues that this logic is flawed, because studies that come to
the conclusion that religion reduces dangerous behavior "only measure
religiosity through religious service attendance. This is a failed
conclusion, because attending a regular social activity of any sort
produces the same external community of support that a religious
community provides."

Paul Loebe, an active-duty Marine and the military director for American
Atheists, agrees with that sentiment. He says that in his eight years of
service, the Marine Corps never required him to take a religious test —
although "they do have one available" — but notes that he was initially
denied the right to put "atheist" on his dog tags. When Loebe tried to
seek counseling from a chaplain, he was asked to end every session with
a prayer. "It made the whole situation very uncomfortable, especially
when I had a very serious problem to deal with," Loebe says.

Last month, Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) tried and failed to amend the 2014
National Defense Authorization Act so that non-theist chaplains could be
part of the military — a proposal that drew fierce opposition from some
Republicans. Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) told The Huffington Post, "I
can't imagine an atheist accompanying a notification team as they go
into some family's home to let them have the worst news of their life
and this guy says, 'You know, that's it — your son's just worms, I mean,
worm food.'"

But Loebe says that when he was in charge of drafting a Force
Preservation Policy for his unit — similar to the one found to discuss
spiritual faith — he thought that exposing everyone's private religious
beliefs would have eroded trust among his fellow Marines. A religious
requirement "does quite the opposite of 'preserving the force,'" he says.

"There are many service members past and present that have served
honorably and continue to serve without believing in God, and there's no
reason to believe they can't continue to do that today."

(11) Progressive (Jewish) Professor urges White Male Students to Commit
Suicide during Class

{If I had been in the class, I would have invited him to Practice what
he Preaches, and lead by Example. But then, perhaps he does not consider
himself "white" - Peter M.}

http://diversitychronicle.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/progressive-professor-urges-white-male-students-to-commit-suicide-during-class/

Progressive Professor Urges White Male Students to Commit Suicide During
Class

November 18, 2013

By Ivan Fernando

"If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer,
you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive
to the world! They only murder, exploit and oppress non-whites! At least
a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but
what can a white male do? He’s good for nothing. Slavery, genocides
against aboriginal peoples and massive land confiscation, the
inquisition, the holocaust, white males are all to blame! You maintain
your white male privilege only by oppressing, discriminating against and
enslaving others!" Professor Noel Ignatiev, a tenured professor at
Massachusetts College loudly proclaimed to his class last Monday, his
final teaching day before retirement.

{no indication that Ignatiev is Jewish}

The good Professor’s sound and reasonable words resonate with every
enlightened and progressive mind. They are indisputable and no one can
debate them. They should not be controversial in the slightest, yet
remarkably a few far-right extremists object to Prof. Ignatiev’s advice.
The Professor however, reported receiving "a standing ovation" from his
"largely white and middle class students." Prof. Ignatiev’s critics say
that openly calling for students, even if they are white males, to kill
themselves was inappropriate and perhaps excessive. In this article, we
will look at the other side of the issue.

Fortunately, I was able to arrange a telephone interview with the
professor. I felt he deserved a chance to tell his side of the story. A
side that our radical and racist far-right media refuse to report. The
transcript of our dialogue follows below:

Ivan Fernando: I want to thank you for agreeing to this interview. It’s
a pleasure to be able to talk to an esteemed academic of your calibre
and impressive credentials.

Prof. Ignatiev: Thank you. I am happy to talk with you today.

Ivan Fernando: I understand that a few people objected to your advice to
your white male students on your last day of teaching. Why do you think
that is?

Prof. Ignatiev: I chalk it all up to white supremacist attitudes. The
goal of destroying the white race is simply so desirable, it boggles the
mind trying to understand how anyone could possibly object to it. Those
who object to my advice, knowingly or perhaps unknowingly, are
themselves white supremacists. They wish to go on oppressing and
exploiting other races and maintaining their own privileged positions of
power. That is the conscious and sometimes subconscious motivation of
all of my critics. That is why they object to destroying the cancer of
humanity known as the white race. That ugly disease, which dares to call
itself a people and a culture.

Ivan Fernando: All whites, or just white males should commit suicide?

Prof. Ignatiev: Obviously, all whites need to be destroyed, but why not
start with white males? They are behind most of history’s greatest
atrocities. Besides, some of the brothers like to bang white women.
Eventually white women can breed out, but my feeling is that if you are
a white male, you should kill yourself now. If you are a thoughtful
person, with a social consciousness who considers himself white, you
will consider suicide. It’s the right thing to do. Let me read you an
e-mail that I received today from a xenophobic white-supremacist.

"I’m not a racist, in fact I am an avowed anti-racist, I just think
calling for all white males to kill themselves is extreme. When you say
that every white person is bad or advocate violence against them, it
sounds almost as though you are becoming a kind of racist yourself. You
say it is good for everyone to be proud of their culture. Blacks,
Mexicans and everyone else. Why should whites be the only exception? For
the sake of argument, supposing whites have wronged many other races
historically. Should we punish people today for their ancestor’s sins?
Today minorities have affirmative action and generous social welfare
programs to protect them. Can we really say that most whites are racist
now or that the government is? Should Blacks who descend from Blacks who
owned or sold slaves feel guilty and be punished for ancestral wrongs?"

