Soon In Switzerland We Will Have To Vote On Accepting The E.U. To Go Over Swiss Justice. That Mean Swiss Says No On Something, And The Other Part Go To The E.U. And Obtain A Yes. It’s Crazy. (Islam And Migration). All The Left Coalition Is Working For It. I Have To Say That We Did Have To Vote Three Times For Or Against The Adhesion With The E.U. (Three Times NO). But Pressure By E.U. Blackmailing, Threatening With Boycott And So On. To Have a Swiss Deal.
Let’s Say The Left Manage To Sell Their Idea And Agenda To The People (Let’s Say 51 Against 49).
At This Point We Are In Secession, Leading To Insurrection. We Are In The Same Situation Than Ukraine.. Civil War, Two Governments. The Newly Made European Army (Already A Reality) Could Take Easily The Towns Of : Basel, Schaffhausen, Geneva, And Zürich ; But Will Be Stop At Lucern, A Strategic Point, And Entrance To The Heart Of Switzerland. Lucern Could Become Such A Disaster With Heavy Humans Lost (Horror Of War) That Will Shock All European Countries..
And Then May Start Insurrection In Other Part Of Europe Until The Dissolution Of The European Union And The Restoration Of Nations States.
I Can Write That Because I’m Swiss, But This Could be In Sweden, United Kingdom, Some Place In Germany, Similar Thing, Different Sparks..
Many People In Europe Says : This Will End In Civil War !
A Hope ? A Mean To An End ? A Wish That Will Never Come True, Believing That The Good People Stay Silenced, And Obey. And Let The Annihilation Proceed..
I Still Believe In Swiss Direct Democracy, It’s Its Birth In 1291 On This Very Principle.
One For All, All For One. We Got 26 States, With Their Own History, Religion, And Food Specialities..Own Culture In Other Words. You Can’t Bend Them To Give Up Their Own Identity.
Confoederatio Helvetica – Helvetia
Behind This Banner, All, Equaly, Discuss The Future Of Our Country. What Future, What Visions Are In Our Political People And Even More Institutions. To E.U. Three Times We Said No, And Time Again You Hear : When We Will Be In The E.U. Bla Bla Bla.. Some Don’t Get IT.
We Had Last Sunday A Vote (Unnecessary) To Give E.U. A Say On Our Justice System, Giving Them The Last Word In Case Of Comflicts.. (See :
Here The Story Of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff ( Of Austria E.U. Country )
What She Did Is To Call The “Perfect Man” Muhammad : Pedophile, (a person who is sexually attracted to children ) This Perfect Man, married A Six Years Old Girl Named Aïcha And Consume The Marriage When She Was 9 Years Old ) It’s Crazy… She Lost !!!!!!!
“”Islamic blasphemy laws have now been elevated to the law of the land in Europe.””
The European Court of Human Rights Submits to Islam
Bern, Switzerland—Marksmen fill the recreation hall of this sand-colored shooting club in the wooded hills outside Bern, capping off a weekend competition to commemorate the 1798 Battle of Grauholz in the French Revolutionary Wars.
There is no shortage of patriotism here – there is even a yodeling club dressed in traditional red-trimmed black felt jackets – and indeed, for many Swiss citizens, guns are as central to their identity as the Alps. Switzerland has one of the highest per capita rates of guns in the world. “Every Swiss village has a range just like this one,” says Renato Steffen, a top official of the Swiss Shooting Sports Association, representing the group at the event. The association counts 2,800 such clubs across the country, with a youth wing for children as young as 10.
If this seems like a scene that belongs in gun-loving America, there the similarities end. The Swiss’s historic relationship to their arms as members of a standing militia, their motives for keeping them, and the regulations around them diverge from the American experience. It’s one reason that the prevalence of arms here is not accompanied by a scourge of gun violence.
Yet Switzerland does provide clues for gun ownership in America. Here divisions also have emerged after gun tragedies and efforts to rein in use – and the story is not settled as a new gun-control directive comes from the European Union. But ultimately the two sides have found consensus, getting beyond polarization that paralyzes the American debate even after such tragedies as the school shooting in Parkland, Fla. Those who loathe guns here accept their deep-seated position in Swiss tradition as they push for more controls, while gun advocates have pushed back but ultimately accepted more rules and oversight in the past 15 years.
“We can live with the restrictions placed on us until now,” says Kaspar Jaun, president of the Battle of Grauholz association, before hurrying off to prepare for the awards ceremony for best marksman.
‘Sport and protection of country only’
There is no official count of guns in Switzerland. But according to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, Switzerland has more guns circulating per capita than any country besides the US and Yemen. The most recent government figures estimate about 2 million firearms in Swiss households. Conscription is mandatory for Swiss males, and citizen soldiers store their weapons at home, making up the bulk of guns in households today.
The militia, and the culture it has fostered, is seen as part of the common good, binding a nation together in a mission of national security. That differs widely from America’s individualistic gun culture. According to a Pew poll in 2017, 67 percent of those who own guns in the US cite their personal protection as a major motive.
And differences with the US don’t end at cultural ones. In Switzerland, regulations have become much more stringent since the free-wheeling days before a Weapons Act was put into place in 1999. And they have steadily tightened over the past 15 years. Military guns, once given to members after their service and passed down for generations, can now only be acquired after service with a firearms acquisition license. Since 2007, army-issued ammunition cannot be kept at home. A gun under the bed for self-protection? Impossible in Switzerland.
Loaded guns, whether military or for sport, cannot be carried on the streets here without a special permit which is rarely issued. Because of conscription, the Swiss are highly trained in weapons handling and storage. As he drives away from the shooting range Sunday, Mr. Steffen says he would never want the right to transport his army rifle loaded. “No, no,” he says, “that is crazy. For us, guns are for sport, and protection of our country, only.”
Switzerland does grapple with gun death rates higher than European neighbors, the vast majority of it suicide. Guns also play a troubling role in domestic disputes. But unlike the US, gun deaths out of self-defense are a rare phenomenon. Criminologist Martin Killias, at the University of St. Gallen’s law school, built a database looking at homicides committed in self-defense over a 25-year period ending in 2014. Of 1,464 homicides, in 23 cases defenders killed victims in self-defense or under duress. In 15 of those cases, a firearm was used, nine of which were the weapons of on-duty police officers.
