Snyder: Desperate Liberals Try To Blame The Manchester Terror Attack On Anyone Other Than Islamic Terrorists

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

The left just can’t seem to understand that Islamic terrorists are going to try to destroy our way of life no matter how nice we are to them. On Monday night, a bombing at Ariana Grande’s Manchester concert made headlines all over the globe. 22 people, including an 8-year-old girl, were killed and 59 were wounded. It is exactly the sort of “soft target” attack that I have been warning about, and ISIS quickly claimed responsibility. Within the last 30 days, there have been 169 Islamic terror attacks in a total of 24 different countries. Last year, the number of global terror attacks was up 25 percent from the year before, and this year we will almost certainly see another all-time record high. But many liberals never even want to use the phrase “Islamic terror” because it doesn’t fit their agenda.

In fact, many liberals immediately jumped on Twitter after the terror attack in Manchester and started warning about the spread of “Islamophobia”.

For example, Quen Took posted the following tweet…

Don’t use #Manchester incident as an excuse for Islamophobia. Stand with our beautiful Muslim siblings & don’t scapegoat innocent people.

And TheBardAsPundit warned that engaging in “Islamophobia” may provoke more terror attacks…

I have a good idea. Let’s piss off more Muslims with mindless Islamophobia. That should help.

Of course the mainstream media here in the United States attempted to put their own politically-correct spin on things. On ABC, there was far more concern about “anti-Islamic backlash” than there was for the victims of the attack…

Despite the horrific nature and impact, ABC was eager to downplay the motive behind the deadly attack. In fact, ABC was more worried about the perpetrators than the victims, warning that this could provoke an “anti-Islamic backlash” across Europe.

And on the Today show on NBC, counter-terrorism “expert” Richard Clarke seemed to blame President Trump for the rise in terror attacks that we have been seeing…

They have a good police and security service and so do we, but we have no ostracized, we’ve embraced our Muslim Americans. That’s why the talk against Muslims in the last year in the campaign and since has been very counterproductive. The only way to solve this problem is to have everyone think they’re on the same side.

Yes, let’s follow Clarke’s advice and try to convince the Islamic terrorists that we are on their side.

That should work.

Until the entire western world is willing to embrace Islam and swear allegiance to Allah, the radical Islamists will never stop. Their faith tells them that it is their destiny to rule the world, and they will never rest until they have achieved that goal.

Unfortunately, most people believe what they want to believe, and what most politically-correct pundits in the western world want to believe is that radical Islam is not the problem.

On CNN, one “analyst” even suggested that the attack in Manchester may have been a “false flag” conducted by “right-wing” extremists…

CNN “Terror Analyst” Paul Cruickshank said Monday night on Anderson Cooper’s AC360 that the bombing attack in Manchester could be a “right-wing” “false flag.”

“It must also be noted that in recent months in Europe, there’s been a number of false flag plots where right-wing extremists have tried to frame Islamists for terrorism,” Cruickshank said. “We have seen that in Germany in recent weeks.”

Of course that theory didn’t last long once the authorities identified the attacker as a Muslim.

It is absolutely imperative that we understand the mindset of these Islamic radicals. If they could press a button that would annihilate all non-Muslims on the entire planet, many of them would do it.

Some of the more “moderate” jihadists would prefer to give everyone a chance to convert to Islam first before killing them, but the end result would be the same.

There is no possible way to compromise with people that are intent on exterminating you. And as they get their hands on more powerful weapons, the size and scale of these terror attacks is going to increase exponentially.

We must make every effort to defeat terror groups such as ISIS militarily, but even more importantly we must seek to turn hearts and minds away from radical Islam all over the planet. It is a bankrupt worldview, and we need to show those that are following radical Islam that there is a much better way.

Unfortunately, nations all over the western world are turning away from the values and the principles that they were founded upon, and so western leaders have very little to offer at this point.

One recent report found that Islam is on track to surpass Christianity and will become the largest faith on the entire planet by the year 2070. Violence and bloodshed will continue to be used by jihadists to advance their faith, but another way that the goal of global domination is moved forward is by migration. Paul Nehlen, the author of an upcoming book entitled “Wage The Battle”, recently explained how this works…

“Hijrah means ‘migration in the name of Allah,’” said Nehlen, who explained that the ultimate goal is to populate non-Muslim nations to the extent needed to impose Shariah law.