Ivan Fernando: Wow. (laughter)

Prof. Ignatiev: I know, mind boggling. What an absurd and irrational
line of reasoning. They just throw logic out the window entirely. It’s
impossible to dialogue with these people. Notice the blind and
irrational hatred behind every word! No one has committed violence,
genocide and dispossession on the level of white males. The whole
purpose of white male culture is to perpetuate their privileged status
and continue their oppression of non-whites. Whites don’t have a culture
like other races in which traditions and customs are preserved as an
expression of a common identity. White culture is an entirely economic
and social culture which is about shutting out other people deemed
"non-white" as a means of preventing their social and economic
advancement! In other words all of ‘white culture’ so-called, stems from
hatred of the other, unlike other ethnicities which do have cultures.
White people are a disease, they are parasites! They don’t deserve to live!

Ivan Fernando: Yes, Absolutely, could you give us some examples though
for our readers, regarding the racist nature of white culture.

Prof. Ignatiev: Columbus Day, whites literally celebrate the genocide of
non-whites, delighting in it. Thanksgiving Day. Whites honour the
Pilgrims who gave Native Americans blankets deliberately infected with
small pox to kill their babies. Yeah, it is about being thankful,
thankful that whites butchered most Native Americans so they could steal
their land and establish a racist society based on white male privilege!
Christmas is also racist. Should I go on?

Ivan Fernando: Please do.


Prof. Ignatiev: The idea of celebrating the birth of a middle eastern
Semite, yet portraying him as a Nordic white person in visual art is not
only racist, but obscene and Anti-Semitic! Of course there is Santa
Claus as well. Who is he? A bearded old white man! He lives at the North
Pole, it doesn’t get whiter than that! Who works for Santa? Of course
elves, diminutive, perhaps slightly brown people, with pointed ears who
have been enslaved by a privileged white male. Christmas and white
culture disgust me. I hate this time of year so much. I hate going
outside and seeing Christmas trees or Christmas lights. They should be
banned! A Christmas tree is just one notch above a burning cross in my
opinion!

Ivan Fernando: What do you suggest that people do for the holidays.
Especially, minority families who may feel pressured to celebrate
Christmas, or other European racist holidays? Is there an alternative?

Prof Ignatiev: A great Black Professor in the 60?s came up with Kwanza,
a way to celebrate African heritage. Hopefully a Mexican-American
equivalent will soon be developed as another Christmas alternative.

Ivan Fernando: I am sorry, but we are starting to run low on time. Let
me ask you, have you suffered any attacks personally, or received any
threats for your advice to your students during your final class?

Prof. Ignatiev: (laughter) No. I haven’t. In fact all the responses I
have received, except for a few e-mails have been positive. I feel
vindicated. Perhaps we are finally coming to an awareness in this
country that the cancer known as the white race must be obliterated.
Especially in the form of white males. Obama is president, and I think
there is an excellent chance that we will never have a white male
president again. I think we are witnessing the breaking of the back of
the white male power structure. We will still have residual white males
that must be dealt with, but I am confident that we’ve won. Eventually,
I would like to put white males in concentration camps and work them to
death just like they’ve done to everyone else. When they are all dead we
can throw a party and dance around their corpses!

Ivan Fernando: I certainly hope so. I hope you are right. If so it is
the dawning of a new era of peace and progress. I apologize Professor,
but we are out of time now. Thank you again, and it was a pleasure
speaking with you.

Prof Ignatiev. The pleasure was mine. Thank you Ivan. I love Diversity
Chronicle by the way, I recommended it to all my students. Keep up the
good work!

Ivan Fernando: You are very kind Prof. Ignatiev. Thank you again and
Good night.

Prof. Ignatiev: Good Night.

(9) France's Jewish Lobby gets Diendonne banned from public media, but
he's become a Martyr

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=86693

Is a new revolution quietly brewing in France?

By wmw_admin on December 18, 2013

French Dissidents — via Paul Eisen Dec 16, 2013

Article taken from The Vineyard of the Saker

Today I am beginning a series of articles about what I believe is the
extremely deep crisis taking place in Europe and about the potential of
this crisis to result in some cataclysmic events. I will begin by taking
a look at what has been going on in France, probably the country in
Europe I know best, and also one which I think has be biggest potential
to generate an explosion with far reaching consequences.

One could look at France’s economic and financial situation
(catastrophic) or at the many social problems plaguing an already very
frustrated population, but I want to focus on one specific aspect of the
current French crisis: the complete alienation of the majority of the
people from the ruling elites which I will illustrate by one very
telling example: the growing hysteria of the French elites about a
brilliant philosopher – Alain Soral – and one stand-up comedian –
Dieudonne M’bala M’bala.