The homicide rate in the US is about six times that of the Swiss national average. But when comparing domestic violence that ends in death with a firearm, the ratio is just under 2 to 1, a much smaller gap of gun deaths between American and Swiss households. “It is very illustrative,” Mr. Killias says. “It’s not so much that American people are more aggressive, or Swiss are so terribly more peaceful, it’s simply that gun use in the street [in the US] is quite common,” he says. “That is why robbery quite often ends with a shooting in America, whereas in Switzerland it is practically never the case.”
Switzerland’s gun debates
Nonetheless, the debate has still been divisive and bitter here. Josef Lang sits on the opposite end of the spectrum as men such as Steffen, and still receives hateful threats and messages over his role in the gun control movement in Switzerland.
A pacifist activist since the 1980s, Mr. Lang was a parliamentarian in 2001 in the canton of Zug when a gunman stormed the chamber. He ducked underneath the desk in time and survived, but nearly 20 years later he recounts vividly every second of the 2.5 minutes gun spree during which 14 of his colleagues around him were killed. He remembers the feeling of a bullet grazing his bushy hair.
With each incident, laws have tightened to get rid of loopholes. After the Zug massacre, gun control advocates pushed for cantonal police registries to be linked and for tighter controls for private gun sales. In 2006, after Swiss alpine skier Corinne Rey-Bellet and her brother were killed by Corinne’s estranged husband with his military rifle, rules banning the storage of military ammunition at home were created. Today, military members can choose to also keep their weapons at a central arsenal.
The battle hasn’t always favored gun control. In a 2011 referendum voters would have, among other things, required military arms to be stored in a central arsenal. Fifty-six percent voted against it. Today, many feel satisfied with where Switzerland is on gun control. “Swiss laws give freedom to the citizen but at the same time they attempt to reduce abuse with guns,” says Luca Filippini, the president of the Swiss Shooting Sports Association.
Switzerland’s reform history provides a lesson for the US, argues Erin Zimmerman, an American living in Switzerland who is a former US police officer and gun owner. While the country is vastly different from the US in demographics and population, she believes it shows the possibility of consensus for sensible gun regulations.
To underline the point, a nongovernmental organization she belongs to, Action Together: Zurich, led a fundraiser for the US-based nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety, timed to a visit to Zurich this week by former White House strategist Steve Bannon, who has resisted gun-reform efforts in the US.
While some US states have been able to pass gun reform, she says Americans in the national debate are too often only presented with “zero-sum” options. They are cast as simply pro- or anti-gun, making middle ground choices more elusive. “Switzerland has done a really good job of modeling that,” she says.
Creeping ‘Americanization’?
Now, however, the battle is heating up once more in Switzerland – and some worry about the creep of “American” mentalities. In response to the wave of terrorist attacks in Europe starting in 2015, the EU has imposed tighter gun restrictions. While Switzerland is not part of the bloc, it does belong to the passport-free Schengen area and so must adhere to EU rules.
Mr. Filippini argues the rules won’t have any bearing on terrorism, which is committed by criminals using illegal weapons and methods such as trucks. Gun advocates have promised to fight it in a referendum if it’s adopted into Swiss law and in general worry this is just the beginning of interference from the outside into their gun rules.
Both sides are staking their positions as gun-owning households in Switzerland has waned, in large part because the Swiss military has reduced its size by about sixfold since the 1990s. Today, 22 percent of households say they own guns, compared to 35 percent 15 years ago. Still, Lang worries about language he hears from the hard-line gun lobby about “self-protection,” against refugees and migrants or cuts in police budgets, a concept that is largely a taboo in Swiss society. Lang calls this the “Americanization” of the Swiss mentality.
Ten people suspected of using encrypted social networks to prepare a possible attack have been arrested in counterterrorism operations in France and Switzerland, according to French officials.
It’s every day in Europe — and the enemedia in the USA blithely ignore it.
As an aside, the authorities should not reveal that they are discovering these plots via the app Telegram. If we know anything about the global jihad movement, it is adaptable and mutable. They plan for failure; it’s why they have been able to continue to grow and spread despite the extensive, albeit sharia-compliant, counter terrorism programs in the West.
Police cite developing plots involving encrypted social media to commit unspecified acts
The Associated Press Posted: Nov 07, 2017:
Ten people suspected of using encrypted social networks to prepare a possible attack were arrested Tuesday in counterterrorism operations in France and Switzerland, according to French officials.
Among those arrested were a 23-year-old Colombian woman and 27-year-old Swiss man, both targets of a Swiss investigation into banned Islamic extremist groups.
Searches were still underway Tuesday afternoon in the Paris suburbs and in southeastern France.
Counterterrorism investigators detained nine people in France and one in Switzerland in operations aimed at clarifying details of the suspected plot, according to a French judicial official. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation, would not provide details about their identities.
Violent acts
In parallel to the Swiss investigation, French authorities opened a probe in July focused on suspicious activity by a person in Switzerland using the Telegram network, according to a French judicial official.
The Swiss-based chief suspect had communicated with people in France on social networks about unspecified violent acts, the official said.
A French security official said the suspected plot did not appear to be fully developed but authorities acted Tuesday out of concern that the group was moving toward action.
Among French towns targeted in the operation were Aix-en-Provence in southern France and Menton on the Mediterranean coast as well as Paris suburbs, according to the security official.
The office of Swiss Attorney General Michael Lauber said the arrest there followed searches of buildings in the French-speaking Vaud and Neuchatel regions of western Switzerland.
The former head of the body now head of the Swiss army fired the alarm about the worsening social imbalances, the terrorist threat and the risks associated with migration.