“The hijrah is one way of spreading the Shariah, spreading the law of Islam, this political doctrine, to land where Islam isn’t,” Nehlen said. “That’s what this documentary covers. It talks about the bigger picture here of what we saw here. It stems directly from their fundamental texts.”

He said hijrah is another method by which Muslims can earn their salvation.

“Quite unlike a Christian, who believes you can’t earn your way in and only by the grace of God are you granted access to heaven through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, Muslims believe they can earn their way in,” Nehlen said. “They believe they have to earn their way in.”

Radical Islam has declared war on us, but most liberals don’t even think that we are in a war.

And in any war, if one side chooses not to fight the other side wins by default.

The western world desperately needs to wake up, because we are in a life or death battle, and right now this fight is only in the early rounds.

Canada Passes 'Blasphemy' Bill To Silence Critics Of Islam

Despite polls showing that 71% of Canadians would not have voted for the measure, Canada"s Parliament, with the strong backing of Justin Trudeau"s Liberal government, passed a motion this week 201 to 91 that critics say singles out Islam for special protection. Tabled by Muslim liberal MP Iqra Khalid, M-103 urges the federal government to “condemn Islamophobia” and to “develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.” The term “Islamophobia” is nowhere defined in the motion.

A petition on CitizenGo asking MPs to stop the “restrictive ‘anti-blasphemy’” motion has been signed by 79,500 people.

“This motion will encourage legislation that would criminalize speech deemed ‘islamophobic’ and lay the groundwork for imposing what is essentially a Sharia anti-blasphemy law on all of Canada,” the petition states.

"If that happens, criticism of Islam would constitute a speech crime in Canada,” it states, adding that this “kind of content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory censorship is unacceptable in a Western liberal democracy.”

As LifeSiteNews reports, while the motion does not change existing laws or create new ones, it empowers a committee to study the issue of “eliminating…Islamophobia” and the federal government to collect data on Islamic ‘hate crimes’ for further study.

A Conservative alternative to the motion that condemned racism and discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Christians, and other religious groups — without including the word “Islamophobia” — was defeated by the Liberals in February. Liberals argued at that time that the Tories were simply trying to “water down” the very purpose of M-103, reported Huffington Post.

A number of Conservatives running for the the party"s leadership have been outspoken about the problems they see in M-103.

Brad Trost said he could not support the motion because it “will only serve to strengthen extremist elements within the Muslim community itself that seek to preserve and promote their own form of hate and intolerance.” He added that any “serious plan to combat religious discrimination in Canada should include all faith groups, including Christians and Jews.”

Pierre Lemieux said that Canadians should be wary of the language in the motion.

“Do you have a valid concern about Islam? Do you disagree with Sharia Law? Uneasy about radical Islamic terrorism? The Liberals may very well classify you as Islamophobic,” he wrote in an email to supporters.

Lemieux, who called on supporters to pressure MPs to force a recorded vote on M-103, called it a “great day for accountability and for freedom of speech in Canada” when almost two dozen MPs stood up on Tuesday to demand such accountability.

Leadership contender Andrew Scheer also added his voice of opposition to the motion shortly before the vote, saying that it “could be interpreted as a step towards stifling free speech and legitimate criticism” of Islam.

“M-103 is not inclusive. It singles out just one faith. I believe that all religions deserve the same level of respect and protection,” he wrote in an email to supporters.

“I will be voting against it because I believe in Freedom of Speech,” he wrote.

Finally, we leave it to Rebel Media"s Faith Goldy to react to this attack on Canadians" most precious freedom-- the freedom of speech

Exposing Europe's "Era Of Liberal Babble"

Authored by Judith Bergmann via The Gatestone Institute,

• Uninhibited by the obvious fear of their citizens, the EU nevertheless carries on its immigration policies.


• Ironically, Western political elites consider this clearly widespread sentiment against Muslim immigration "racist" and "Islamophobic" and consequently disregard it -- thereby empowering anti-immigration political parties.


• "Islam has no place in Slovakia.... [the problem is not migrants coming in, but] rather in them changing the face of the country." — Robert Fico, Prime Minister of Slovakia.

Europe, so many years after the Cold War, is ideologically divided into a new East and a West. This time, the schism is over multiculturalism. What Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has termed "liberal babble" continues to govern Western Europe"s response to the challenges that migration and Islamic terrorism have brought, especially to personal security.

The Western European establishment considers arming oneself against terrorists, rapists and other ill-wishers outlandish, even in the face of the inability of Europe"s security establishments to prevent mass terrorist atrocities, such as those that took place in Paris at the Bataclan Theater or the July14 truck-ramming in Nice.