I have already written about these to remarkable people (here, here and
here) and I urge you to read these past articles to get a better picture
of what is taking place now. For those who are really not willing to
read a few background pages, I will begin by the following
mini-introduction.

Diendonne M’bala M’bala is a French-Cameroonian comedian which was by
far the most popular comic in France until he made one short sketch
about a religious Israeli Settler on French TV. The sketch was not
particularly funny, but it really enraged the French equivalent of the
US AIPAC – called CRIF in France – which began a systematic campaign to
smear, ban and silence "Dieudo" as he is known in France. Dieudo refused
to roll over and retaliated by making fun of those persecuting him which
made him the darling of many of those who hated the financial elites
running France since 1969. Now completely banned from any public media,
Dieudo is still the most popular comic in France. {continued in next item}

(10) Alain Soral, Philosopher for Left economic policies & Right
cultural policies; hated and feared by the French ruling class

{same URL as above} http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=86693

Is a new revolution quietly brewing in France?

By wmw_admin on December 18, 2013

French Dissidents — via Paul Eisen Dec 16, 2013

Article taken from The Vineyard of the Saker

{continued} Alain Soral is a French author and philosopher whose
political career included a membership in the French Communist Party and
the National Front. He is credited with developing the concept of
"gauche du travail – droite des valeurs" (literally "left of labor –
right of values") which can be summarized as the simultaneous advocacy
of socialist/social ideas and measures in economic and social issues
combined with conservative moral, ethical and religious values in
ideological, ethical and cultural issues. He is the founder of an
extremely interesting movement called "Egalite et Reconciliation" which
aims at reconciling native French people (called "Francais de souche" or
"root French") with those French people who recently immigrated to
France (called "Francais de branche" or "branch French") and to make
them co-exist in complete equality. Because of his numerous "politically
incorrect" ideas and very overt statements, Soral is absolutely hated
and feared by the French ruling class. Even though Soral has also been
completely banned from any public media, He remains immensely popular
with the general public and his books are all best-sellers.

Soral and Dieudo are very different people, they have very different
backgrounds and they have very different personalities. There even used
to be a time when they were sharply critical of each other. But when the
French elites decided to basically destroy them they became closer
together and now they are good friends, and they openly support each
other, as a result we have this truly bizarre phenomenon: a White
philosopher and a Black comedian have jointly become a kind of
"two-headed Emmanuel Goldstein" of modern France: the elites absolutely
hate them and the media as gone into a completely Orwellian "two minute
of hate" frenzy mode trying to convince the French people that Soral
and/or Dieudo are almost a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. Needless to
say, this thesis is so stupid that Dieudo makes fun of it in his shows
while Soral ridicules it in his books and uses it to show that France is
run by a tiny elite of vicious and arrogant SOBs.

In truth, one has to admit that the French elites are facing two
formidable enemies. Dieudonne is truly one of the most talented French
comedian ever while Soral is without any doubt the most original and
brilliant philosopher France has seen since WWII. Furthermore, French
law makes it rather difficult to completely ban a show or a book. God
knows, the French elites have tried, and both Dieudo and Soral have been
taken to court numerous times for "racism" and "anti-Semitism", both of
them have been physically assaulted several times by the thugs of the
"LDJ" (Jewish Defense League) and both of them are constantly harassed
by the authorities (the French version of the IRS and the FBI). Yet,
this systematic campaign of persecutions has clearly backfired against
its authors and given Dieudo and Soral a (well-deserved) martyr status.
Finally, Dieudo and Soral have shown that they are extremely
sophisticated users of the Internet where their shows, special events,
interviews, books, monthly news roundups have been extremely popular and
are seen by many millions of people in France and abroad.

Gradually, Soral and Dieudo have built a real political movement which
is active both on the internal front and on international issues.

As I mentioned, "Egalite et Reconciliation" or "E&R" stands for a full
acceptance and integration of Muslim immigrants into the French society.
This is crucial because unlike the French National Front, E&R does not
advocate the expulsion of immigrants out of France. Not only that, but
E&R even denies that immigrants are the real problem. Of course, E&R
does not deny that unemployment is huge in France, nor does it deny that
a large percentage of crime and violence in France are committed by
immigrants, but they see that as an effect of previous political
mistakes and not as a cause of the problems of France.

Likewise, E&R is very openly pro-Muslim. Not in a truly religious sense,
most members of E&R are not deeply religious people, but rather in the
cultural sense. E&R primarily see Islam and French Roman-Catholicism as
two sources of ethnics, morality and civilization as for whether one is
religious or not and accepts the theology of these religions is left to
the individual member. This is quit different from the utterly sterile
"ecumenical dialog" which seeks to find common teachings to Jesus Christ
and the Prophet Mohammad while desperately trying to overlook the very
real and deep theological disagreements between these two religions.
Instead, E&R advocates a common stance on most, if not all, issues faced
by French Muslims and Christians. And that makes sense.