André Blattmann, like any member of the Swiss army, a hybrid character civil half military half. Specialist in air defense and for pilot training, he took command of Swiss forces in 2009. Commenting for the first time the situation since the attacks in France on November 13, he warned against an “explosion of insecurity in the last two years”, this while the defense budget had been significantly reduced. He then explained: “Although we have not been directly affected by the events of the war in the world today, we can already feel the effects. ” He continued: “The terrorist threat increases, hybrid wars are becoming more frequent, the economic outlook has darkened and migration caused by these wars and economic problems have already taken an unsuspected proportion, exacerbating competition the labor market. ” Finally, he emphasized that “the mixture is becoming more explosive” and that “the foundations of prosperity are once again called into question.” In conclusion, and according to him, the situation is reminiscent of the years of the interwar period, and Swiss citizens should arm themselves to face the challenges ahead. In the Schweiz am Sonntag newspaper, the head of the army resumed its warnings against social unrest in Europe. He sees evidence of these in the form of increasingly aggressive public speeches. André Blattmann was initiated several years preparing Switzerland to react to various threats, including one imagined the secession of a French territory, that decides to attack its neighbor. Obviously, these comments were strongly criticized by the left and the Greens policies. They claimed that these statements were “exaggerated” and that all was well in the best of worlds – that of the Confederation course. But they would do well not to take lightly the words of this soldier. For the record, André Blattmann had explained a few days before the November bombings: “The terrorist threat is more concrete again to the West. “Result: 130 dead … It is worth remembering that most Swiss are armed. 3,000,000 firearms thus account for 8 million people. Each Helvète, almost, since each has his gun Swiss citizen is a soldier, even if the ammunition is being kept dissociated in the barracks.
To be clear I support The Swiss Army ..Whatever Semper Fi, The question of implicate the Army in protection of civilians from all kind of Jihadist, will be the question in few countries on the run of 2016
Protecting the Borders, Keeping The Inland Safe (Wil.)
Swiss Charge Four Iraqis in Islamic State Terror Cell
Swiss authorities have charged an Islamic State terror cell with smuggling Swiss nationals to Syria and Iraq and plotting to carry out terrorist attacks.
The four Iraqi nationals, aged between 29 and 34, are suspected of being an Islamic State terror cell.
Swiss authorities are working in cooperation with the U.S. on the case as per a 2006 treaty which mandates joint investigations in terrorism cases. They have also cooperated with other European security services.
Three Iraqis were arrested in March/April 2014 after telephone calls were intercepted by a Western agent who passed the information on to Swiss police.
The group is alleged to have helped around 40 Swiss jihadis travel to Syria and Iraq and attempted to purchase poisonous gas and explosives to mount terror attacks.
They “aided and abetted smuggling further IS followers to Europe, assumed coordination tasks, disseminated propaganda for the actions of the terrorist organisation, gave instructions and also provided operative advice amongst other things” according a statement by the Swiss Office of the Attorney General.
A fourth man was arrested in July 2015, “who had travelled to Syria to hand over radio equipment to IS.”
“Listen: there was once a king sitting on his throne. Around Him stood great and wonderfully beautiful columns ornamented with ivory, bearing the banners of the king with great honor. Then it pleased the king to raise a small feather from the ground, and he commanded it to fly. The feather flew, not because of anything in itself but because the air bore it along. Thus am I, a feather on the breath of God.”
Hildegard of Bingen
The Benedictine Abbess, Hildegard of Bingen, is remembered as a musician, a poet, a scientist, and a preacher. She is also remembered as a woman who performed the works of mercy. Poor, elderly women were offered shelter and care as permanent guests in the abbey she led. Many people found medical care within her abbey’s walls.
Since her death late in the twelfth century, she has been honored as a saint. But her formal status within the church calendar has only been regularized in this century. On 7 October 2012, Pope Benedict XVI named her a Doctor of the Church. So Hildegard never went through the formal process of canonization. In this case vox populi, vox Dei, the voice of the people is the voice of God. The church ratified what its people have known for centuries.
Hildegard knew God in many ways, including through the gifts of nature. She wrote of the Virgin as “Mary, the bequeather/seed-source of God.” Hildegard writes, “Your flesh held joy, like grass upon which dew falls, pouring its life-green into it.”
She writes of God’s Word in all creation,
“No creature has meaning
without the Word of God.
God’s Word is in all creation, visible and invisible.
The Word is living, being,
Spirit, all verdant
all creativity.
This Word flashes out in
every creature.
This is how the spirit is in
the flesh — the Word is indivisible from God.”
Hildegard of Bingen has been called by her admirers “one of the most important figures in the history of the Middle Ages,” and “the greatest woman of her time.” Her time was the 1100’s (she was born in 1098), the century of Eleanor of Aquitaine, of Peter Abelard and Bernard of Clairvaux, of the rise of the great universities and the building of Chartres cathedral. She was the daughter of a knight, and when she was eight years old she went to the Benedictine monastery at Mount St Disibode to be educated. The monastery was in the Celtic tradition, and housed both men and women (in separate quarters). When Hildegard was eighteen, she became a nun. Twenty years later, she was made the head of the female community at the monastery. Within the next four years, she had a series of visions, and devoted the ten years from 1140 to 1150 to writing them down, describing them (this included drawing pictures of what she had seen), and commenting on their interpretation and significance. During this period, Pope Eugenius III sent a commission to inquire into her work. The commission found her teaching orthodox and her insights authentic, and reported so to the Pope, who sent her a letter of approval. (He was probably encouraged to do so by his friend and former teacher, Bernard of Clairvaux.) She wrote back urging the Pope to work harder for reform of the Church.
The community of nuns at Mount St. Disibode was growing rapidly, and they did not have adequate room. Hildegard accordingly moved her nuns to a location near Bingen, and founded a monastery for them completely independent of the double monastery they had left. She oversaw its construction, which included such features (not routine in her day) as water pumped in through pipes. The abbot they had left opposed their departure, and the resulting tensions took a long time to heal.