The European Union"s reaction to terror has been to make Europe"s already restrictive gun laws even more restrictive. The problem is that this restrictiveness contradicts the EU"s own reports: these show that homicides committed in Europe are mainly committed with illegal firearms.

In Eastern Europe, on the other hand, it is still normal to want to defend yourself. Last summer, Czech President Milos Zeman even encouraged citizens to arm themselves against Islamic terrorism. "I really think that citizens should arm themselves against terrorists. And I honestly admit that I changed my mind, because previously I was against [citizens] having too many weapons. After these attacks, I don"t think so".

Since the president"s remarks, the Czech Interior Minister, Milan Chovanec, has proposed extending the use of arms in the event of a terrorist attack. He explained that despite strict security measures, it is not always possible for the police to guarantee a fast and effective intervention. Fast action from a member of the public could prevent the loss of many lives.

Such reasoning, often seen as laughable in Western Europe, reflects an understanding of the fear that has become a recurring theme on the continent. In Germany, a recent poll showed that two out of three Germans are afraid of becoming the victim of a terrorist attack and 10% perceive an "acute threat" to their safety. Among women, the figures were even higher. 74% responded that they sometimes feel unsafe in crowded places, and 9% said they felt permanently threatened and scared.

Western European leaders, on the other hand, pretend not to understand this fear. In 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was asked how Europe could be protected against Islamization. Merkel, who does not move without her own personal security team consisting of 15-20 armed bodyguards around her, working in shifts, answered: "Fear is not a good adviser. It is better that we should have the courage once again to deal more strongly with our own Christian roots." In December, she told members of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who were asking how to reassure the public about integrating migrants, "This could also broaden your horizons." (This is the same Merkel, who in 2010 said that multiculturalism had "utterly failed").

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (center) was asked how Europe could be protected against Islamization. Merkel, who has a personal security team of 15-20 armed bodyguards around her, working in shifts, answered: "Fear is not a good adviser." (Image source: Paralax video screenshot)

As Western Europeans are discovering, however, that the state is increasingly unable to protect them, they have begun acting on their fears:

In France, a survey showed an increase of almost 40% in gun license requests since 2011. "Before the beginning of 2015, it was only a vague trend. Since the "Charlie Hebdo", Bataclan and Nice attacks, [gun license requests] have become a growing phenomenon", wrote Le Nouvel Observateur.

In Belgium, requests for gun license applications soared in one major province, Liège, doubling in just five years. "The explanation may lie in the current security context, which generates feelings of insecurity among the population", said officials from Liège"s Arms Service, the state body in charge of granting gun licenses in the province.

In the wake of mass sexual attacks by migrants in Cologne, major German cities all reported an increase of requests for weapons permits. Cologne police estimated that they received at least 304 applications within just two weeks of the mass sexual assaults. In 2015, the city"s police force saw only 408 applications total over the entire year.

Switzerland has also seen a drastic rise in gun permit applications, with all 12 cantons reporting an increase from 2015. Interim 2016 figures show a further escalation. "There"s no official explanation for the rise, but in general we see a connection to Europe"s terrorist attacks," said Hanspeter Kruesi, a police spokesman in the Swiss canton of St. Gallen.

Gun sellers in Austria also said that interest in weapons grew after a large number of refugees arrived. "Fear is very much a driving force," said Robert Siegert, a gun maker and the weapons trade spokesman at the Austrian Chamber of Commerce.

Uninhibited by the obvious alarm of their citizens, the EU nevertheless carries on its immigration policies. "I believe Europeans should understand that we need migration for our economies and for our welfare systems, with the current demographic trend we have to be sustainable," said Federica Mogherini, the EU"s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. She added that the continent "does not and will not close its doors" to migrants.

Mogherini is probably not interested in a recent Chatham House study, in which an average of 55% of the people across the 10 European countries surveyed wanted to stop all future immigration from mainly Muslim countries. Only two of the countries surveyed were from Eastern Europe. A ban was supported by 71% of people in Poland, 65% in Austria, 53% in Germany and 51% in Italy. In the UK, 47% supported a ban.

Ironically, Western political elites consider this clearly widespread sentiment against Muslim immigration "racist" and "Islamophobic" and consequently disregard it -- thereby empowering anti-immigration political parties.

Several countries in Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, have refused to take in more migrants, and several Balkan countries have completely closed their borders.

Czech President Milos Zeman has openly stated, "The experience of Western European countries which have ghettos and excluded localities shows that the integration of the Muslim community is practically impossible".

