I undersökningen uppger 7 procent av poliserna att de utsatts för en eller flera former av påverkan de senaste 18 månaderna, motsvarande siffra för de civilanställda är 3 procent. Poliser i yttre tjänst och närpoliser löper störst risk att utsättas. Det rör sig om hot och trakasserier, snarare än våld, skadegörelse och korruption. Den enskilt vanligaste formen är trakasserier, som väljs medvetet av vissa påverkare eftersom det ofta inte är en straffbar handling. Påverkan sker i tjänsten, i kontroll- och ingripandesituationer, och riktas därför mycket sällan mot familjen.

BRÅ Rapport: Hot och trakasserier vid försök att påverka poliser.Der er knap 17.000 politifolk i “yttre tjänst” i Sverige. Dvs. truslerne omfatter cirka 1200 politifolk i 18 måneders-perioden. (Frankrike: 113 brott per polis och år, Holland: 154 brott per polis och år , Sverige: 254 brott per polis och år SvD 2003). Det var måske et tema for Thomas Bodströms næste kriminalroman ? Seks år som justitsminister skulle give rigeligt med virkelighed at øse af :

Spænding i hverdagen

Sveriges fhv. socialdemokratiske justitsminister Bodström er debuteret som krimiforfatter med romanen “Idealisten”. Man ser at DR ikke  er alene om at konstruere usandsynlige, politisk korrekte plots:

I Thomas Bodströms nya bok möter vi Mattias, Susanne och Gerd igen. Ett brutalt mord på en ung framgångsrik politiker skakar Sverige. När ytterligare ett politikermord sker blir läget akut. En spännande historia med en mycket oväntad upplösning.

En ung politiker med invandrarbakgrund, Carlos, startar ett upprop mot rasismen tillsammans med en äldre kollega, socialdemokraten Jan-Olov. De sitter båda i justitieutskottet där Gerd är ordförande. Det blir ett uppmärksammat initiativ eftersom man jobbar över partigränserna. När Carlos brutalt skjuts ner utanför sin villa i Nacka går misstankarna direkt mot Sverigedemokraten Carl Struwe och hans rasistiska anhängare. Nordsteds Forlag

Når man spørger sig, hvorfor svenskerne skriver alle de krimier (og hvorfor nogen overhovedet orker læser dem), er svaret gerne at Sverige er så “tråkigt” og begivenhedsløst, at ens lyst på det makabre må tilfredsstilles kunstigt. I et land med 1.377.854 anmeldte forbrydelser ? (2008).  Folks appetit må være ubændig. Bare jeg har set en svensk provinsavis, er jeg mæt af gys for hele dagen. Det spørgsmål har trængt sig på længe, hvorvidt svenske krimier overhovedet henter sine motiver fra virkeligheden.

Broken news: Uriasposten og Snaphanen “forarger”

Der er måske ikke nye boller på suppen her, men fristelsen til at kommentere på negativ omtale af Uriasposten og nærværende blog er for stor. En fotograf Freddy Hagen skriver bl. a.:

Jeg bliver forarget, når jeg læser Trykkefrihedsselskabets bloggervenner, som også kommer til deres arrangementer. Det er islamkritiske blogs, såsom Uriasposten og Snaphanen, der overvåger et utal af medier for derefter at trække dét ud, som har at gøre med muslimer.

Vores store arbejde – “overvåger et utal af medier” – bliver altså bemærket, fint nok. Men bemærk, at forargelsen er bygget op omkring dette ord “utal”. Det er samme form for ad-hominem-argument der benyttes mod f. eks. Lars Hedegaard for at være fanatisk og at have muslimer på hjernen, i fraværet af faktuel kritik og debunking. At Hagen benytter dette greb, og ikke netop påvisning af fejl og dårlig argumentation, afslører jo derfor at det kan han heller ikke. Det er det pæne menneskes forargelse, dette her. Den jomfrunalske afvisning af ubehagelige kendsgerninger.

