The silenced fight in US and UK against islam, the worst threat to Human Rights

Media and presidential candidates silent about the most important issue, evil islam/Sharia.

Diana West: It's important to realize sharia's prohibition of criticism of Islam is basic Islam: There is nothing "radical" about it. Indeed, it is this basic Islamic censorship that is at the crux of why Islam itself -- not "Islamism," not "radical Islam," not "Islamists," but Islam -- is an existential threat to the survival of any free society. It is why free societies, once penetrated by a Muslim demographic over 1 percent, begin to lose their liberties as a means of "accommodating" -- appeasing -- their new Islamic populations. The problem is that no one in public life in America, land of the First Amendment, will acknowledge this fundamental, non-radical Islamic threat to this single most important foundation of our liberty -- free speech. And that includes even La Belle Michele. Early in her speech she gives what might be considered the obligatory sop to PC. While it won't provide her a shred of political cover, it does shatter the arc of understanding the threat, which is why I mention it. Bachmann, from the C-SPAN transcript : No one here is suggestion that all Muslims are radical, but we should not be ignorant of the objective reality that there is a very radical wing of Islam that is dedicated to the destruction of America, of Israel, and of Israel's allies. All Muslims are not radical, she says, which is a logical enough statement, although truly beside the point, which concerns the existential threat posed by Islamic law and ideology to Western liberty. Juxtaposing Bachmann's non-radical Muslims with that "very radical wing of Islam" she also singles out takes us all right back to the "tiny band of extremists" theme, sounded by everyone from George W. Bush after 9/11/01 to Hillary Clinton after 9/11/12. This is only one point in Bachmann's 19-minute address, but it is a foundational flaw that puts any call to Americans to be vigilant in their defense of liberty onto a cracked footing. Why? Because it implies that within Islam itself -- within its laws, customs and culture -- there is a doctrinal basis for Western-style liberty, too. If it is only the "radical wing" of Islam that is waging this war on the West through a war on freedom of speech, then all we need do is align with the moderate Muslim hordes out there. Indeed, this same non-realist thinking is the rationale for "Muslim outreach," which Bachmann has courageously decried as a vehicle for jihadist penetration of the US Government. I think the best way to press the point is to focus on Islamic law and ideology. After all, it is ridiculous for any one person to speak for the imagined deviations from Islamic doctrine of "all Muslims," anyway. To paraphrase Ibn Warraq, Geert Wilders and others, there may be moderates who are Muslim, but Islam itself -- its doctrines, its law, its customs, its goals -- is not moderate. Islam is radical.

In UK the worst threat to Human Rights is hidden by the Government under the weird expression: "We are against ALL forms of extremism", i.e. implying, in accordance with OIC/Ihsanoglu/Sayeeda Warsi, that "islamophobia" (i.e. the defense of Human Rights) is "extremism"!

‘The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality)' Bill proposed by Baroness Cox, had its second reading in the Lords on Friday. Cox:

‘Awareness of the need for the Bill arose from mounting evidence of serious problems affecting some women in this country from the application of Sharia law. I immediately reassure your Lordships that I am not anti-Muslim. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that Muslim women enjoy their full legal and civil rights under the law of this land. If women from other faiths experience comparable problems of systematic discrimination, the provisions of this Bill would also be available for them as it does not name any religion.

The problems I will highlight often arise because many women believe that Sharia courts are real courts and do not know that they have other rights under English law or they are pressured by their family or community not to seek those rights outside their community. I give two examples of the kinds of problems afflicting women in this country. I have met these women and witnessed their distress. One suffered such severe domestic violence that she was hospitalised. She was pressured by her family not to seek help from the police as this would bring “shame” on the community. She went to the local Sharia court or council and was told to return to her husband. She did so and suffered more domestic violence. Then her husband divorced her, went back to his country of origin and returned with a second wife. As a devout Muslim, she wanted a religious divorce to allow her to remarry in accordance with her faith but the Sharia court demanded her marriage certificate which her husband’s family kept. Attempts to retrieve it resulted in violence in the name of “honour”, as she was blamed for bringing shame on the family by seeking a divorce. Seven years later this devout and desperately lonely Muslim lady is still unable to obtain her divorce and remarry.

Secondly, a Muslim widow wanted to remarry but was told by the Sharia council or court that she must obtain the permission of a male relative. She had no male relative in this country so she had to travel to Jordan to obtain the written permission of a seven year-old boy relative in order to be able to remarry in this country. It is not surprising that another young woman complained, “I feel betrayed by Britain. I came to this country to get away from all this but the situation is worse here than in my country of origin”.

Other examples concern children. Under Sharia law a father who divorces his wife can claim custody of his children once they reach the age of seven. This gender discrimination violates the fundamental legal principle in this country that custody should be determined according to the best interests of the child. These examples are just the tip of an iceberg as many women live in fear, so intimidated by family and community that they dare not speak out or ask for help. A lady came to see me in my home. I shall never forget seeing her hide behind a tree because she was so terrified of being seen. We should not have such fear in this country.’

 . .