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has dismissed multiculturalism as a "fiction". He has also refused to accept EU-agreed quotas on relocating migrants saying, "It may look strange but sorry ... Islam has no place in Slovakia." He added that the problem is not migrants coming in but "rather in them changing the face of the country."

Western Europe has predictably responded with accusations of "Islamophobia" and "fanning hatred towards minorities and refugees". One EU state, Luxembourg, even suggested expelling Hungary from the EU for its refusal to toe the EU line and, according to Luxembourg, for treating asylum seekers, "worse than wild animals". Hungary"s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, in turn, harbors little respect for the way that his Western European colleagues have shaped politics: "We are experiencing now the end of an era: a conceptual-ideological era," Orbán told supporters in 2015, "Putting pretension aside, we can simply call this the era of liberal babble. This era is now at an end."

"Nazi Dogs": Turkey Prepares Sanctions Against The Netherlands

The bizarre diplomatic scandal that erupted over the weekend, after the Netherlands banned several prominent Turkish politicians from organizing and participating in pro-Erdogan rallies just days ahead of the Dutch general election where immigration will be perhaps the most important topic, and which prompted numerous accusations of "nazism" and "fascism" by Turkey"s president Erdogan, appeared set to escalate further on Monday when the Turkish cabinet is expected to consider imposing sanctions on the Netherlands in a deepening row with the country"s NATO ally. Cited by Reuters, one minister said punitive measures were likely.

A government source told Reuters that sanctions were expected to be discussed when the cabinet of ministers meets at 7 pm (1600 GMT). Ankara"s minister for EU Affairs, Omer Celik, said sanctions were likely. "We will surely have sanctions against the latest actions by the Netherlands. We will answer them with these," Celik said.

In addition to economic measures, sanctions could affect cultural activities, and military and technological cooperation. "When the sanctions are imposed, what we need to be careful about is being realistic. We are not completely closing the windows," the source said. "However, we want to show that what has been done to Turkey will have a response." He said certain cultural activities may be cancelled and the re-evaluation of military and technological cooperation was also on the table.

Earlier, Turkey summoned the Dutch charge d"affaires on Monday to complain about the ban - imposed due to fears of unrest and distaste at what the Netherlands sees as an increasingly authoritarian tone from Erdogan - and the actions of Rotterdam police against Turkish protesters over the weekend, foreign ministry sources said. As we reported on Sunday Dutch police used dogs and water cannon to disperse hundreds of protesters waving Turkish flags outside the consulate in Rotterdam. Some protesters threw bottles and stones and several demonstrators were beaten by police with batons, a Reuters witness said. Mounted police officers charged the crowd.

"The Turkish community and our citizens were subject to bad treatment, with inhumane and humiliating methods used in disproportionate intervention against people exercising their right to peaceful assembly," a statement attributed to ministry sources said.

As further reported over the weekend, President Erdogan, who is seeking support from Turks in a referendum on boosting his powers, accused the Dutch government of acting like "Nazi remnants" and said it should face sanctions for barring his ministers from addressing expatriate Turks to drum up votes. The row marks another low point in relations between Turkey and Europe, further dimming Ankara"s prospects of joining the bloc. It also comes as Turkey is caught up by security concerns over militant attacks and the war in neighboring Syria.

Some 400,000 Turkish citizens live in the Netherlands and an estimated 1.5 million Turks live in Germany.

Commenting on the Turkish official visits, the Dutch government said the visits were "undesirable" and it would not cooperate in their campaigning. According to polls, it is set to lose about half its seats in elections this week as the anti-Islam party of Geert Wilders makes strong gains. Monday was the third time the Dutch envoy had been called in since Saturday over the row. The Dutch ambassador is on leave and the Turkish foreign ministry says it does not want him back "for some time".

For now, economists do not anticipate a major fallout from the diplomatic scandal. Ozgur Altug, chief economist at BGC Partners in Istanbul, said at this stage he did not foresee the row having serious short-term economic consequences. Still, with Dutch direct investment in Turkey amounting to $22 billion, making the Netherlands the biggest source of foreign investment with a share of 16%, there is a substantial risk of escalating retaliation which could impact the deteriorating Turkish economy which recently posted double digit inflation.

"If the tension escalates and if countries start imposing sanctions against each other, it might have serious implications for the Turkish economy," Altug said.