Uriaspostens Kim Møller gør ofte det, at han kort introducerer et tema, hvorefter han copy-paster artikler ind. I disse artikler fremhæver han så de sentenser, som han finder mest betydelige. Derefter er det op til alle dem, der kommenterer på hans poster, at gøre det så rabiat og usmageligt som overhovede muligt. Det er denne form for frasigelse af hvad andre siger og gør, omend man stiller rum til rådighed for dem der er villige til at gå et skridt videre, som gør det usympatisk.

Kim Møllers næsten ubegrænsede ikke-censur lægges ham altså til last. Et legitimt synspunkt. Hvad der ikke er legitimt – og faktisk direkte usympatisk – er at Freddy Hagen belyver Møllers begrundelse for denne redaktionelle politik: “Derefter er det op til alle dem …”. Hagen (samme efternavn som Corleone-familiens advokat) kan ikke undgå at tale mod bedre vidende når han slår de mange forskelligartede kommentarer under ét, og mener at kunne tilskrive dette onde intentioner fra blogejerens side. Dette kaldes “at lyve”, Hagen.

Der er altså al mulig god grund til ikke at møde op til Trykkefrihedsarrangementet.

Er der nu også det? Jeg har ellers fået det indtryk at dialog altid er at foretrække? Dialog med de værste af de værste antidemokrater fra den arabiske verden, osv.? Det klinger da ikke rigtig af “kulturudveksling”? Men det mener han altså ikke? Freddy Hagen – et hestehoved bag virkeligheden – skal være velkommen til at skrive et mere substantielt indlæg her, men det gør han næppe, for disse smæderier kan han ikke argumentere for (LFPC).

Børnetime med Hamas: “We Jews love to drink blood of Muslims and Arabs”

Den polariserede debats hængedynd

På vores side af værdidebatten finder vi nok hver enkelt vores niche afhængigt af bl. a. temperament. Jeg tager hatten af for dem der ufortrødent kæmper håbløse kampe endda i de intellektuelt mest udfordrede miljøer, avisernes læserkommentarer. De har bestemt en pointe ved også at prøve at slå igennem her, for måske kan enkelte puffes ud i kognitiv dissonans ved konfrontation med de facts som journalister ikke gider, evner eller tør forholde sig til. Men jeg har forlængst indset at jeg ikke dur her. At se disse de værste klicheer fra Muhammedkrisen for tre år siden gentaget og gentaget af folk der er uimodtagelige for uddybende viden og perspektivering dræner mig, og, det indrømmer jeg, gør mig stærkt irriteret. På dagbladet Information er journalister og læsere (takket være en hårdhændet udrensning af skribenter med afvigende synspunkter) rørende enige om at være udenfor rækkevidde i idiotisk grad. Dette var ugen hvor det bl. a. kunne meddeles, at danske trykkerier ikke turde lave genoptryk af Muhammedtegningerne [JP 2.4.2009], og BBC ikke turde bringe et interview med Kurt Westergaard. Ikke at dette forhindrede Informations journalist i at fremstille den tre år gamle sag i manipulerende vendinger:

Trykkefrihedsselskabet har genoptrykt den mest omstridte af Muhammedtegningerne og sat den til salg. Foreningens formand mener, at det er nødvendigt at gøre opmærksom på ytringsfriheden igen, da pointen ikke trængte ordentlig ind under Muhammedkrisen. […]

– Hvorfor har I valgt at genoptrykke tegningen af Muhammed med en bombe i turbanen og sætte den til salg? […]

– Blev pointen om ytringsfrihed ikke understreget nok under Muhammedkrisen? […]

– Behøver man krænke andre religioner, bare fordi man har ret til det? Kunne I ikke have fundet noget andet at tjene penge på? Muhammed-tegninger for 1,4 mio. kr.

I kommentarerne pludrer Informations læsere løs med vendinger som “ytrings-galninge” og “ytrings-terrorister”. Det er nok en god ting en gang imellem at gøre status over hvor ‘de andre’ befinder sig i disse spørgsmål, og det være hermed gjort. Men jeg overdriver virkelig ikke når jeg siger at det er udmarvende at læse (LFPC, medlem af Trykkefrihedsselskabet).