Hildegard travelled throughout southern Germany and into Switzerland and as far as Paris, preaching. Her sermons deeply moved the hearers, and she was asked to provide written copies. In the last year of her life, she was briefly in trouble because she provided Christian burial for a young man who had been excommunicated. Her defense was that he had repented on his deathbed, and received the sacraments. Her convent was subjected to an interdict, but she protested eloquently, and the interdict was revoked. She died on 17 September 1179. Her surviving works include more than a hundred letters to emperors and popes, bishops, nuns, and nobility. (Many persons of all classes wrote to her, asking for advice, and one biographer calls her “the Dear Abby of the twelfth century.”) She wrote 72 songs including a play set to music. Musical notation had only shortly before developed to the point where her music was recorded in a way that we can read today. Accordingly, some of her work is now available on compact disk, and presumably sounds the way she intended. My former room-mate, a non-Christian and a professional musician, is an enthusiastic admirer of her work and considers her a musical genius. Certainly her compositional style is like nothing else we have from the twelfth century. The play set to music is called the Ordo Virtutum and show us a human soul who listens to the Virtues, turns aside to follow the Devil, and finally returns to the Virtues, having found that following the Devil does not make one happy.
She left us about seventy poems and nine books. Two of them are books of medical and pharmaceutical advice, dealing with the workings of the human body and the properties of various herbs. (These books are based on her observations and those of others, not on her visions.) I am told that some modern researchers are now checking her statements in the hope of finding some medicinal properties of some plant that has been overlooked till now by modern medicine. She also wrote a commentary on the Gospels and another on the Athanasian Creed. Much of her work has recently been translated into English, part in series like Classics of Western Spirituality, and part in other collections or separately. If your university library or bookstore cannot help you, try a Christian bookstore. If they do not have it, try a trendy (feminist, New Age, ecology) bookstore.
But her major works are three books on theology: Scivias (“Know the paths!”), Liber Vitae Meritorum (on ethics), and De Operatione Dei. They deal (or at least the first and third do) with the material of her visions. The visions, as she describes them, are often enigmatic but deeply moving, and many who have studied them believe that they have learned something from the visions that is not easily put into words. On the other hand, we have the recent best-seller, The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat, by Oliver Sacks, Professor of Clinical Neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and author of Migraine and various other books. Professor Sacks is concerned with the relation of the brain to the mind, and ways in which the phsical state of the nervous system can affect our ways of perceiving reality. He views the pictures in Hildegard’s books of what she saw in her visions, and says, “The style of the pictures is a clear indication that the seer suffered regularly from migraine attacks. Migraine sufferers tend to see things in this manner.” And indeed, it is true that Hildegard suffered throughout her life from painful attacks of what may have been migraine. Professor Sacks hastens to add that this has nothing to do with whether her visions are authentic insights into the nature of God and His relation to the Universe.
Hildegard has undergone a remarkable rise in popularity in the last thirty years, since many readers have found in her visions, or read into them, themes that seem to speak to many modern concerns. For example:
Although she would have rejected much of the rhetoric of women’s liberation, she never hesitated to say what she thought needed to be said, or to do what she thought needed to be done, simply because she was a woman. When Pope or Emperor needed a rebuke, she rebuked them.
Her writings bring science, art, and religion together. She is deeply involved in all three, and looks to each for insights that will enrich her understanding of the others.
Her use of parable and metaphor, of symbols, visual imagery, and non-verbal means to communicate makes her work reach out to many who are totally deaf to more standard approaches. In particular, non-Western peoples are often accustomed to expressing their views of the world in visionary language, and find that Hildegard’s use of similar language to express a Christian view of reality produces instant rapport, if not necessarily instant agreement.
Hildegard wrote and spoke extensively about social justice, about freeing the downtrodden, about the duty of seeing to it that every human being, made in the image of God, has the opportunity to develop and use the talents that God has given him, and to realize his God-given potential. This strikes a chord today.
Motto: “Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno” “One for all, all for one”
Top Secret Drum Corps Edinburgh Military Tattoo 2009
Swiss National Anthem – “Schweizerpsalm”
Swiss National Anthem
Official English Lyrics
When the morning skies grow red, and over us their radiance shed Thou, O Lord, appeareth in their light when the alps glow bright with splendor, pray to God, to Him surrender for you feel and understand that He dwelleth in this land.
In the sunset Thou art night and beyond the starry sky Thou, O loving father, ever near,
when to Heaven we are departing joy and bliss Thou’lt be imparting for we feel and understand that Thou dwellest in this land.
When dark clouds enshroud the hills and gray mist the valley fills yet Thou art not hidden from thy sons pierce the gloom in which we cower with Thy sunshine’s cleansing power then we’ll feel and understand that God dwelleth in this land.
God Bless All My Friends Here At WordPress and Mail Followers.
I’m among some people who think, That if our own country are not willing to protect its own population against the Islamist threat, and let Sharia rule over us, even by democratic mean, as also their population grow so fast that we are doomed to be overwhelm.
So some solution must be found to help send families away from all this, to find security…
If You Look At Statistic Many British have already done so, unfortunately for them, for the most they choice France and Spain…Which both have a Serious Muslim Problem. Violence and so on.
The Cold did seems to be THE solution…Artic Circle, Laponnia of Finland, of Sweden and Norway. Greenland and Island. Well, many things been done, may be some who went ahead.. and found house..job..
I give 10 years to Switzerland before Civil Unrest, might go even faster depending of our independence against the European Union, which with its immigration habit.. will terminate our Direct Democracy. And make us Bent To Islam As Tarik Ramadan wish so much in his speech here and there including The European Parliament. That’s the Normality.
So as abnormal, where can we still live a Westerner Life ?..
Wil. T. Knox
Iceland to Get its First Mosque
The Muslim Association of Iceland now admits that foreign donors will be paying for the mosque’s construction costs. The former mayor of Reykjavik says he believes it is outrageous for the city to give Muslims a site at no cost at a great location in the center of the city, and asks why political and feminist groups are so tolerant of a religion that he says degrades women.
The Reykjavík City Council has approved a building permit for the construction of the first mosque in Iceland.
The mosque will be built in Sogamýri, an upscale district near downtown Reykjavík on a highly desirable plot of land that was granted to Muslims free of charge, courtesy of Icelandic taxpayers.
Members of the city council — which is led by Reykjavík Mayor Jón Gnarr, who identifies himself as an anarchist — say they hope the prime location will make the mosque a prominent landmark in the city.
