“Der er en Klarhed paa din Pande, Der er et Mørke i dit Haar….” (klik f. helstørrelse)

»UNHCR har en politisk dagsorden«

Det siger integrationsminister Birthe Rønn Hornbech (V) efter at FNs flygtningeorganisation, UNHCR, i et høringssvar har bedt Danmark om på flere punkter at ændre den seneste stramning af udlændingeloven. Men det kommer ikke på tale.

“Der er overhovedet ingen grund til at ændre på noget som helst i den lov,” siger Birthe Rønn Hornbech. “UNHCR prøver ustandseligt at blande sig i dansk lovgivning. Men de taler for døve øren,” siger ministeren. UNHCR mener tillige direkte, at FNs flygtningekonvention overtrædes, hvis en flygtning bliver udvist som følge af socialt bedrageri, sådan det er foreslået med de nye stramninger. Men det får ikke den danske integrationsminister til at ryste på hånden. “UNHCR har en politisk dagsorden, der går langt ud over flygtningekonventionens rammer. Det har jeg fortalt dem masser af gange,” lyder Birthe Rønn Hornbech synspunkt. Rønn vil blæse på FN.

2009: Rønn: UNHCR kritiserer altid Danmark, »Det er helt utroligt med dem. Nu er der simpelthen gået inflation i UNHCR’s påstande om, at vi bryder konventionerne«.)- UNHCR´s nordiske regionalkontor ligger i Stockholm. Danmark betaler 272,706,000 kr for medlemskabet. – Gad vidst hvad UNHCR siger den den fremmedlov Ariozonas Jernlady Jan Brewer har underskrevet her i går aftes ?

Dagens Danmarksbask

Danmark utvisar nordiska medborgare som behöver socialbidrag. Två aktuella exempel rör nordiska kvinnor som har – eller skulle få – barn med danska män. En av dem, en norska, tvingades hoppa av sina studier när hon blev gravid….. Den andra kvinnan, boende i Sverige, reste till sin släkt i Danmark med sin dotter eftersom mannen misshandlade henne. Hon nekades socialbidrag för att hon ansågs ha större anknytning till Sverige och den misshandlande mannen.[..] Danmark utvisade under fjoråret sammanlagt tio nordiska medborgare. [..]Sydsvenskan har sökt men inte nått Danmarks integrationsminister Birthe Rønn Hornbech (V) för en kommentar. Danmark utvisar nordbor.

Uden mere konkret, er det svært at mene noget. Men person nummer to, kunne meget vel tilhøre kategorien “personer med svensk pas,” måske endda en »kärleksflykting«, der nu vil flygte fra kærligheden. Men vi har som sædvanlig kun en halv vind at løbe med fra Sydsvenskan.

Hassen Chalghoumi: Den med længsel søgte stuerene imam?

Rollemodeller og enfoldige forhåbninger hos europæerne kommer og går, i takt med at virkeligheden kaster sit ubarmhjertige lys på kandidaterne. Det er særdeles sigende at spørgsmålet i overskriften ikke sådan uden videre kan besvares helt enkelt. I kort version: Er Chalghoumi virkelig den fredsskabende multikulturelle Messias, er de trøstesløse udsigter for et større gennembrud allerede gjort klar – en sådan forløser vil møde så aggressiv modstand hos traditionalister i baglandet, at hans virke på europæisk jord er dødsdømt på forhånd. Det er en af de enkle sandheder i dagens kulturkonflikt som man altid kan rive modparten i næsen med: Ligesom det forhold at menneskestrømmene går i én retning, fra ‘dem’ til ‘os’, siger alt der behøves at blive sagt, på samme måde går volds- og trusselspotentialet også kun én vej, fra traditionalister mod fornyere. Chalghoumi kan ikke ‘put the fear of Allah’ i sine modstandere. Det er ham der må bevogtes, ham der bliver imødegået og sværtet som dårlig muslim. Chalghoumi kan ikke finde belæg hos én af sunni-islams fire store retsskoler for sin linje – hans modstandere kan. Enhver må drage egne konklusioner om udsigten for tværreligiøs forbrødring på europæisk grund, med disse præmisser.

Og så er der også det ikke helt ukendte forhold, at imam Chalghoumi øjensynligt har foretaget en kovending i sin orientering inden for islam, hvilket giver visse problemer for den tillid man kan have til hans intentioner.  Og selv med de bedste intentioner drejer det sig ikke om individer og rollemodeller, men om dogmatik, voldspotentiale, enabling og passivitet hos flertallet. Dén vinkel vil dog ikke fænge i en personfikseret medieverden, så vi vil opleve forhåbninger og skuffelser igen og igen (LFPC).

[…] Hassen Chalghoumi is the best-known imam in France and easily the most controversial, even though he preaches peace instead of hate. Police cars are stationed in front of his mosque during Friday prayers, and he has two bodyguards with him at all times when he goes out in public. […]

Sometimes Chalghoumi contradicts himself, or he doesn’t remember the details correctly, or he is quoted out of context. It isn’t easy to figure him out, but it is easy to like him. […]

The media, the government and even the president at the Elysée Palace first became aware of him when, in May 2006, he began saying pretty radical things. But that wasn’t because he was preaching against the status quo, the republic and its values. Instead, Chalghoumi was saying things that could have been copied from right out of the French constitution, sentences that were in conformity with the system and advocated peace.