Turkish exports to the Netherlands totalled $3.6 billion in 2016, making it the tenth largest market for Turkish goods, according to the Turkish Statistical Institute. Turkey imported $3 billion worth of Dutch goods in 2016.

Additionally, Reuters notes that Dutch visitors are important to Turkey"s tourism industry, which was hit hard in 2016 by security fears due to attacks by Islamic State and Kurdish militants. Some 900,000 Dutch people visited Turkey last year, down from 1.2 million a year earlier.

Ankara has given the paramaters it seeks to de-escalate: it is is seeking an official written apology for the treatment of its family minister and diplomats in Rotterdam, the Turkish foreign ministry sources also said. However, as noted on Sunday morning, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has said it is Erdogan who should apologize for comparing the Netherlands to fascists and Nazis, adding that Turkey was acting "in a totally unacceptable, irresponsible manner". NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called on Turkey and the Netherlands to defuse the row.

Meanwhile, assuring that the scandal is likely to get worse before it gets better, a front page headline in the pro-government Aksam newspaper place a photo of a police dog biting the thigh of a man during Saturday night"s protest in Rotterdam, above which it placed the headline "Nazi Dogs."

Turkey Vows "Harsh Retaliation" After Dutch PM Says "Not Apologizing, Are You Nuts"

The diplomatic scandal between Turkey and the Netherlands deteriorated overnight, when Prime Minister Binali Yildirim warned on Sunday that Turkey would retaliate in the "harshest ways" after Turkish ministers were barred from speaking in Rotterdam, leading to a major protest in front of the Turkish consulate in Rotterdam, while the Dutch embassy in Istanbul was closed off due to "safety concerns."

"This situation has been protested in the strongest manner by our side, and it has been conveyed to Dutch authorities that there will be retaliation in the harshest ways ... We will respond in kind to this unacceptable behavior," Yildirim said in a statement.

Turkey"s Prime Minister Binali Yildirim

At the same time, continuing his ongoing tirade in which he has compared virtually all of his political foes to Hitler or Nazis, president Tayyip Erdogan said "Nazism is still widespread in the West" after the Netherlands joined other European countries worried about political tensions inside Turkey spilling beyond its borders that have prevented Turkish politicians from holding rallies.

As reported on Saturday, the Dutch government first barred Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu from flying to Rotterdam and later stopped Family Minister Fatma Betul Sayan Kaya from entering the Turkish consulate in the port city, before escorting her out of the country to Germany.

Dutch police used dogs and water cannon early on Sunday to disperse hundreds of protesters waving Turkish flags outside the consulate in Rotterdam. Some threw bottles and stones and several demonstrators were beaten by police with batons, a Reuters witness said. Meanwhile, Dutch officers carried out charges on horseback.

Protesters also gathered outside the Dutch embassy in Ankara and consulate in Istanbul, throwing eggs and stones at the buildings.

The Dutch government, which is set to lose about half its seats in elections this week as the anti-Islam party of Geert Wilders makes strong gains, said the ministers" visits were undesirable and it would not cooperate in their political campaigning in the Netherlands.

Erdogan warned the Netherlands that "if you can sacrifice Turkish-Dutch relations for an election on Wednesday, you will pay the price," during an awards ceremony in Istanbul. "I thought Nazism was dead, but I was wrong. Nazism is still widespread in the West," he said. "The West has shown its true face." Speaking to reporters before a public appearance in the northeastern French city of Metz, Cavusoglu said Turkey would continue to act against the Netherlands until it apologizes.

Meanwhile, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said he would do everything to "de-escalate" the confrontation, which he described as the worst the Netherlands had experienced in years. But he said the idea of apologizing was "bizarre".

"This is a man who yesterday made us out for fascists and a country of Nazis. I’m going to de-escalate, but not by offering apologies. Are you nuts?" he told a morning talk show.

Supporting Rutte"s decision to ban the visits, the Dutch government said there was a risk of Turkish political divisions flowing over into its own Turkish minority, which has both pro- and anti-Erdogan camps. It cited public order and security worries in withdrawing landing rights for Cavusoglu"s flight.

Turkey fired back saying the Dutch ambassador to Ankara should not return from leave "for some time". Erdogan is looking to the large number of Turks living in Europe, especially in Germany and the Netherlands, to help secure victory next month in a referendum that would give the presidency sweeping new powers.