Critics of the mosque, however, say the project is being financed by donors in the Middle East who are seeking to exert control over — and radicalize — the growing Muslim community in Iceland.
Although reliable statistics do not exist, the Muslim population of Iceland is estimated to be approximately 1,200, or 0.4% of the total Icelandic population of 320,000. Most Muslims in Iceland live in the capital Reykjavík, where they make up about 1% of the total population of 120,000.
The Muslim community in Iceland may be small in comparison to other European countries, but its rate of growth has been exponential: Since 1990, when there were fewer than a dozen Muslims in the country, their number has increased by nearly 10,000%. Much of this growth has been due to immigration, but in recent years native Icelanders have also been converting to Islam in increasing numbers.
Currently there are two main Muslim groups in Iceland: the Muslim Association of Iceland, which has around 500 members, and the Islamic Cultural Center of Iceland, which has some 300 followers. The former group is run by Salmann Tamimi, a Palestinian immigrant who considers himself to be the voice of moderate Islam in Iceland; the latter group is run by Ahmad Seddeq, a firebrand preacher from Pakistan whose activities are allegedly being financed by Saudi Arabia.
Although both groups pertain to Sunni Islam, they have been openly fighting with each other for many years over who should be the rightful representative of Islam in Iceland.
In 2000, Tamimi — whose group meets at a make-shift mosque on the third floor of an office building in downtown Reykjavík — submitted an application to obtain a free plot of land from city authorities to build the first purpose-built mosque in Iceland.
Not to be outdone, Seddeq — whose group meets at a make-shift mosque in an old concert hall near the Reykjavík airport — submitted his own application for free land to build a competing mosque.
City officials responded by saying there should be only one mosque and that it should be shared by both groups. “Obviously we won’t be allocating two lots for mosques at this point and we find it natural for them to cooperate on the construction of one mosque,” Páll Hjaltason, the chairman of Reykjavík City’s Urban Planning Council, told the newspaper Fréttabladid.
Seddeq said he was open to the idea of sharing one plot of land, but Tamimi, who submitted his application first, would have none of it. Instead, Tamimi lashed out at Seddeq, accusing him of extremism, fanaticism and oppression in the name of Islam.
“Our application is completely different from theirs,” Salmann said in an interview with the newspaper Fréttabladid. “This is like asking the national church to be with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
Tamimi sought to undermine Seddeq’s group by accusing it of being financed by Saudi Arabia. At one point, Tamimi called the police to report members of Seddeq’s group, accusing them of misunderstanding the peaceful nature of Islam, and saying that he feared that Muslim extremists were attempting to gain a foothold in Iceland.
Tamimi also sought to assure the Reykjavík City Council that — unlike Seddeq — his mosque project would not be financed by foreigners and thus would not be promoting extremism.
“If we are going to have a mosque, it must be done according to local considerations,” Tamimi said in October 2010. “As soon as you lose sight of the source of funding you lose control of what happens subsequently. The experience of other countries teaches that it is wise to reject large foreign investments in religion. Such investors are much more likely to import their own countries’ traditions and not adapt to the traditions in their host country.”
In the end, city officials sided with Tamimi, whose mosque project was formally approved on September 19. After more than a decade of bickering, construction of Reykjavík’s first mosque is expected to begin in early 2014.
The cost of building the 800 square meter (8,600 square foot) mosque — which will include a prayer hall, community center and library, as well as a nine-meter (30 foot) minaret — is expected to exceed 400 million Icelandic Krona (€2.5 million; $3.3 million).
But now that the Reykjavík mosque project has been given the go-ahead, Tamimi’s group has changed its tune and now admits that foreign donors will be paying for the mosque’s construction costs after all.
During a newspaper interview on September 19 — conducted just a few hours after the mosque project was approved — Sverrir Agnarsson, a convert to Islam who is chairman of Tamimi’s group, the Muslim Association of Iceland, was asked how the mosque would be financed.
“We have received numerous promises,” Agnarsson said. “We are mostly seeking funding from individual foreigners. We have a right to get support from the collective funds of Muslims [the Ummah, or the worldwide community of Muslims]. We are doing all of this in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice to guarantee that all the money coming to us is received legally, and is not associated with any terrorist organizations,” he added.
The idea that foreigners are financing the spread of Islam in Reykjavík does not sit well with many Icelanders.
One of the most vocal opponents of the mosque project has been the former mayor of Reykjavík, Ólafur F. Magnússon. In an article he wrote for the newspaper Morgunbladid, Magnússon laid out his position:
It is a matter of grave concern that it seems to be no problem for Muslims in Iceland to finance such a mosque here in Iceland with money from ‘Muslim/Islamic promotion organizations’ abroad. They could receive financial help from organizations that want to increase Islamic influence in Iceland as well as in other countries. This can be dangerous for our national culture and safety.
Magnússon also said why he thought it was wrong for foreign organizations to be financing the construction of mosques in Iceland:
Islam is a religion with the goal to eliminate all other religions and to expand all over the world, the West, the Nordic countries…and now even Iceland. The experience in the Nordic countries shows that Muslims are not adapting to society. This has become a huge problem, in Malmö [Sweden] for example. The other day, a mosque was to be built on Trondheim [Norway], but the Norwegian authorities canceled the project because some Saudi Arabian organization was to finance the whole thing.
Although he is not opposed to the mosque per se, Magnússon believes it is outrageous for the city to give Muslims a building site at no cost at a great location in the center of Reykjavík. He also asks why political movements and feminist groups in Iceland are so tolerant towards a religion that he says degrades women.
Part of the answer may be found in the political make-up of the Reykjavík City Council, which is led by the upstart Best Party, a so-called joke party that was propelled into office in 2010 as a backlash against establishment parties in the wake of Iceland’s banking collapse in 2008.
The Best Party — a semi-serious far left party that is home to anarchists, atheists, surrealists, punks and poets — is being led by Jón Gnarr, a stand-up comedian whose stated political aim is thoroughly to upset the established order in Reykjavík. Critics say the new mosque represents a big step toward achieving Gnarr’s objective.
