(P1 Debat: Lars Hedegaard (Trykkefrihedsselskabet) og Michael Irving Jensen (Middle East Awareness): Kan demokrati og islam forenes?)

No Arab country has ever produced a democracy, or at least a lasting democracy; none of the 22 member states of the Arab League are classified as “free”, and all do badly on press freedom and other indicators. In fact, there is only Arabic-speaking country in the world where elections are free, the press is free, and Arab citizens are free, and that’s Israel. So to believe that Arab states cannot “do democracy” is not a judgment based “without knowledge or examination of the facts”, but the opposite.
Neither is it racist to acknowledge that there are clear differences between Arab andEuropean nations that make the former barren ground for democracy. And the major difference is that Arab countries are not “nations” as we understand it.The great philosopher of the nation-state, Roger Scruton, has often written about the importance of the former for the latter. Among other things he has pointed out:

“Democracy involves the ability to grant a share in government to people with whom you profoundly disagree, including people of another faith. This is possible only where government is secular, and where nevertheless people revere the process of government as the expression of a shared national identity.A society of citizens is a society in which strangers can trust one another, since everyone is bound by a common set of rules… it means that trust can grow between strangers, and does not depend upon family connections, tribal loyalties or favours granted and earned.”

For Scruton, the nation-state is the “society of strangers”, against which he compared the world of tribes, quoting the Arab saying: “I and my brother against my cousin; I and my cousin against the world.”………..The irony, of course, is that while Arabs need nation-states our rulers seem to be intent on destroying them, but that’s for another day. It is not prejudice or racism to suggest Arabs ‘can’t do democracy’ -By Ed West

Det er interessant som venstrefløjen er i ekstatisk lykke over at socialistiske, arabiske diktatorer falder – Gadaffis store forbillede var formand Mao, Mubaraks NDP parti var medlem af den socialistiske internationale. Hopla humøret hører man hos Michael Irving Jensen her ovenfor, en næsten uforbeholden optimisme: “Ungdomsoprøret handler om vores demokratiske værdier, det fremføres på blogs og Twitter og SMS”. Og så ? Ayathollah Khomeiny brugte det hotteste i 70 erne, kasettebånd. En I Phone kan spille elendig massepop eller Qaradawi-videos fra You Tube, (hans ugentlige show på al-Jazeera ses af 40 mio. arabere), mobiltelefoner fås med indbyggede koranvers og muslimsk kalender. Den konservative attityde er skepsis bygget på den hidtidige historie og på visse uomgængelige kendsgerninger. Irving Jensen og Lars Hedegaard diskutere det her i P 1 debat. Hedegaard lover at klappe i sine hænder, når miraklet er indtruffet. Irving Jensen er som man kan se, allerede ekstatisk på forventet efterbevilling. (Se også Kasper Støvring: Ubehagelig viden om det islamiske Egypten. I Sveriges Riksdag fylder Hallelujademokraterne næsten alle pladser op, en ganske utrolig debat at overvære.)

Der er ellers nok at være betænkelig over for europæerne. 70 % af Mellemøstens befolkning er under 30 år. Der kommer ikke lige pludselig arbejde til dem, selvom nogle af landene mere eller mindre skifter styre. Mærsk, Microsoft og Mercedes anlægger ikke store filialer overnight. Om så alle arabere fra dags dato begyndte at opføre sig som kinsere, inkl. en yderst påkrævet et-barnspolitik, ville det alligevel tage årtier at løfte dagens befolkningsdødvægt. Men alletiders største muslimske flygtningestrøm kan allerede i år være resultatet af revolterne: EU förbereder sig för att våldsamheterna i Libyen kan utlösa en flyktingvåg. Runt 750 000 personer väntas ta sig över Medelhavet,/ Fears immigrants will flood Europe after collapse – Italian Minister Franco Frattini said an influx of migrants of ‘biblical proportions’ was feared, with as many as 300,000 migrants, – og det er kun en brøkdel af de 60 % i Mellemøsten, der ifølge undersøgelser ønsker sig til Europa. Dertil kommer afrikanere sydfra.

