10
nov
Seneste opdatering: 11/11-07 kl. 0005
Ingen kommentar - Tryk for at kommentere!

vagkamp_2007_021.jpg
 vagkamp_2007_017.jpg

Kollegiet Regensen og Bosse fra Skåne, altid i Danmark til valg og Dronningens fødselsdag.  fotos © Snaphanen 

I Sverige er der ingen udlændinge

»De är “utlänningar”, som invandrare heter i Danmark«, som DN skriver i sin reportage  fra Kalundborg. Det sproglige humbug stikker dybt i svenske  journalister. Ingen kalder tingene, det de er. Eufemismerne har fået substral  og man må formode at formålet med at korrumpere  sproget, er at at underminere tanken. Klicheerne står i kø, når Danmark skal baskes: “missnöjespartier som fiskar i främlingsfientlighetens och rasismens grumliga vatten.” Man skulle næsten ikke tro, at nogen længere nænnede  at udtrykke  sig  så fladtrådt. Til læseren sender sætningen én besked: skriveren  gider ikke længere  tænke selv. De har fået Alzheimer og fedt på hjernen. En selvtænkt  tanke viser sig gerne i et frisk sprog. Svenske  journalister er trætte af livet, de er  trætte af at skrive  og tænke, det er ikke formålet  med deres virksomhed. De er borgerdyr, hvis højeste ambition er ikke at støde an. En vaks, endnu levende svensker burde  skrive “Politik og det svenske sprog” som en opdateret pendant til Orwell´s uforlignelige “Politics and the English Language“. Jeg er stødt på nogle der kunne gøre det. Der er antagelig  én af to måder at genoplive svensk journalistik på: at tage narresutten, den alt for rigelige  statsstøtte fra dem  (momsfritagelse + direkte støtte, 500 mio.) Og igen at gøre det til et almindeligt  betalt lavstatusjob, der tiltrækker nogle  gadedrenge  i stedet for artige, overuddanede mønsterelever.

 Svenske journalister er et samfundsproblem. Danske i nogen, men dog langt mindre  grad. (Overflødigt at tilføje, Sverige har købt myten om den danske blokpolitik ubeset, det blir ´ den ikke rigtigere af.)  Se også  Robsten: Mer politiserad rapportering om det danska valet

‘Behave yourself, but don’t put up with anything.’

 New York Times  portrætterer Karen Jespersen

Denmark’s Unabashed Lightning Rod on Immigration

Naser Khader: Moderate Muslim or Trojan Horse?

GoV

Sverige, til skræk og advarsel

Svenske socialdemokrater vil stramme og advarer Thorning. I det hele taget har Malmø længe  appeleret forgæves til Stockholm om nåde: “Malmö vid smärtgränsen”  , men det er  årevis for sent at agere nu. I 2001 forlod 3600  familer byen om året – “Malmöbor flyttar bort från invandrarna“. Jeg kender ikke det aktuelle  tal. 

Asylsøgeres ret til at bosætte sig uden for asylcentrene i Sverige giver så  massive sociale problemer, at socialdemokraterne i Sverige nu vil have ændret den svenske asylpolitik. Det er den ordning, som Socialdemokraterne – bakket op af Ny Alliance og De Radikale – ønsker indført i Danmark.

Malmøs socialdemokratiske borgmester, Ilmar Reepalu, har kæmpet for lovændringen længe.

»Danmark skal tænke sig godt om, inden der indføres fri ret til asylsøgerne. Hvis asylsøgerne selv får lov til at bestemme, klumper de sig sammen i de områder, hvor deres landsmænd og slægtninge bor.Vi ser, at der bor op til 10 mennesker i en lejlighed, og det går først og fremmest ud over børnene, der ikke får ro til hvile og lektielæsning,« siger han.

Nyhedsavisen

Human rights is merely a sweetner for rapists, murderers and violent criminals

Gabrielle Browne was a happy, successful computer manager and mother of two until the day in 2003 when she went running in her local park in South London, was punched in the face and indecently assaulted by Mohammed Kendeh, a 16-year-old from Sierra Leone.Gabrielle, now 42, believes it was only the strength she’d gained from training for the London Marathon which enabled her to save herself from rape.

Astonishingly, at the time of the attack, Kendeh was under a supervision order for six other sex offences in the same park.

Italy has passed new laws to kick out dangerous immigrants – with barely a whimper from EU bosses

You might think that a foreign-born man who had repeatedly attacked British women had forfeited his right to live in this country. You would be wrong.

Though the Home Office tried to deport Kendeh once he had served his sentence, an immigration judge overruled them.

Now, quite shamefully, a further appeal has been rejected, so Kendeh is here to stay.

Gabrielle is so upset she has waived her own precious right to anonymity.

She wants to expose the cruel farce of a judicial system that allows men like her assailant to remain in Britain.

So who was behind this decision? Step forward, Sir Henry Hodge, husband of New Labour minister Margaret Hodge.