Below is the full text of Oskar Freysinger’s speech in Berlin last Saturday, as translated by JLH. Note: Mr. Freysinger departed from the prepared text when he spoke, so this version differs slightly from what can be heard in the video and audio recordings.
Speech by Oskar Freysinger in Berlin
September 3, 2011
Berlin is worth a trip. Especially today. Especially here. Because here and now an important signal is being given to the peoples of Europe. The signal for a European Spring! To offset the autumn mood in the EU. So that, instead of the mood of doom, finally a mood of awakening will come. An awakening in the name of freedom!
Yes, yes, cherished FREIHEIT! That is also the name of the party here in Germany that offers an alternative to bureaucratism, centralism, loss of democracy, uncontrolled immigration and Islamization. An alternative to self-destruction.
My dear Berlin friends, I come to you today as a neighbor. And as a concerned friend.
Since I am a citizen of a small country which is put under greater and greater pressure by the EU, it is near to my heart to support the truly democratic forces in the EU conglomerate. Only if these forces prevail can I hope that the Great Power pretensions of the EU will be abandoned and its relationship to Switzerland will at last be shaped in the way it should be between civilized and respectful neighbors.
Freedom is one of the democratic forces I count on. But why does the EU exert this kind of massive pressure — economically, financially and politically — on my country? Is it arrogance? Greed? Envy? All of those may apply, but the true reason lies deeper.
The EUSSR will no longer tolerate the existence of a small country in the heart of the continent, whose people still want to decide their own fate. A prudent, little bit of a folk that has thus far withstood the over-indebtedness which is playing hell with the states reined in by globalization.
For that is the goal of all global financial institutions and international monetary funds: The weakening of nation-states in order to lead them to their dubious “good fortune.” The wealth of peoples is destroyed en masse, so that the weakened states can be reduced to willing agents of a global dogma.
We Swiss hate every form of paternalism! We want no patronizing, no foreign judges! Our citizens are independent and imaginative enough to take their fate into their own hands.
Just picture this: On the southern border of Germany is a country in which 53% of the people have voted for deportation of criminal aliens; a land in which every minor rise in the VAT must be approved by referendum. Who is surprised that the VAT is still at 8% in Switzerland while it has reached 20% in the EU?
A study by the French economic expert Yvan Blot demonstrates that where state affairs are voted on directly and democratically, the rates of duties and taxes are on average 30% lower than where state affairs are decided exclusively on administrative and policy grounds.
We watch our own wallets more carefully than other people’s money. There lies the future of the continent. Not in further expansion of a bureaucratic and centralized monster that will one day swallow its own children.
In Switzerland, the power is still in the hands of the people. We Helvetians were able to vote on entry to the EU… and wisely looked the other way. In retrospect, this decision has proven to be a great good fortune.
How did that work in Germany? Elites distanced from the people decided for the people. The same elite who introduced the euro, which, at one blow, caused a 30% loss of purchasing power for the average German citizen.
In Switzerland, the possible introduction of the euro had to be approved by the people. You can just picture the result.
Of course, the strong Franc would then be no problem for our export economy, but we would be stuck in the euro trap like the others and would have to bleed financially for a completely broken-down statist system, just as the German taxpayer has been doing for years. Better to stay flexible and economically independent.
Direct democracy means that the optional or obligatory referendum underlies every law proposed by parliament, and nothing can be decided over the heads of the people. Direct democracy means that determined citizens can launch initiatives with 100,000 signatures, which must be put before the people. This gives political decisions much greater legitimacy than the usual parliamentary resolutions. No one in Switzerland would think of questioning a decision by referendum which was approved by 50-70%. What the people have decided is valid and everyone has to adhere to that, Period. Even the administration. Especially the administration.
That is how it was with the famous/notorious anti-minaret initiative in which I was the anti-muezzin. 58% of the Swiss population decided in November, 2009 to prevent the occupation of public space by the dominating symbols of a religious dogma.
This decision by the last free population in Europe had a signal effect. In its wake, decisions were made about the veiling of women in France and Belgium and the construction of a Saudi-financed giant mosque in Norway was prevented. The dhimmi attitude of Europeans sustained a wound which must not heal over, if the millennia-old European civilization is to survive.
For Europe is more than a plot of land, more than a continent, more than the sum of its countries. Europe is an idea, a cultural landscape, an intellectual space shaped by history. Europa is the cradle of the modern constitutional state, the treasure-house of human rights, of freedom of opinion and expression.
This is ever more strongly endangered by the possibility that our political elite will bend their necks before a religious dogma that is alien to our intellectual history, our values and our constitutional state.
This dogma is gnawing away at the pillars of our system of laws, wherever it is allowed some space. This dogma demands total obedience from its followers. They are in no case to integrate into our value system. That would be like treason and can even be punished with death. They are expected to conquer our intellectual home, make the Western world subject. Not with tanks, rockets or riflemen. Not through brutal revolution.
No, Islam is in no hurry. It has an eternity.
A long process of softening up and leisurely occupation of our weakening, child-poor society is foreseen. The Islamic doctrine is expected to gradually creep into everyday life and Fortress Europe will crumble from within. Just think of how the Serbs lost Kosovo. Through demographic development and the help of NATO, which brought about the founding of the first Islamic state on European ground. What an ominous sign.
The Islamic dogma is succeeding everywhere. In Turkey, the Islamists are gradually occupying all judicial and army posts, in order to obliterate the heritage of Kemal Atatürk. Lebanon will become an Islamic state in the next decades, The Arab Spring is on the point of being taken over by the Islamists. In Iraq, in Egypt and in Pakistan, the last Christian communities are facing extinction,
And what are we doing? We are allowing this violent doctrine, unhindered in cultural ghettos, to strain at toppling the nation of laws. We just shrug our shoulders when girls are forced into marriage and Muslims willing to integrate are pressured and threatened. When women are beaten and whole city districts are taken over, we look the other way. We believe we can soften the power hunger of the holy warriors with welfare money.
We believe we can buy peace! What lunacy! No one fingers the Prophet’s beard. Fanatics cannot be bought. Germany should know that better than any other country in the world.