Think about it: both Islam and Christianity are clearly opposed to the
values of capitalism, profit maximization, speculation, usury, sexual
immorality, the destruction of the traditional family, imperialism, etc.
While the theological roots of Islam and Christianity are different,
most of their ethical philosophical teachings are very similar. Frankly,
I can think of only one big difference and that is the fundamentally
different views Muslims and Christians have on the death penalty, but
since the death penalty has been abolished in France in 1981 this hardly
matters today.

Of course, both Christianity and Islam have their crazy perverted
deviations such as the plutocratic and genocidal policies of the Papacy
in the past or the liver-eating Wahabis the world is facing today, but
E&R has no problems rejecting and condemning them. On the Christian
side, E&R advocates a type of popular Roman-Catholicism seen in the
pre-1789 France which has little to do with some of the worst excesses
of the Papacy. On the Muslim side, E&R is especially close to the
teachings Sheikh Imran Hosein and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. They are also
close to the Iranian supported Centre Zahra in Paris.

I would say that the type of Muslims attracted to E&R are exactly the
same as the type Christians attracted to it: politically progressive,
religiously strict, observant, but tolerant. Needless to say, the
potential of this radically new movement is absolutely huge because it
unites Left and Right, Christian and Muslim, religious and secular (as
long as they are not anti-religious), native and immigrant, White and
Black, rich and poor. But what seems to really trigger the panic of the
French elites is the deep penetration of this movement into the
notorious French "banlieues", the destitute suburbs which over the past
decades were filled with immigrants from Africa and which have turned
into no-go zones of lawlessness and crime.

To understand this phenomenon it It is crucial to understand the
following: crime in France is not, repeat *not*, the product of recent
immigrants or religious Muslims. Recent immigrants and religious Muslims
have strong roots in their culture, families and lifestyles which
categorically prevent them form being criminal. And poverty has nothing
to do with this either. I personally have lived for 20 years right next
to a big mosque attended by huge crowds of dirt-poor Muslims from
sub-Saharan Africa, the Maghreb, the Balkans and the Middle-East I can
attest that never, I mean that literally, never, was any crime committed
in my neighborhood by the folks who came to this mosque. Quite to the
contrary, these mosque attending Muslims were far better behaved, and
more courteous, than the locals. In fact, it was clear that these people
were going out of their way to show the (initially rather frightened
locals) that they had no cause to fear them. The worst "crime" these
Muslims regularly committed was to park their cars on the curb and that
was because there were not enough parking places available. Finally, at
the end of each Holy Month of Ramadan, the Muslims invited the entire
neighborhood to join in the celebrations, to sample the many delicious
dishes offered, and to visit the mosque. To say that these Muslims were
perfect citizens would be an understatement.

The so-called "Muslim crime" in France is always linked second
generation youth gangs who have lost their cultural and religious roots
and who know little or nothing about them but who are also rejected by
the local, native, population. As Soral likes to say "nobody goes from
the mosque straight into a gang-raping spree". It’s really either/or –
but not both. Soral calls these thugs "Islamo-racaille" which can be
loosely translated as "Islamo-thugs" – a very nasty and dangerous type
with no sense of right and wrong and who exteriorizes his alienation by
abusing the natives whom he hates. These are exactly the types who feel
a deep attraction for the crude brutality of Wahabism and who end up
killing cops in France or joining the liver-eaters in Syria. Their
"Islam" is really only a pretext, a pious justification, for their
psychopathic thuggery. I suspect most crusaders were exactly of the same
psychological makeup.

Most young immigrants are, of course, somewhere in between the
family-educated and observant type and the out of control lawless thugs.
And for the very first time a relevant political movement offers them a
very attractive option: E&R.

In essence E&R tells them "instead of being neither, be both – be Muslim
and be French, don’t hate the natives who have the same oppressors as
you do and who are your best friends and allies, our enemies are trying
to turn us against each other to better rule over all of us, let us
therefore unite and stand together". This is an absolutely new and
original message.

In the past, only two movements openly dealt with the immigration issue.
On one hand you had the National Front who advocated policies such as
the "national preference" (better social and labor laws from the
natives), the crackdown on crime (more police, stricter laws, more and
bigger jails) and the expulsion of all immigrants (except, possibly,
those with a French passport – and even that was debated). On the other
hand, you had an organization created by the Socialist Party called "SOS
Racisme" which openly advocated the rejection of the native French
culture by the immigrants who, under the nice-sounding slogan of "right
to be different", were encouraged to hate the natives and demand a full
acceptance of their cultures of origin by the French society. Over the
past twenty years the "tag-team" of the National Front and SOS Racisme
has only served to make the issue of immigration in France infinitely
worse. The latest, and particularly ugly, development on this front has
been the new political line promoted by the French elites.