Concerns about Turkey"s erratic diplomacy spread to Germany where Chancellor Angela Merkel said she will do all she can to prevent Turkey"s domestic tensions spreading onto German territory. Austria and Switzerland have also canceled Turkish rallies due to the escalating dispute. A senior member of her conservative bloc in parliament, Hans Michelbach, demanded on Sunday that the EU stop aid to Turkey and ruled out any hopes that it would join the EU. "There is no prospect of entry in the long run. Turkey is getting further and further away from the European Union. Support programs (that it gets as an EU candidate) are therefore a waste of taxpayers" money," he said in a statement.

In what may have been the harshest recent diplomatic takedown of Turkey, Michelbach said that "it is time that the EU stops performing like a diplomatic paper tiger towards Ankara. Europe must not be led by the nose round the Turkish election arena." Needless to say, such a move would delight Putin as the Kremlin has been aggressively courting Erdogan and Turkey as Russia seeks to make headway with its new middle-eastern Axis which also includes Syria and hopes to add Iran.

In the near-term, however, the outstanding question is how will Saturday"s events impact Wednesday"s Dutch general election, and whether the diplomatic clash will boost votes for Geert Wilders. As Reuters notes, "the diplomatic row comes in the run-up to the coming week"s Dutch election in which the mainstream parties are under strong pressure from the far-right party of Geert Wilders."

After Kaya, the Turkish family minister, was escorted out of the country, Wilders told her on Twitter "go away and never come back".

Erdogan"s spokesman responded by saying the Netherlands had bowed to anti-Islam sentiment.

"Shame on the Dutch government for succumbing to anti-Islam racists and fascists, and damaging long-standing Turkey-NL relations," presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin wrote on Twitter.

In a sign the row could spread further, the owner of a venue in Sweden where a senior official from Turkey"s ruling party had been due to hold a rally on Sunday canceled the rental contract, Turkey"s private Dogan news agency reported. The news agency said the owner had not given a reason for their decision. Cavusoglu also decided against traveling to Zurich, Switzerland, for an event on Sunday after failing to find a suitable venue. Zurich"s security authorities had unsuccessfully lobbied the federal government in Bern to ban Cavusoglu"s appearance.

The Two "Islamophobias"

Submitted by Denis MacEoin via The Gatestone Institute,

• While it is not surprising to find Muslims offended by certain words or images, it is distressing to find Western courts and other bodies only too willing to turn "Islamophobia" into a criminal offence in countries that otherwise value free speech and open expression.


• When the Dutch politician Geert Wilders was brought to court on a hate speech charge, all he had done in fact was to ask a simple question about Moroccan immigrants -- should the Netherlands take in more or fewer? That is a question with many potential answers based on political, social, or demographic grounds. It is a rational question that is, almost by definition, one that could be asked in the Home Office of any state that receives immigrants.


• "Forty percent of Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands between the ages of 12 and 24 have been arrested, fined, charged or otherwise accused of committing a crime during the past five years, according to a new report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Interior." – Dutch-Moroccan Monitor 2011.


• We, and not our opponents, must place ourselves in a position to define what is and what is not real "Islamophobia." If we cannot do that, others will conflate criticism and hatred, and clamp down on both at once.

If we had to choose one thing that has obstructed many Westerners from understanding modern Islam and undermined our ability to handle its excesses, it would be our perception of Islamophobia. How many times have fair and honest criticisms of one aspect or another of Islam, rebukes of behaviour, or literary and artistic expressions of Muhammad or other figures been loudly shouted down or banned on the grounds that such criticism was "Islamophobic"? In Europe, individuals have been arrested, tried and sentenced for "Islamophobic" utterances. As Judith Bergman recently commented, in Europe it is becoming a criminal offence to criticize Islam.

In 2011, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, for example, a former Austrian diplomat and teacher, was put on trial for "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion [Islam]," found guilty twice, and ordered to pay a fine or face 60 days in jail. Some of her comments may have seemed extreme, but the court"s failure to engage with her historically accurate charge that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl and continued to have sex with her until she turned eighteen -- its regarding the historical record as somehow defamatory -- and the judge"s decision to punish her for saying something that can be found in Islamic sources, illustrates the betrayal of Western values of free speech. A charge of "Islamophobia" was enough to confine the freedoms that most Westerners take for granted.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a former Austrian diplomat and teacher, was put on trial for "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion [Islam]," found guilty twice, and ordered to pay a fine or face 60 days in jail, simply because she made the historically accurate statement that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl -- something that can be found in Islamic sources. (Image source: ICLA video screenshot)

Sabaditsch-Wolff is not the only person to suffer for this "offence". Danish author Lars Hedegaard suffered an attack on his life and lives in a secret location. Kurt Westergaard, a Danish cartoonist, suffered an axe attack that failed, and is under permanent protection by the security services. In 2009, in Austria, the politician Susanne Winter was found guilty of "anti-Muslim incitement", for saying, "In today"s system, the Prophet Mohammad would be considered a child-molester." She was fined 24,000 euros ($31,000) and given a three-month suspended sentence. The phrase "child molester", like the charge made by Sabaditsch-Wolff was based on the fact, recorded by Muslim biographers, that Muhammad had sexual relations with his new wife A"isha when she was nine years old (after marrying her when she was six).