My dear friends in the audience, we are not fighting against people, we are fighting for people! We are fighting against a dogma that is anathema to every aspect of humanity and would like to lead us back into barbarism. We do not intend to give up the freedom we have fought so hard for over the centuries.
Dear Berliners, here I stand, and I cannot do otherwise, lest soon no human being in this Europe will be able to take the responsibility for what represents the pillar of our culture, of our system of law and of our humanity: transcendent, unconditional love of neighbor.
If we lose this battle, there will be no second chance, for Islam does not give back what it has conquered. So I summon all the humanists of this continent not to keep their heads in the sand and to resist the Islamic dogma’s drive to conquest. Let us stand together and uncompromisingly insist upon the primacy of our civil law over any religious dogma. Let us find our way back to our precious intellectual heritage.
Islam is only as strong as we are weak.
Let us oppose it with more than McDonald’s, soap operas, stupefying TV programs and brutal video games. Our culture has so much more to offer. Let us get back to depth and endurance, to organic growth. Let us stay alert and critical, so long as even a grain of Socrates lives on in us. Let us no longer subject our spirit to the dictates of the material. Only that way can we prevent brutal power politics being spread in the name of religion. Only that way do we have chance to leave our children a peaceful Europe, shaped by respect and dignity.
Long live die Freiheit! (Long live freedom!)
VIA : Louhehi, French TV Canal+ bring down Oskar Freisinger with Dishonesty
Hello Muse, may be it need to refresh the page, because all videos got sound, working perfectly fine. I had problem with the pictures, I wanted a different display but didn’t work.
Handcuff picture in cross for both, Gun picture for both and an army picture for both.
I react to this Sweedish Newspaper who says that Anders did make some statement…Now it goes around twisting thing further.
The Only thing I agree, is that he feel lonely and bitter as the “Rising” didn’t happen…enven less a an Uprising..
More of an “Hiding” after what he did. So yes that part is true for the rest they have still no Clue about who is Anders Breivik.
Time.com describes Geneva-based university lecturer Tariq Ramadan as the leading Islamic thinker among Europe’s second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants, who also inspires a good deal of mistrust–from both Arab Muslims for his Western sensibility and Westerners for his controversial Islamic roots. Although many European liberals appear to be enamored by Ramadan, Westerners have good reason to be leery of a man who equates secularism with dictatorship, opposes “economism, individualism, imperialism,” is far from liberal in his outlook – most obviously when addressing Muslim audiences rather than Western journalists, and who insists that the Qur’an and Sunnah should govern life for today (for everyone – not just Muslims). Tariq Ramadan is not the Islamic reformer some believe him to be; he is an Islamist, and nothing less. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and fortunately there are many who are not deluded by what he appears to be (including the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security).
In 1997, fifty-eight innocent tourists were massacred in Luxor, Egypt by Islamic fundamentalists. Five years on and the families of the dead have received no official apology or any compensation. Angered at being ignored, five of them from three corners of the world travel to Egypt to seek answers. They trace the command to attack right back to Osama Bin Laden.
First To Free Those Off Prison :
Al-Jamaa Al-Islamiya leader Mostafa Hamza, detained for terrorist activity and attempt on Hosni Mubarak’s life, released Tuesday by President Morsi’s pardon. Hamza, a leading member of Islamic organisation Al-Jamaa Al-Islamiya, was extradited to Egypt from Iran in 2004. He was detained following terrorism-related charges that included being a member of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
The Luxor Massacre has been mostly forgotten, but it deserves to be remembered as a template of the Islamist soul. The full horror of what happened there needs to be understood for us to understand what Morsi has just done.
EDL The media liesPLEASE JOIN THE ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE ALL YOU NEED IS AN EMAIL ADDRESS AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE ENGLISH : http://englishdefenceleague.org
Religion of Hate and Intolerance: Anjem Choudary – The Call for Jihad Seekers Allowance
Anjem Choudary Cleary say about Hating us, About Not respecting us about abusing us..that is ok..that is Islam!
At least its clear….But What Such A Man Still do in Britain.. British Haters! Britain is the Land Of The Free, but to keep it that way, there are work to do.. may be by sendinmd that guy to an Islamic where is dream be true !!!!
Said Ramadan (Arabic: سعيد رمضان; April 12, 1926 – August 4, 1995)
was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Said Ramadan was a major figure in that organization and was expelled from Egypt by Gamal Abdul Nasser for his activities. He moved to Saudi Arabia where he founded the World Islamic League, a charity and missionary group. He then moved to Geneva, Switzerland, before finishing a dissertation at the University of Cologne in 1959. In 1961 he founded the Islamic Center in Geneva, a combination mosque, think tank, and community center. His son Hani Ramadan now runs that center. Another son, Tariq Ramadan is prominent in international Islamic affairs and academics.
Said Ramadan’s US connections included Malcolm X and Dawud Salahuddin.
MISSION
Drawing on the relevant resolutions of the ICFM’s, an OIC Group in Geneva has been established to help further improvement of Solidarity and Coordination among Member States.
The objectives of establishing this group, are: to consolidated the spirit of solidarity among the Members States; to enhance the Group’s potential by the involvement of their Ambassadors and experts in negotiations and decision making process; to coordinate the position and views of the OIC countries and harmonize their positions in the different foras and International meetings of the UN Agencies and specialized institutions, to contribute, as cross-regional Group to international decision making process.
The OIC Group in Geneva was also established to increase the effectiveness of the work of the OIC Missions aimed at promoting efficient cooperation and coordination among Members States on issues concerning Muslim Ummah.
Some keys factors in advancing the objectives of the Group are:
– Maintaining a clear vision on the work of the OIC Group
The principles and goals enshrined in the OIC Charter, the guidance of the OIC conferences; and the indicative spirit of the Group, materialized through its dealing with United Nations Agenda in Geneva constitutes the main component of the vision. In addition, resolution n° 40/30-P of the 31ICFM, entitled “Adoption by the Islamic States of a Unified Stand at International For a” also serves as a directive on Various aspect of the Group’s activities including defining mandates and scope of work as well as setting priorities and submitting of recommendations.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has long been on the forefront of the Islamist mission to establish the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West. Now, during its 12th Islamic Summit held in Cairo February 7-8, 2013, the OIC set forth new and creative ways to silence, and ultimately criminalize criticism of Islam.