The very same elites who 20 years ago created and covertly financed SOS
Racisme and its moronic slogan "Touche pas a mon pote" (don’t touch my
buddy) have now declared that Muslims are, after all, a serious problem.
While in the past these elites were systematically ridiculing
Christianity, they are now saying that "Islam is not compatible with the
Republic". As for the youth in the "banlieues", they are now presented
as potential terrorist or al-Qaeda sleepers. As a result, when the
French elites are not legalizing homosexual marriages they are busy
banning the hijab in schools and complaining about too much halal meats
in the stores. And while only a tiny percentage of Muslim woman in
France cover their faces, the French elites have now officially banned
the burqa and the niqab in public places. Clearly, Muslim immigrants in
France have now been downgraded from "buddies" to enemies.

It is against this background that more and more young immigrants are
flocking to Soral, Dieudonne and E&R whose popularity is rapidly
growing. Recently, an absolutely incredible event took place, something
unthinkable just a few years ago.

In one of his sketches Dieudo sang a song called "Shoananas" a rather
basic play on the words ‘Shoah’ (from the Hebrew ‘HaShoah’ or ‘disaster’
– name by which the French Jews often refer to the "Holocaust") and
‘ananas’ (pineapple). Sure enough, the CRIF, SOS Racisme and other
organization sued Dieudo for "incitement to hatred". Dieudo was
sentenced to a 20’000 Euros fine and he appealed the decision. On the
day Dieudo’s appeal was heard by the court, something absolutely
extraordinary happened. I found two YouTube videos which show the event
and which I will both show because of the high probability that one, or
both, of these videos will be banned (guys – download them now while you
can!). Here they are:

For those of you who do not understand French, let me summarize what we see.

Members of the Jewish Defense League (LDJ) show up to scream insults at
Dieudo and his supporters who, in turn, shout all types of abuse at the
LDJ members and wave pineapples at them while sining "Shoananas". The
cops keep the two sides apart as best they can. Then the supporters of
Dieudo begin to chant "liberte d’expression" (freedom of speech) to
which the LDJ members reply "am Israel hai" ("Israel is alive" in
Hebrew) and begin to sing the Israeli national anthem. At this point the
supporters being to sing the French "La Marseillaise" from the top of
their lungs totally drowning out the completely overwhelmed LDJ
activists. Now take a close look at the faces singing "La Marseillaise"
– do you see that a lot of the people singing it are clearly Brown and
Black? These are precisely the type young people taken mostly, but not
only, from the notorious ‘banlieues’. These could be the same people who
in 2001 and 2002 booed the French national anthem during soccer matches
(a big scandal at the time).

The Marseillaise is first and foremost a revolutionary song, and when it
is not so much sung as it is shouted by a large crowd waving fists, this
is a very very serious development. Needless to say, none of that was
ever shown on the French media. But you can bet that the elites saw it
all and one can only imagine the fear they felt as these images.

Coincidence or not, but the fact is that when the cops heard the crowd
behind them singing the Marseillaise, they began pushing the LDJ
activist out of the court-building. This is not very surprising
considering the immense popularity Dieudo and Soral enjoy in the various
uniformed services (more about that below).

Something very important and very new is happening in France. The
traditional political paradigm of Right versus Left is falling apart if
only because the official "Right" and the official "Left" have become
indistinguishable from each other. And in the meantime, the E&R
phenomenon is becoming not only bigger, but deeper. More and more young
Frenchmen are looking back at the history of France since 1945 and they
are gradually coming to the realization that the country has been rule
by a arrogant cabal of plutocrats who overthrew de Gaulle in 1968 and
who replaced this remarkable national leader with a protégé of the
Rothschild family, Georges Pompidou, who began is career as a director
of the Banque Rothschild and who was later by the French elites to
replace de Gaulle. The French plutocracy which, together with the CIA,
had covertly orchestrated the "May 68? riots to achieve "regime change"
in France, now had free reign to radically change the "sovereignist"
political course chartered by de Gaulle. Can you guess when the policy
of mindless import of cheap foreign labor into France began? Under
Pompidou, of course! Now, thanks for E&R both native and immigrant
French people are re-discovering their common history and are beginning
to understand that they both were victims of the same politicians.

In the meantime, the regime in power commits one blunder after the
other. The latest one is both very funny and very serious. This is the
huge scandal surrounding the "quenelle".

Originally, the ""quenelle"" was a French dish which, if well prepared,
could be quite delicious. This is what a "quenelle" made with pike looks
like:

The elongated shape of the "quenelle" has also given a 2nd, slang,
meaning to this word. Let’s just say that the French expression to "put
you a "quenelle"" would have a very similar meaning to the English "up
yours!".

Dieudonne did probably not realize the far reaching consequences of his
words when he began referring to each of his jokes mocking of the regime
in power as a "quenelle". To add some emphasis, Dieudo than began to
show, with his arms, the various sizes of ""quenelle"s" which he, or his
supporters, were "putting" to the elites. The small ones were shown has
having the length of about a hand, while the big ones, the really
successful ones, where shown as having the full length of an
outstretched arm. This is a typical image of Dieudo showing a "big
"quenelle"":

This gesture rapidly went viral and became an Internet meme and more and
more people began making this gesture as sign of something like "f*ck
the system" , "screw the government" or "here is for you, Mr. President!".