He ruled that Kendeh couldn’t be sent back to Sierra Leone because the Human Rights Act enshrines his ‘right to a family life’.

What nonsense! An expert in international law tells me British judges are guilty of being far too broad in their interpretation of Article 8 of the EU Convention on Human Rights.

When the convention was incorporated into British law in 1998, no one could have imagined that one day, the rights of violent, delinquent sex offenders would be considered more important than the right of British women to live without fear.

But Sir Henry, I’m afraid to say, is part of the human rights industry.

Dispensing justice from on high, such men seldom have to live with the consequences of their Utopian views down here at street level.

They seem to take a perverse delight in giving the benefit of the doubt to appalling individuals such as Kendeh and Learco Chindamo, the killer of headmaster Philip Lawrence, while ignoring the rights of the victims whose lives they have destroyed.

At the other extreme, we have the response in Italy this week to the murder of a naval officer’s wife by a Romanian immigrant.

Overnight, Italian politicians passed a law which allows them to throw out any EU citizen deemed to be undesirable.

This has led to scenes of Romanian men, women and children being rounded up for deportation, stirring uncomfortable memories of the nation’s fascist past.

So how did the European Commission respond to this jackboot in the face of its Human Rights Convention?

It meekly agreed that the Italian government could expel any person suspected of being a ‘threat to public safety’.

No proof of a criminal record is necessary, nor even a trial.

So while British judges claim their hands are tied, the Italians have driven a Ferrari Testarossa straight through European human rights legislation without even getting a ticket.

Mamma Mia!

Tempting though it may be to envy the Italians, I hope to God we never see the day when innocent people are thrown out of this country simply for being different.

The British are more tolerant than our rulers give us credit for.

Four brave firemen lost their lives at the weekend because they thought migrant workers were trapped in a burning building.

The country that invented liberty needs no lessons from Europe on how to behave decently.

But let the Italian crackdown serve as a warning of what could happen if our judges lose sight of fairness and common sense – and of innocent victims such as Gabrielle Browne. Human rights can make a wrong.  

Daily Mail ,    læs  også  Europe still struggles to face up to reality  og 

BBC Newsnight and Radio 5 Live poll suggests widespread concern about immigration – kan ses  og  høres  online

og i disse  Asmaa tider (jeg bemærkede ved et møde forleden at Enhedslistens medlemmer, når man nævnte   det Muslimske  Broderskab, reagerede som om det  lige så godt kunne  have  været Frimurerlogen. Melanie Philips:

The west’s lethal ignorance
Friday, 9th November 2007

As I have documented on this blog on numerous occasions, there is a growing and influential lobby promoting the idea that there are within the global Muslim Brotherhood (whose founder, Hassan al Banna, is pictured here) moderate elements with whom the west can do business in common cause against al Qaeda and Iran. Those who subscribe to this view, including ‘conflict resolution’ (sic) outfits such as Conflicts Forum and Forward Thinking, along with individuals such as the former Yossi Beilin aide Daniel Levy and the Tory MP Michael Ancram, are assiduously pushing for ‘engagement’ with Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamists. This message is beginning to achieve some traction within the establishment. The Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said in its report last summer:

As long as the Muslim Brotherhood expresses a commitment to the democratic process and non-violence, we recommend that the British Government should engage with it and seek to influence its members.
The lethal ignorance and naivety of this view have now been magisterially exposed in this paper by Jonathan Halevi of the Jerusalem Institute for Public Affairs. Among many insights, he points out that those very signs of Brotherhood ‘moderation’ sized on by the engagement lobby are themselves a strategy of jihad:
It is evident that the Muslim Brotherhood does not hide its global aspirations and the violent path it intends to follow to achieve them. The Muslim Brothers are meticulous in their step-by-step plan first to take over the soul of the individual and then the family, people, nation and union of Islamic nations, until the global Islamic state has been realized. The principle of stages dictates the Muslim Brotherhood’s supposed ‘moderation,’ which impressed Leiken and Brooke so deeply. However, that ‘moderation’ will gradually vanish as Muslim Brotherhood achievements increase and acceptance of the existing situation is replaced by a strict, orthodox Muslim rule whose foreign policy is based on jihad.


And as for making common cause against al Qaeda, Halevi writes:

The Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda differ regarding tactics but share a common strategy. Al-Qaeda favors an implacable jihad to destroy the economies of the Western countries. The Muslim Brotherhood supports terrorism and jihad against foreign presence in the Islamic world, but its top priority is constructing a Muslim infrastructure in the West which will slowly but surely enable it to rule during the 21st century. As far as the final goal is concerned, there are no policy differences between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The two organizations have the same objective: to place the entire world under an Islamic caliphate.
In its desperate desire to avoid facing the truth about what we are up against, our establishment is falling into a classic trap. Believing that it can play off one set of Islamists against another, it does not have the humility or wit to grasp that instead it is being played by them like a fish on a line.

Spectator

Annoncer fra Danske Partner-Ads:


Donér engangsbeløb?Kan du forpligte dig til fast betaling?


Comments are closed.