At the time, he publicly acknowledged the horrors of the Holocaust, he reached out to France’s Jews, and he spoke of reconciliation and rapprochement — things that were unheard of for a Muslim cleric at the time. Chalghoumi soon came to be known as the “imam of peace.” […]

At the time, French intelligence classified him as an Islamist to the core, “who took unusually radical positions.” Informers told the authorities that Chalghoumi was calling on the faithful to engage in jihad and, during Friday prayers, was announcing that anyone who died in jihad would undoubtedly reach paradise. […]

Chalghoumi’s enemies now gather in front of the mosque every Friday. They bring along big loudspeakers and collect signatures for his dismissal. Because the local authorities have forbidden them from agitating on the Carrefour parking lot, they now stand on the lawn directly in front of the mosque. […] ‘Imam for Peace’ Sows Discontent

“Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” d. 20. maj

Someone at Dan Savage’s blog started it, then Michael Moynihan at Reason picked it up, now I feel obliged to help push it out there. Says Moynihan:

I will be employing my tremendous skill as an illustrator, of course, and expect that my colleagues will do the same. If they refuse, they will be declared weak-kneed, namby-pamby, quisling infidels and will be shamed on this blog (Though such idle threats rarely work these days; perhaps I could threaten them with a painful death, which seems to do the trick). If readers would like to show their solidarity, please email your Mohammad masterpieces to me here: mmoynihan at reason.com. The best ones will be published on Hit & Run, which, along with the concomitant death threat, is reward enough.

Cue the predictable media squealing that “you’ll only antagonize them!” Antagonism, actually, is an idea straight out of the Hirsi Ali playbook: Her point to Anderson Cooper in the clip I posted earlier was that only by sharing the risk of retaliation for blasphemy can the public help protect her, Parker, Stone and other insolent infidels. If each threat produces more blasphemers than it silences, then threats suddenly become counterproductive. Or at least, they do to rational minds. (A flaw in the theory?) […] It’s on: “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” set for May 20th

Afkristningen af England

eller Are Christians Being Persecuted? som BBC selv ligefrem kalder dokumentaren (sendt 4 april 2010). Eller for at omformulere paradokset: når frihedsrettigheder truer friheden,  når rettigheder skaber konflikter, hvor der ingen var. At dømme efter Nicky Campbells kommentar, er de rent groteske situationer, man ser i programmet, blevet mulige efterhånden som menneskerettighederne er blevet inkorporeret i national, engelsk lov. Og det penible spørgsmål stilles: hvad træder i stedet, når religionen (kristendommen) bandlyses fra det offentlige rum? Hør om det ikke mindst den forhenværende biskop af Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali i video fem. Det større billede er selvfølgelig, at et uhomogent samfund må forlade sig på (blind) lovgivning, der aldrig kan erstatte folkelig enighed. Det nye England er blevet advokaternes paradis.

For years now, some town halls have been renaming their Christmas Lights as Winter Lights festivals. More and more Christians are ending up in court, defending themselves against what they see as victimisation for not being allowed to wear a cross to work or to pray for a patient. Many Christians feel that Christianity – once the heart of British society – is being pushed to the margins.
Nicky Campbell investigates whether Christians are being discriminated against. He explores the effects of multiculturalism and asks Muslims whether they are offended by Christmas Lights celebrations. Campbell also analyses the impact of recent human rights legislation and the Equality Bill: do they promote a more or less tolerant society? A poll specially commissioned for the BBC reveals what the public think.
If the Christian faith is being sidelined from the public space, is that a good or a bad thing? Campbell interviews Christians who claim they have been discriminated against, as well as leading religious and secular voices, including:

Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Vincent Nichols; Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks; Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir Ali; Shami Chakrabati, Director of the civil rights organistation Liberty; and Polly Toynbee, President of the National Secular Society. BBC: Are Christians Being Persecuted?

Melanie Phillips skrev i december i Sleepwalking off the cultural cliff

Among the intelligentsia, the animosity to religion runs even deeper than the upside-down value system of the multicultural agenda. It springs from the fixed view that reason and religion are in diametrically opposite camps.

Anyone who prays to God must therefore be anti-reason, anti- science and antifreedom – in other words, an objectionable, obscurantist nutcase. But this is the very opposite of the truth. Rationality is actually underpinned by Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Without the Biblical narrative, which gave the world the revolutionary idea of an orderly universe that could therefore be investigated by the use of reason, science would never have developed in the first place.

And it was the Judeo-Christian belief that all individuals are made equal in the image of God that gave rise to human rights and democracy.

In Britain, however, religion and nation have formed a vicious cycle in which hostility to the country’s identity and values reflects and feeds into hostility to the religion upon which they are based.

The Archbishop’s anguish at the onslaught upon Christian faith is very real. But unless he starts promoting the Church as the transcendental custodian of a civilisation rather than the Guardian newspaper at prayer, the society to which it gave rise will continue to sleepwalk off the edge of a religious and cultural cliff.