To make things worse, it became something of a sport to approach
well-known personalities and to have a photo taken next to them while
flashing the "quenelle". People were making "quenelle"s everywhere,
especially when photographed next to regime officials.

Check this photo of the French Minister of the Interior, Manuel Valls, a
rabid Zionist who has openly called for the repression of Dieudonne and
Soral in a major speech in from the a congress of the Socialist Party:

Valls is the clueless grinning idiot in the middle, surrounded by a
group of young Frenchmen flashing the "quenelle". Needless to say, when
this photo was published the entire country exploded in laughter, making
the "quenelle" even more famous.

In the meantime, the League against Racism and anti-Semitism (the
equivalent of the US ADL in France) declared that the "quenelle" was an
"inverted Nazi salute and a symbol of the sodomization of the victims of
the Shoah", I kid you not! Predictably, the French Internet exploded in
laughter. The regime did not find that funny at all and it reacted with
the kind of paranoia which one would expect from dictators like Stalin
or Saddam Hussein: it literally launched a witch-hunt to try to detect
more or less overt ""quenelle"s" and when such a gesture was detected,
it attempted to punish those responsible if they were civil servants,
especially in the police and military. And, sure enough, the Internet
was flooded with all types of folks flashing the "quenelle" in defiance
of the regime’s wrath.

Dieudo, of course, invited uniformed officials to come to his theater in
Paris to perform a "quenelle" onstage, with him. He also created a
website solely dedicated to photos of uniformed people defiantly
flashing the sign: http://www.dieudosphere.com/les-"quenelle"s.html

Now the regime is completely lost and confused. On one hand, it is
simply impossible to sanction all the people who flash such signs, even
disciplining only those in uniform is impossible. Initially, the French
Chief of Staff had demanded "exemplary sanctions" against the first two
soldiers who flashed a "quenelle" (in front of a synagogue they were
ordered to guard), but now he have to punished entire crowds of defiant
soldiers, most of whom hate the regime anyway. On the other hand, how
can the regime ignore the fact that it is being openly defied, mocked
and ridiculed?

Here we are reaching a topic whose importance cannot be overstated: how
can one achieve regime change in a democracy who has been completely
bought and paid for by a plutocracy? This is question which is as
absolutely crucial for France, as it is for the USA, the UK or any other
EU country and the reply to this crucial seems to have eluded most of
the million of people in the West who are completely disgusted with the
regime in power but who see absolutely no realistic way to change it.

Violence is clearly not an option. The regime has been very clever to
label any form of "direct action" as "terrorism" while creating a
monstrous spy-state which would dwarf Ceausescu’s Securitate. If you try
as much as throwing a brick at a politician, they will call you a
terrorist and lock you up for many decades.

Playing the electoral game is futile. The plutocrats own the media
which, standing on the shoulders of folks like Edward Bernays has
learned how to brainwash a population far more effectively that Hitler
or Kim Il-Sung ever could. Basically, as shown by yesterday’s vote in
the US state of Washington, elections are bought. Period. "One man one
vote" has long been replaced by "one dollar one vote".

Trying to convince people by regular information campaigns has proven
useless too. If anything the double facts that the 9/11 Truth movement
has proven far beyond reasonable doubt that the Twin Towers and WTC7
have been brought down by controlled demolition AND the fact that his
has had exactly zero impact on the political process in the USA proves
that most people have been either zombified beyond rescue or have given
up hope in complete disgust and despair.

And yet we, the common folk, do have one formidable weapon left: we can
demonstratively show our total lack of respect for this regime and its
values. Like Dieudo, we can do that through humor and laughter. God
knows we all need a reason to laugh nowadays! And we can do it by
showing our complete contempt for all the institutions the regime tries
so hard to make us respect. First and foremost, we need to "diss" the
voice of the regime – the corporate media – and we need to "diss" the
holy liturgy of the regime – the elections. But we cannot do just that
as this is only a first step. Next, we need to follow the example of
Dieudo and Soral and use each opportunity to openly express our absolute
contempt for every shill showing respect of this regime and its values.
Not only that, but we need to denounce these propagandists as "paid
regime stooges" (which, of course, they are). Lastly, we need to force
the regime to show its true face by forcing it to take action against us.

Humor plays a crucial role here because – at least for the time being –
it has not been declared illegal. Humor is also a formidable weapon to
attack a regime’s legitimacy. Here I think of the many sketches which
the late George Carlin made about the regime in the USA, like these.

Carlin was brilliant, but he did not have the immense opportunity which
Dieudo and Soral are now using with devastating effectiveness: a large
percentage of the population which is already not only deeply alienated
by the regime in power, but which has the cultural, religious and
historical roots to dare look at another model: I am talking about the
Muslim immigrants in France.