The OIC is a 57-member state organization that claims to represent 1.5 billion Muslims around the globe. As the second largest international organization in the world, behind only the UN, and as the largest Islamic organization in the world, it is obviously quite powerful. Though it is arguably the largest voting block in the UN, most people have never heard of it.
One of the OIC’s primary aims for at least the last fourteen years has been the international criminalization of speech that is critical of any Islam-related topic, including Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.
Since 1999, the OIC has set forth UN resolutions that would “combat defamation of religions.” These resolutions condemned criticism of religion, but in the OIC’s interpretation, it applied only to Islam. True statements of fact constituted no exception.
Support for the resolutions declined once the United States and other Western countries caught wind of the true meaning of “defamation of religions” and its inevitable chilling effect on freedom of expression.
In 2011, at the State Department’s request, the OIC drafted an alternative resolution that was intended to retain freedom of expression and still address the OIC’s concerns about alleged Islamophobia. The result was Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief.
The US State Department and numerous Christian organizations were elated, believing that the OIC had abandoned its mission to protect Islam from so-called “defamation,” and instead replaced it with the goal of protecting persecuted religious minorities from discrimination and violence. In other words, many assumed a paradigm shift away from providing legal protections to a religion and toward legal protections for people.
But the OIC had some very creative interpretations of the language embodied in the new resolution. By its manipulation of words such as intolerance and incitement, giving new meanings to what many thought was plain English, the OIC made it clear that it had not dropped its ultimate goal of protecting Islam from “defamation.”
Almost immediately upon its passage and the passage of a similar resolution in the General Assembly, the OIC set out on the unconventional task of “implementing” Resolution 16/18, contrary to the norm of leaving UN resolutions in the realm of the theoretical.
Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department acted as a willing accomplice in this effort, holding the second “Istanbul Conference” in December of 2011. But, in its implementation phase, rather than moving toward the preservation of free expression, the OIC successfully moved the process in the opposite direction: toward speech restrictive policies.
Though the U.S., thus far, has not pushed for the enactment of “hate speech” laws, it has “advocated for other measures to achieve the same result.” Indeed, at this Administration’s behest, all national security training materials and policies “de-link” any interpretation of Islam from Islamic terrorism. Many U.S. government agencies have now made it verboten to mention Islamic terrorism or assert anything negative about Islam.
The OIC’s task is easier in the EU countries, most of which already have some sort of hate speech restrictions. They vary from country to country. Some are cast as laws against the “denigration of religions”; some are “hate speech” laws; some are “public order” laws and some are “incitement to religious hatred” laws. Additionally, the penalties can range from civil fines to jail time depending on the country. The U.S. is the last hold out on retaining true freedom when it comes to matters of speech.
This past February, the OIC held an Islamic Summit, a high-level meeting held every three years. It is the OIC’s largest meeting. Heads of State and high ranking officials from member states attend. The purpose of the meeting is to provide guidance pertinent to the realization of the objectives provided for in the OIC Charter and to consider other issues of importance to member states and the Islamic Ummah. This year’s theme for the agenda was “The Muslim World: New Challenges and Expanding Opportunities.”
Though the summit focused largely on Syria, Mali, and the “Palestinian issue,” the OIC also made it clear that it would ramp up its efforts to defeat “Islamophobia.”
The OIC is fastidiously working on the creation of legal instruments to address and combat “Islamophobia.” Renewing its commitment to mobilize the West to comply with Islamic blasphemy laws, the OIC vowed to push for nation states to enact laws that will criminalize the “denigration of religions” during in its next Istanbul conference, anticipated to take place this June.
Further, it is requesting that the UN start an international mechanism that could serve as an “early warning system” against instances of discrimination and intolerance on religious grounds. Specifically, the OIC is proposing the creation of an observatory at the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, presumably analogous to the Observatory on Islamophobia that the OIC already maintains. The difference would be that the new observatory would be overseen by an internationally sanctioned entity (the UN) and would expand to all religions.
It is fair to say that since Islamist organizations have coordinated campaigns across the world that encourage and solicit reports of either real, feigned, staged or imagined incidents of “Islamophobia,” the new “empirical data” that such an observatory would collect, would still be drastically skewed. No other religion has a worldwide campaign instructing its members to report unpleasant truths as “bigotry” or to complain about slights as minor as “hostile looks.”
Additionally, the OIC is continuing to use the language embodied in pre-existing legal instruments in order to make it harder for Western countries to object. For example, Resolution 16/18 mirrors some of the language in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). ICCPR, Article 20 states “the advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” The U.S. rightly signed a reservation to this clause, effectively opting out, insisting that Americans retain the right to exercise their First Amendment freedom of speech.
Further, though Article 20 makes such speech illegal, it leaves the definition of these terms open to interpretation and does not specify that the illegality must be criminal in nature. Despite this, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, spokesman for the OIC Secretary General, insists that pursuant to Article 20 the “denigration of symbols or persons sacred to any religion is a criminal offense.”
Such claims are indicative of the legal and linguistic gymnastics that the OIC will use to achieve its goal to “combat defamation of Islam” and to export Islamic blasphemy laws, labeling them as something aesthetically easier to swallow.
At the Summit, OIC members also unanimously elected Iyad Madani to the post of OIC Secretary General. His term is to commence in 2014 when current Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu’s term expires. This is the first time that the OIC will be headed by a Saudi.
Though the current OIC regime is comprised of sticklers for Islamic blasphemy laws and staunch advocates for the obliteration of Israel, it is likely that the OIC will become even more extreme under Madani. Compared to the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia, Ihsanoglu and gang can be considered reformers pushing “Islam lite.” The election of a former Saudi Minister to head the largest Islamic organization in the world and lead the UN’s most powerful voting bloc is a bad omen of what’s to come. Indeed, it would come as no surprise if under its new leadership, the OIC’s old leadership would be labeled “Islamophobic.”
swissdefenceleague 