‘Ytringsfrihed, men ..’ i den transatlantiske version

[…] This is what I call the “Free Speech, However…” Syndrome, and it is not confined to Canadian universities. It is endemic across the entire West, in schools, universities, the media, and in general public discourse. The rationale for the syndrome runs something like this:

A university (or school, or news service, or corporation) is a place in which the free market of ideas is crucial. Our society is enriched by the expression of diverse viewpoints, even controversial ones.

HOWEVER…

Expressions that veer into hate speech or tend to exclude will not be tolerated. Opinions which are hateful, and thus will not be permitted, include:

* Opposition to Multiculturalism

* Objections to gay marriage

* Denial that anthropogenic climate change is significant

* Opposition to abortion

* Assertion of biological differences between the sexes (or among “genders”)

* Investigation of biological differences among different ethnic groups

* Expressions of patriotism and national pride

* Criticism of Islam

* Support for the State of Israel[…] Banned in Vancouver?

Sir Andrew Green: »Labours forrædderi«

Official figures to be published on Thursday will confirm that foreign immigration under Labour added more than three million to our population.At the same time nearly one million British citizens voted with their feet, some saying that they were leaving because England was no longer a country that they recognised.
How could all this have happened in the teeth of public opposition? Even the Labour government’s own survey last February showed that 77 per cent of the public wanted immigration reduced, including 54 per cent of the ethnic communities, while 50 per cent of the public wanted it reduced ‘by a lot’. SIR ANDREW GREEN: How Labour let in 3 million immigrants, in defiance of the overwhelming wishes of the British people. (ONE MIGRANT A MINUTE LANDS IN BRITAIN, WHITE British people will be in a minority in their own country by 2066, Oxford professor warns.)

Butt Hussain vs. Jespersen: Jihad ved sofisteri

Endnu en retssag der må se en fremtrædende demokratisk dansker dømt for “injurier” mod en person hvis ret til at opholde sig her i landet ikke giver umiddelbar mening. Som skueprocessen mod Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff i Østrig har vist, giver sammenstødet mellem islamisk dogmatik, islamiske særrettigheder i vestlige lande og kritik af disse forhold i særlig grad anledning til påtrængende spørgsmål.

Nu har vi så endnu en sag der i infamt sofisteri ser omdrejningspunktet fortrængt af fokus på den ‘krænkede’ parts indre liv og overvejelser. Retten har talt, og Zubair Butt Hussain har nu fået rettens blåstempling af sine indre længsler og intentioner, eller som et minimum at der ikke er belæg for at han her og nu, med JPs ord, “går ind for stening”.

Sagen mod Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff flyttede tiltrængt fokus væk fra det forhold at en religionsstifter og evig rollemodel kneppede en ni-årig pige, og over på teknikaliteter om hvad pædofili egentlig er. Butt Hussains ophold her i landet har foreløbig som et minimum kostet de 300.000 offentlige kroner som byretsssagen er løbet op i. Og fokus er flyttet væk fra de forhold som retssagen med garanti ikke har skabt klarhed over:

Har Zubair Butt Hussain på noget tidspunkt afgivet troværdig og tydelig erklæring om at han er modstander af stening i enhver fremtid og under enhver styreform? Hvordan kan retten afgøre denne troværdighed, når nu der i mandens religion findes retoriske undvigemanøvrer der er legale med henblik på religionens fremme?

Hvordan forenes Butt Hussains blåstemplede ikke-gåen-ind-for-stening-holdning med den kendsgerning at Muhammed anses for ‘uswa hasana’ og ‘al-insan al-kamil’, dvs. fuldkomment menneske og rollemodel for alle tider? Muhammed som selv beordrede folk stenet? Tager Butt Hussain afstand fra Muhammed og dennes status af rollemodel?

Sura 33 (Forbundsfællerne) vers 21: I har et smukt eksempel i Guds udsending, for enhver, som sætter sit håb til Gud og den yderste dag og ofte ihukommer Gud.