Neither historical fact nor literary sophistication (as the British author Salman Rushdie learned to his cost) are able to deflect charges of Islamophobia.

What is worse is that, while it is not surprising to find Muslims, especially those from unsophisticated backgrounds and little education, offended by certain words or images, it is distressing to find Western courts and other bodies only too willing to genuflect to those charges and turn "Islamophobia" into a criminal offence in countries that otherwise value free speech and open expression.

Recently, the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, a man who could very well become Prime Minister of the Netherlands in 2017, was found guilty of "inciting discrimination and insulting a minority group," merely for asking voters whether they favoured larger or fewer numbers of Moroccan immigrants – a legitimate if controversial political question. Wilders, of course, is known for his antipathy towards Islam, but pertinent concerns about its influence in a democracy do not make him an "Islamophobe", despite repeated accusations of it.

Fear of being "Islamophobic" affects not just the lives of outspoken individuals but the lives of whole populations. Because leading politicians are desperate not to offend Muslims, they often shape public and foreign policies to avoid even the appearance of "Islamophobia". This is, at the domestic level, done to avoid giving offence to growing numbers of Muslims in countries in Europe and North America. Giving offence invariably results in outraged Muslims chanting death threats in the streets; outraged but well-controlled leaders of Muslim organizations appearing in radio and TV interviews masquerading as victims of government or police intolerance, and demands for banning this newspaper, that book, or the resignation of a politician who said something unwise.

A careless word of offence may ruin trade relations with a Muslim state or threaten the cancellation of lucrative arms sales to a human rights-abusing, obscenely rich oil-state in the Gulf. A controversy like this happened to the British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson in early December, when he condemned Saudi Arabia and Iran for their sectarian proxy wars in Yemen and elsewhere -- only to have his views angrily rejected by the Prime Minister, who had just returned from the Gulf on a visit to promote British goods and services. In a shifting world -- with Britain pulling out of the EU and desperate for trade deals anywhere it could find them - hurting the feelings of people who can buy you up and spit you out is hardly advisable.

And this is where accusations of "Islamophobia" come into their own. Fear of it results in leaders such as Barack Obama, John Kerry, David Cameron, and Pope Francis repeating "Islam is a religion of peace" or "terrorism has nothing to do with Islam", when, in fact, Islam has never been free of religiously-inspired violence and the terror attacks we see around the world today have everything to do with Islam and its call to jihad. Denying that involvement for fear of giving offence or encouraging further violence means that Western powers have handicapped their own ability to recognize the source of conflict, target it, and end it. President Obama"s history of avoiding offence and staying apart from direct action in the Middle East was the result of such woolly thinking -- not just woolly thinking but lying through his teeth.

Those of us who express sincere concerns about Islam in general or specific beliefs and actions committed in the name of the religion, yet wish to have respect for Muslims as people and for those aspects of their lives that are not a cause for concern (prayer, alms-giving, celebrations, pilgrimages, social work, mysticism and so forth), have to speak and write in a manner that shows we are not "Islamophobes". We need to do this if we are to be taken seriously, allowing our thoughts the chance to be heard and not dismissed as "bigoted" or "racist".

Much critical work is, however, greatly undermined by a vast quantity of bigoted, racist and genuinely Islamophobic comment on social media and elsewhere. This material, some of which will be quoted here, comes from a deeply worrying trend associated with the far-right, as well as associations of white supremacists. While a great many of these comments or videos on YouTube clearly come from people who seem semi-literate or poorly educated, this is by no means universally true. Many have obviously made limited efforts to educate themselves about Islam. But their efforts at self-education fall short. They repeatedly make factual errors or leap to wild assumptions. They do not know an Islamic language, have never consulted primary sources, nor have they read serious academic studies or reference books such as the Encyclopedia of Islam. But when someone with qualifications challenges their ignorance, they become angry and call their critics "apologists for Islam", something that has happened to the present writer more than once. It is never enough to point out that one may be personally critical of Islam, for they do not seek rational debate or moderate opinion, only hardline condemnation.