Sure, the USA has the Nation of Islam lead by a pretty interesting
leader, Louis Farrakhan, but the problem with the NOI is that its
teachings are not truly Islamic and that cuts them off from the rest of
the much larger Islamic world. Besides, ever since the murder of Malcolm
X by two NOI activists I suspect that the NOI has been thoroughly
infiltrated by FBI plants.

In France, however, the Islamic community has a much more organic link
to the Islamic world, including to countries like Iran which fosters a
far more refined and sophisticated look at the flaws of modern society
than either the pro-regime mosques in France and abroad or the Wahabis.

It is, of course, ironical that the French who for many years have seen
the Muslim immigration to their country as a curse are now coming to
slowly realize that this might well have been a blessing. I do not mean
to paint a rosy picture of Islam in France: there are plenty of unsolved
problems to tackle both for the natives and the immigrants, and certain
forms of Islam are probably really not compatible with the original
French traditions and culture. And yes, there are many signs that the
current social brew might explode sooner or later. But the phenomenon of
Dieudo, Soral and E&R gives me the hope that this explosion does not
have to be a destructive one, that it could also be a liberating one.

What I am sure of is that some form of explosion will happen. Not only
if France ruined economically, but the regime in power is loosing its
legitimacy literally day by day. Should it come to a confrontation, and
that is a very real possibility in France, it is by no means certain
that the police and security forces will continue to remain loyal to the
plutocracy in power which, after all, has only made the life of the
regular cop much worse. I can easily imagine a "bank holiday" turning
into a violent uprising and after that, anything could happen. One of
the most knowledgeable observer of the French political scene –
economist and author Pierre Jovanovic – believes that President Francois
Hollande will not even be able to finish his current term in office.

Of course, I do not expect Dieudo or Soral to become President or Prime
Minister, neither will E&R become a big political party anytime soon
(not to mention that it’s creators did not register it as a party). That
is not the point. What I do hope for is that this movement will trigger
a re-definition of the French political scene and create a force bold
enough to take on the current power establishment head-on, something
which has not happened since May of 1968 (the National Front, whose rise
was secretly aided by the French Socialists in order to split the French
right has long been fully co-opted into the system). Considering the
many deep systemic and structural crises currently plaguing Europe,
France could lead by example, if only because France’s problems are not
much different from those facing the rest of western Europe.

The Saker
http://frenchdissidents.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/is-a-new-revolution-quietly-brewing-in-france/

  (12) Jewish establishment stays silent on Israeli plan to forcibly
displace Bedouins

    Kristoffer Larsson <krislarsson@comhem.se> 8 December 2013 09:31

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/12/establishment-displace-bedouins.html

Alex Kane on December 7, 2013 10

The heavy-hitters in the American Jewish community usually march in
lockstep with the Israeli government. But many organizations that
comprise the American Jewish establishment have gone silent over the
Prawer Plan, the Israeli government’s initiative to uproot tens of
thousands of Bedouin Arabs, relocate them to urban areas and build new
Jewish areas on top of demolished villages.

The Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish
Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs
have issued no statements on the Prawer Plan, in contrast to their
numerous statements in support of Israel on the peace process and Iran.
The major umbrella group representing American Jewish groups, the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, has
also not commented on the initiative. The silence has held even in the
wake of major protests against the plan throughout Israel/Palestine,
which thrust the issue into the mainstream and Jewish media in the U.S.

The Jewish Council on Public Affairs has had two phone briefings on the
plan, though: one with Benny Begin, a government official responsible
for pushing the plan forward, and another by members of the Association
for Civil Rights in Israel, which opposes the plan. The Jewish
Federations of North America has held events on the Negev, where the
Bedouin villages slated to be demolished are located, and their partners
have funded a variety of initiatives for the region, including efforts
to promote Bedouin employment. The Anti-Defamation League has condemned
racism against Bedouin Arabs.

But despite past statements on Bedouins in the Negev, requests for
comment on the Prawer Plan were not returned by any of the main Jewish
organizations. Many left-leaning Jewish groups, though, have publicly
criticized the Prawer Plan, which has been called the largest land grab
by Israel since at least 1967. In June, the legislation passed its first
reading in the Knesset over the objections of Bedouin leaders and
Palestinian citizens of Israel.

“The mainstream Jewish community’s silence around this is a cowardly
response to an issue that gets to the core of what does it mean for
Israel to claim to be both a Jewish state and a democracy,” said Rabbi
Alissa Wise, a co-director of organizing at Jewish Voice for Peace
(JVP), which has come out strongly against the Prawer Plan.  The group
has called it an “appalling” plan for “transfer based on nothing more
than ethnic identity is even under consideration.” Wise speculated that
reason behind the non-response was that it’s “bad PR, and they don’t
want to come out criticizing the Israeli government publicly–most of
those organizations, that’s not something they’re comfortable doing.”