Sharia infiltrerer Tyskland

Dr. Sami Alrabaa, (Sharia Infiltrates German Courts, Schools, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Once again a German court ruled by referring to Shrai’a (Islamic law), which predominantly incites to denigration of women, hatred, violence.

Most recently, Lisa, a German woman (46) married to an Egyptian, called the police seeking protection for herself and her 17-year-old daughter from assaults by her husband. Magdi, Lisa’s husband, threatened to kill their daughter who had been raped by a man. Magdi, a practicing Muslim, believes that his daughter committed “Zena” (adultery). He told his wife that he was always suspicious of his daughter who clandestinely had a German boyfriend. Lisa filed a divorce case against her husband, and requested deporting him.

The judge, Matthias Rau, at a court in Hanover, Germany, ruled (January 21, 2009), Lisa had to wait for at least one year before she is legally divorced. Her husband cannot be deported. “He must be re-educated, in hopes he would renounce his Islamic understanding of ‘Zena,’” the judge said.

The German judge argued, “Muslims have a different understanding of rape than Europeans, and this must be taken into account.”

In an interview with a German radio, NDR on February 18, 2009, Rau said, “Sharia aligns rape to adultery, Zena, and victims – women – are often punished instead of prosecuting the perpetrators and convict them.”

Helmut Wagner, another German judge, this time in Essen, ruled March 2, 2009, Muslim girls in Germany can not be forced to swim in public and learn about the evolution theory at school. The parents of three school girls requested a verdict freeing their daughters from taking part in swimming classes and lessons which teach the evolution theory. Wagner argued, “These things contradict tenets in Islam, the religion of these girls, and hence in light of freedom of religion, the Muslim girls cannot be forced to do or learn things which are incompatible with their religion.”

The Attorney General was indignant. He objected to Wagner’s verdict by saying, “How would this judge rule if a Muslim kills someone who commits apostasy. According to the Koran, he must be killed. Would the judge let the perpetrator free?” The Attorney General cites the Koran which says, “If they (Muslims) turn (their) back (to Islam), then seize them and KILL them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.” (Sura 4, verse 89).  The attorney General added, “In Islam, polygamy is permissible. Should also this be sanctioned in Germany for Muslims? It seems to me that some German judges are more royal than the king and more Catholic than the Pope. Some Arab countries use Western legal codes.”

In another case, the judge, Hans-Dieter Bachmann at a court in Dortmund, also ruled (February 12, 2009), with reference to Sharia. He said, according to the Koran, a Muslim father can beat his 15-year-old daughter who refuses to wear a headscarf, and he cannot be punished, and quoted the following passage from the Koran, “The men are made responsible for the women, and God has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is God’s commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them.” (Suran 4 on Women).

Numerous cases have now been ruled with reference to Sharia in Germany. Earlier in 2007, Christa Datz-Winter, a judge in Frankfurt, also referred to a passage in the Koran that gives the right to a husband to beat his wife. She procrastinated the divorce of a Moroccan women from her Moroccan husband, Both live in Germany.

Instead of using Paragraph 1565 of the German Federal Law, Datz-Winter preferred to use the hardship criteria as defined in the Koran, and added in her verdict, “Both the wife and the husband are Muslims. In Islam, the husband is allowed to castigate his wife. This fact cannot be ignored, and cultural and religious motives must be considered in this case.”

Andrea Bramsche, a lawyer in Stuttgart, Germany, told the prominent weekly newspaper, Die Zeit online, (February 19, 2009), “What is going on in German courts? Are we here in Saudi Arabia or Iran? Even some Muslim countries are obviously more secular than we are. Syria, Lebanon, and Tunisia, for example, apply the Napoleon code, and Turkey uses the Swiss code. Besides, would a Saudi judge rule allowing a German to drink alcohol in Saudi Arabia because the Bible allows that?”