For such people, it is never acceptable to point out that a majority of Muslims are good people, honest, charitable, spiritual. No, for them, all Muslims must be evil, Satanic (a common term), liars and murderous terrorists. Both their language and attitudes betray them as being close to, if not at times, also anti-Semites. Much the same sort of slurs, falsehoods, and calls for murder are increasingly used again about Jews; and it is an understanding of anti-Semitism that acts as a measure for judging these anti-Muslim rants. Anti-Semites create stereotypes about Jews, that they are liars, money-grabbers, conspiratorial enemies of Gentile society. So too, real Islamophobes stereotype Muslims, claiming they are all violent, bent on the overthrow of Western governments, deceivers using the principle of taqiyya [dissimulation] to lie to non-Muslims. Both forms of hatred stem from fear of people who are different, both find their most loyal following in the same parts of society where the Nazi party found its supporters.

In 2015, an Australian body named the Online Hate Prevention Institute, led by Andre Oboler, a British Zionist who has fought hard against anti-Semitism, carried out research on anti-Muslim hate on social media sites. On December 10, 2015, the Institute published an interim statement entitled the Spotlight on Anti-Muslim Internet Hate Report and intended to publish a full report in March 2016. Sadly, the Institute has been unable to find further funding for this work with the result that this valuable research may never be made fully public or available to government ministries.

In the introduction to the interim report, we read:

This report is based on over 1,100 items of anti-Muslim hate in social media reported and categorised by the public through our FightAgainstHate.com reporting tool. The vast majority of the hate this report is based on was found on Facebook. The report indicates the volume of content by category, and how effective Facebook has been in responding to content in each category. The vast majority of this hate has not yet been removed.

This author was given access to a considerable part of these 1,100 items and can testify that many of them are genuinely disgusting and filled with hatred. Here is a short selection of comments taken from them and from other websites, including YouTube. They are self-explanatory. Even to suggest that there are reform movements within Islam is beyond the pale to someone whose username is "IzlamIsTyranny". Some of the milder comments include:

• totenkopf999


• Nuke mecca.?


• tamething1


• Islam is satanic. The evidence is e v e r y w h e r e.


• BN


• Islam encourages criminal acts every day, every month, every year, in every mosque, by every imam, on every corner of earth.

Repeated calls to drop a nuclear bomb on Mecca, for example, or calling on others to stab Muslims, calling Muslims "sandmonkeys" -- statements one can find in several places -- are deeply offensive. Have these bigots forgotten how many Muslim preachers call Jews "the sons of apes and pigs"? Imitating the people you despise can hardly be an intelligent policy or one calculated to win friends in places of influence.

When the Dutch politician Geert Wilders was brought to court on a hate speech charge, all he had done in fact was to ask a simple question about Moroccan immigrants, should the Netherlands take in more or fewer. That is a question with many potential answers based on political, social, or demographic grounds. It is a rational question that is, almost by definition, one that could be asked in the Home Office of any state that receives immigrants. Governments make such decisions regularly, and many have to answer similar questions since the influx of vast numbers of refugees into Europe since 2015. Wilders"s concern about Moroccans has a rational basis in the Dutch-Moroccan Monitor 2011:

Forty percent of Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands between the ages of 12 and 24 have been arrested, fined, charged or otherwise accused of committing a crime during the past five years, according to a new report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Interior.

In Dutch neighborhoods where the majority of residents are Moroccan immigrants, the youth crime rate reaches 50%. Moreover, juvenile delinquency among Moroccans is not limited to males; girls and young women are increasingly involved in criminal activities.

But when someone says we should stab Muslims in the throat or, "slaughter all Muslims", there can be no question that this is hate speech, and hate speech with murderous intent. Our problem is that politicians, church leaders, and decent people in general may be led to conflate the two forms of utterance -- the intelligent and critical as against the bigoted and violent. For Wilders and others who want to criticize Islam or ask questions about some Muslim behaviour, the presence of genuine Islamophobia is no help at all. It muddies the waters everywhere. Before the matter gets out of hand, responsible critics of Islam badly need to act to silence this hate speech by joining forces with governmental and social media administrations to clamp down heavily on it. We, and not our opponents, must place ourselves in a position to define what is and what is not real "Islamophobia." If we cannot do that, others will conflate criticism and hatred, and clamp down on both at once.