JVP has been at the forefront of efforts to encourage Jews to register
their dissent on the Prawer Plan. They’ve mobilized their members to
register their anti-Prawer protest with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer
and have demonstrated in Boston. Most recently, they’ve encouraged
members to pressure the Reform Jewish group Religious Action Center
(RAC) to speak to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the Prawer
Plan when he addresses the Union of Reform Judaism conference next week.
The RAC, which is the political activist arm of the Union of Reform
Judaism, came out against the Prawer Plan in June, though they had
little to say about JVP’s calls to “hold Netanyahu accountable.”

“We welcome the feedback. We hope that all who wish to engage on issues
of social justice are able to make their voices heard, and we appreciate
their comments,” RAC spokesman Sean Thibault wrote in an e-mail.

Groups like Truah (formerly Rabbis for Human Rights-America) and Ameinu
have also spoken up. In November, Truah and Rabbis for Human Rights in
Israel organized a letter signed by hundreds of Rabbinical leaders
against the plan to uproot Bedouin. The letter criticized the Prawer
initiative for “demolishing villages and dispossessing people of their
land,” and also said that “implementing this plan will be a disaster for
Israel’s public image.”

The liberal Zionist lobby group J Street, though, has issued no
statement on the plan. “J Street has no response to the Prawer Plan,
because it falls outside the scope of our work,” Jessica Rosenblum, a
spokeswoman for the group, told me in an e-mail. “That said, many J
Street supporters are concerned about the Prawer Plan and its
implications for Israel’s democracy and they are expressing those
concerns through their work with other organizations.”

Despite some liberal Zionist dissent, the Israeli government is pressing
ahead on the Prawer Plan. The bill is expected to be taken up by the
Knesset this winter for 2nd and 3rd readings on the plan. Once it gets
final Knesset approval, the plan could be implemented. In the wake of
the November 30th “Day of Rage” protests by Bedouins and their
supporters throughout Israel and the occupied territories, Netanyahu
vowed that the Prawer Plan will be put in place.

“Attempts by a loud and violent minority to deny a better future to a
large and broad population are grave,” the prime minister said. “We will
continue to advance the law for a better future for all residents of the
Negev.”

(13)  Israeli government suspends plan to resettle 30,000 Bedouin "to
make way for a new Jewish community"

    Kristoffer Larsson <krislarsson@comhem.se> 13 December 2013 07:45

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.563200

Israeli government halts controversial plan to resettle 30,000 Bedouin

Architect of the proposal told a Knesset committee earlier this week
that he had never received community support for the proposal, despite
claims to the contrary.

By Ofer Aderet and Jonathan Lis | Dec. 12, 2013 | 5:47 PM |   10

{photo} Umm al-Hiran. The government has decided to raze the Bedouin
village in the Negev to make way for a new Jewish community. Photo by
Eliyahu Hershkovitz
{end}

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has decided to drop the
current draft of a controversial bill to resettle nearly 30,000 Bedouin
living in the Negev into already recognized villages, the former
minister overseeing the plan said on Thursday.

Benny Begin, an architect of the Begin-Prawer Plan, told a press
conference that Netanyahu had accepted his recommendation to halt
progress on the bill. It is not clear whether the billl has been shelved
or just temporarily postponed.

He also accused critics of the plan of exploiting the proposal for their
own benefit. "Right, left, Arabs and Jews joined hands – while
exploiting the plight of many Bedouin – to heat things up for political
gain," he said. "We've done our best, but sometimes you need to
recognize reality."

During the drafting of the legislation, Begin said, more than 1,000
Bedouin were heard, and as a result changes in the bill were introduced.
"I myself met with 600 of them… We didn't just hear them out, we
listened to them attentively," he said, adding that some viewed his
willingness to engage with the Bedouin community as excessive.

The possibility of the bill being shelved emerged three days ago, after
Begin denied claims that community leaders had accepted the proposal – a
key defense used by the government in advancing the plan.

Begin said that contrary to reports, he had never approached the Bedouin
with the plan and thus did not receive their approval on the matter.

“I wish to again make clear that contrary to what has been claimed in
recent weeks, I didn’t tell anyone that the Bedouin agreed to my plan,”
Begin told the Knesset Interior and Environment Committee. “I couldn’t
say that because I didn’t present the plan to them. I didn’t present the
bill that I revised to any segment of the public, including the Bedouin.
The revised bill is not being presented again to the public to hear
whether the amendments are to its liking or not. As a result, I would
not be able to know to what extent they support the law.”

Following Begin's remarks, coalition whip MK Yariv Levin (Likud) said
the plan lost its majority support in the government.

The current plan should undergo vast changes, Levin said, and not be
presented to the Knesset plenum for the second and third reading in the
next few months.

The Prawer-Begin plan outlines a proposal to resolve land-use issues
related to the Bedouin. The draft legislation outlines the compensation,
in money and in land, to some 20,000 to 30,000 Bedouin upon relocation.

The bill was endorsed by the interim government on May 7 and approved by
a slim majority in its first Knesset reading on June 25.