The list of passages from the Koran and Hadith, which basically constitute Sharia, and denigrate women is long. For more details check out “Is Islam a Violent Faith?” and “Women in Hadith.”

If German courts opt to use Sharia in their verdicts then women can be beaten, their testimony is worth half of that of men, they are disallowed to travel alone, they can inherit only half the mount their male relatives get. Women are intellectually deficient. They even cannot fast without their husband’s permission, etc. All these commandments are entailed in Sharia.

Sharia has also infiltrated German schools. The head teacher of a secondary school in Detmold permits Muslim pupils who do not want to learn the evolution theory to learn the “creationist theory” as an alternative.

In another school, the head teacher issued instructions to male teachers not to shake hands with Muslim girls after handing over their graduation documents. “This is haram (impermissible) in Islam.” The head teacher said.

Sharia has also infiltrated the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In an interview with the Egyptian Al Ahram Weekly (October 19, 2008), Gabrielle Linda Guelil, a Muslim Turk, whose real first name is Layla and who dyes her hair blond to look German, and works for this ministry as head of a new section called “Dialogue with the Islamic World,” said, “Through interaction and dialogue with the Muslim world we hope to bridge the gap between cultures and clear up any misunderstandings.”

What kind of “misunderstandings” is Guelil talking about? Are “beating women” and urging Muslims to kill infidels – Christians and Jews – which the Koran, Hadith, and fatwas (edicts) incite to, all “misunderstandings”? This is an insult to the intellect of all sanely-thinking people.

Then Guelil says, “Tolerance must prevail. Respecting other religions is essential.” The question is who is intolerant, Islamists or the rest of the world? Who does not allow non-Muslims build their temples and practice their religions? Is it the West, or Muslim countries, spearheaded by Saudi Arabia, the cradle of fanatic Islam? Who set embassies to fire after the Muhammad cartoons? Have you ever heard of a Christian or a Jew setting fire to a mosque? Who is actually intolerant?

To add insult to injury, Guelil says, “Some Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, enforce the Islamic Sharia law without making the effort to explain that this law does not necessarily constitute a violation of human rights.”

What should the Saudis explain? How men should beat women and denigrate them? Beating women, denigrating them, and inciting to hatred and violence against non-Muslims do not “constitute a violation of human rights”? This is insane.

Instead of lecturing us about “misunderstandings” and “tolerance,” Guelil should have asked Muslims to be tolerant and renounce violence.

Sharia is not the “law of Allah.” God is merciful and tolerant. He would never incite to kill human beings and denigrate them. Anyone who claims the opposite is an outlaw and irreligious by all means.

Islam is an Arabic word which means “submission.” There is no room of freedom in Islam. It is full of contradictions. While the Koran says, “There is no compulsion in Islam” (Sura 2, verse 257), it incites to hatred and violence in numerous passages. Muslims who turn their back to Islam are branded as “heretics” and sentenced to death. Check out the above mentioned articles.

Many German apologists, and for that matter many Europeans like the British Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams who endorses Sharia, argue that Muslims living in the West must have their own law, Sharia, applied next to the mundane law. They justify that by religious freedom which all Western constitutions prescribe.

They also argue that in a bid to integrate migrants of different religious backgrounds, these people must “feel at home.” Their religious tenets must be taken into consideration. But how about Western mundane laws and constitutions, do they use the Bible or refer to it? The answer is NO.

At the same time all those apologists do not realize, or rather ignore that Sharia violates basic human rights.

I believe that apologists who refer to Sharia and accept its appalling rules do so out of fear of Islamists. The aim is appeasing radical Muslims. Consequently, they make themselves accomplice to those who violate human rights and incite to hatred and violence.

Exclusive: Sharia Infiltrates German Courts, Schools, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex-Muslim, is a professor of Sociology  and an Arab-Muslim culture specialist. Before moving to Germany he taught at KuwaitUniversity, KingSaudUniversity, and MichiganStateUniversity. He also writes for the Jerusalem Post.