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid:

While we were with the Prophet , a man stood up and said (to the Prophet ), “I beseech you by Allah, that you should judge us according to Allah’s Laws.” Then the man’s opponent who was wiser than him, got up saying (to Allah’s Apostle) “Judge us according to Allah’s Law and kindly allow me (to speak).” The Prophet said, “‘Speak.” He said, “My son was a laborer working for this man and he committed an illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and I gave one-hundred sheep and a slave as a ransom for my son’s sin. Then I asked a learned man about this case and he informed me that my son should receive one hundred lashes and be exiled for one year, and the man’s wife should be stoned to death.” The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to the Laws of Allah. Your one-hundred sheep and the slave are to be returned to you, and your son has to receive one-hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. O Unais! Go to the wife of this man, and if she confesses, then stone her to death.” Unais went to her and she confessed. He then stoned her to death. [Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 815]

Problemet Zubair Butt Hussain koster i princippet kun en flybillet at løse. Men endnu engang har retssystemet ikke blot ødslet kostbare ressourcer bort på tilvandrede, men har aktivt forfusket og fortrængt den overordnede problematik: Hvad i alverden er det for en islamisk dogmatik som manden tilhører, hvor problemet med barbariske henrettelsesmetoder ikke længere er en sten i skoen, men er elimineret ud i enhver fremtid? (LFPC)

Det koster statskassen dyrt, at tidligere velfærdsminister Karen Jespersen (V) i 2009 beskyldte talsmand for Muslimernes Fællesråd Zubair Butt Hussain for at gå ind for stening. […]

Københavns Byret afgjorde i oktober 2010 , at beskyldningen var grundløs. Kammeradvokaten, der fører sager for staten, har foreløbig sendt regninger til ministeriet på 298.718 kroner for at have ført sagen for Karen Jespersen, der i mellemtiden er stoppet som minister. […]

I et følgebrev til Socialministeriet begrunder kammeradvokat Karsten Hagel-Sørensen regningens størrelse med, at “udførelsen af retssagen har været meget arbejdskrævende”. […] Eksministers injurier koster staten dyrt

UK: Godhedens pyramidespil nærmer sig sin logiske afslutning

Man fremhæver en historie som denne fordi den i sin sin absurditet pådrager sig opmærksomhed, men den er jo bare én illustrativ brik i et større og mere alment puslespil: Hvor findes egentlig stopklodserne i konventionerne og menneskerettighederne der beskytter flertallets liv og velfærd? Vi kender ikke til et eneste eksempel hvor flertallets menneskerettigheder trumfer mindretallenes i tilfælde af at sidstnævnte rykker tæppet væk under det hele (LFPC).

Evicting a woman from her council home for failing to pay rent would breach her human rights, judges ruled yesterday. Town Hall chiefs wanted to evict Rebecca Powell, who receives thousands of pounds in benefits, after she ran up more than £3,500 in arrears on the accommodation she was given because she was homeless.

But the Supreme Court said that – under the controversial European Convention on Human Rights – this would be a breach of the right to ‘respect for a person’s home’.

Council leaders and the Government had fought the case and fear it may now be harder to evict thousands of council tenants who fall into arrears. […]

Last night Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘It seems to me that the courts always find in favour of the human rights of people who are doing something wrong. We have got to change that balance, it is getting completely out of hand. ‘What about the human rights of the landlord to get their rent, what about the human rights of the taxpayer?’ […] Woman on benefits owing £3,500 rent can’t be evicted: New European human rights ruling could lead to thousands of tenants refusing to pay

Kvindemord øger med 1.400 procent i Tyrkiet

The number of women murdered in a year in Turkey shot up 1,400 percent between 2002 and 2009, according to data recently revealed by the country’s justice minister. Eighty-three women were murdered in 2003, 164 in 2004, 317 in 2005, 663 in 2006, 1,011 in 2007, 806 in 2008 and 953 during the first seven months of 2009, the last date for which data was available, according to Ergin.
Altogether, 33.7 percent of women said they considered suicide as a solution to their problems. For those with less education, this number is 34.1 percent, while 37.6 of higher educated women have also considered taking their own lives. Murder a fact of life for women in Turkey

Alle avisen mordeksempler er udført af mand eller nære slægtninge. Hurriyet skriver at 41,9 % af de tyrkiske kvinder oplever fysisk og seksuel vold. Vildan Yirmibesoglu fra et tyrkisk kvindecenter sagde i sommeren 2010 til Jyllandsposten at tre af fire kvinder i hele Tyrkiet i gennemsnit mindst en gang om måneden udsættes for fysisk eller psykisk vold. Ikke så mærkeligt at godt en tredjedel af Tyrkiets kvinder har selvmordstanker.

Vinterbørn

klik for helskærm.