SOLO-International Op-Ed: It's the Muslims, Stoopid!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2010-11-17 07:20

SOLO-International Op-Ed: It's the Muslims, Stoopid!

Lindsay Perigo
November 16, 2010

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...

—Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Americans are rightly outraged that in order to fly internally they must now submit either to a radioactive scan showing their bodies in their naked entirety or an aggressive “pat-down” that in any other circumstances would be considered sexual assault. Great throngs of humanity not just in America but all over the world have been appalled at the pictures of a three-year-old girl being molested and caused heart-rending distress by a bull-dyke goon in Transportation Security Administration uniform. A young male traveler has just assured himself of immortality by saying to another goon at another airport, “If you touch my junk I'll have you arrested.” “Don't touch my junk” is set to rival the historic “Don't tread on me” as the war-cry of freedom-loving Americans. Thanksgiving itself is set to become an occasion of mass civil disobedience as the call goes out to holiday flyers to refuse to take the scan.

This whole commotion has arisen because of government's and authorities' refusal to acknowledge one incontrovertible fact: the sub-human creatures whose murderous activities these measures are designed to thwart are Muslims. It may be true that not all Muslims are terrorists; it's definitely true that in the current context all terrorists are Muslims. Given that, it's Muslims who should be targeted for special surveillance; everyone else, unless reasonable suspicion falls upon him, should be left unharassed. Unfortunately, such a policy, known as “profiling,” known to have served the Israelis especially well, is decreed offensive by the Politically Correct, Islamogoblinite-loving elite. They, not to put too fine a point on it, should be told to shove it. When 3-year-olds are lawfully molested in order to placate the pseudo-sensibilities of this elite, it's time to say, enough!

The great irony is that some of the loudest shrieking against the scan devices is coming from Muslim women protesting the ability of these machines to see through their smelly barbarian apparel. If they devoted comparable energies to dissuading their co-superstionists from behaving like the savages they are, things might not have got to this point.

As it is, airline security should be handed back to the airlines. They should be free to contract it out as they see fit. No airline wants to lose its passengers or planes (and thus its reputation); equally, no airline wishes to become notorious for needlessly and infuriatingly harassing and molesting those who travel with it. Rational self-interest should be allowed to take its course, not the officious power-and-sexual lusts of bureaucratic pedophiles and voyeurs. Then, though no arrangement can ever give a 100% guarantee of safety, we could know that risks were abating to reasonable levels and that attention was going where it should: not to innocent infants but to the stinking, stupid superstitious savages intent on blowing up the 'infidels” who don't share their savage, stupid, stinking superstition.

The inalienable right to liberty subsumes the right not to have one's junk touched against one's will. America's apparent reawakening to facts like this, on top of the recent election results consigning the neo-Marxist Obama to the ashcan of history, offers additional cause for thankfulness this Thanksgiving.

Lindsay Perigo: linz@lindsayperigo.com

SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists): SOLOPassion.com


Rosie

Leonid's picture

"Are you telling me that in SA the court ignores the mens rea component to a crime?"

No, but in this particular example of witch-hunt intention to kill is obvious. In your example you presented a case of unintentional killing, manslaughter which is criminal offense in NZ and UK. Can you give any reason why NZ authorities failed to prosecute the offender? A genuine intention to drive away evil spirits is irrelevant to the fact that these people committed manslaughter. Inquisitors who burned people alive also had had a genuine intention to save sinners' souls for eternal life in heaven. Would NZ courts consider this as mitigation factor and drop charges of murder? The moment courts start to consider baseless believes as relevant evidence is the moment when the rule of law will be replaced by the rule of faith which means return to Dark Ages.

Pastor who threatened to burn Quran plans UK visit

Marcus's picture

"LONDON – Britain's interior minister said Sunday she will consider barring from the country a Florida pastor who threatened to burn a Quran on the anniversary of 9/11.

Terry Jones says on his website that he has been invited to a rally in February organized by the far-right English Defense League.

Home Secretary Theresa May said Jones "has been on my radar for a few months now."

"If it is now clear that he is definitely coming to the U.K., this is of course a case that I will be actively looking at," she told Sky News.

The government has the power to bar people considered a threat to public safety or national security.

A previously obscure preacher, Jones gained infamy through his effort to burn the Quran. He canceled the event after international pressure.

The campaigning group Hope Not Hate said Jones should be barred because "only extremists will benefit from his visit."

A list published by the government last year revealed 22 people were banned from Britain for extremism, including an Egyptian cleric, Russian gang leaders and anti-gay American preacher Fred Phelps Sr.

The English Defense League opposes what it calls the spread of Islam, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England."

Pastor who threatened to burn Quran plans UK visit

Leonid

Rosie's picture

In NZ, as with the UK, crimes under the Crimes Act are broken down for the purposes of the law to the mental and physical components of the crime - both of which must be proven to a particular standard of proof. The mens rea is the mental element or more commonly thought of as the intention. Thus, with a charge of murder, there is a requisite need to prove intention to kill before any charge can become a conviction for murder. If the person's mental element can be proved to be devoid of any intention to kill (and in the Maori case I mentioned, in fact a genuine intention to give the child a renewal of life) then the evidence that is used to prove the mens rea is of course relevant to the court of law here. In the Maori case, the evidence admitted to prove lack of intention concerned the belief that the ritual being practised would drive away evil spirits.

Are you telling me that in SA the court ignores the mens rea component to a crime?

Rosie

Leonid's picture

"Here is a link to one of your posts that had the effect of "reassuring" me that there were no concerns for you that Shari'a law was being acknowledged in UK courts with regard to some disputes between Muslims."

I don't know how you concluded that. In any case your conclusion doesn't follow from my post. That what I said in this post:

"In regard to Sharia in the West-it's not a law of the land; it serves Muslim communities which adopted it. The laws of the land suppose to protect the rights of all citizens. If practice of Sharia colludes with common law, common law prevails."

Since Sharia is not a law of the land it has nothing to do with UK courts, civil or criminal. If Muslims want to settle their domestic disputes according to Sharia they can go to Muslim court which decisions are NOT endorsed by State. I think it's clear. If, however, British or American courts adopt Sharia, it only would mean that separation between religion and state doesn’t exist anymore in the West. Why not to adopt then Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or any other religious law as a part of legislation?

"There was a case in NZ not so long ago involving a large Maori family,"

I wonder what is the legal mind set in NZ? In South Africa many people believe in witchcraft and burn alive old women whom they consider to be witches. Such a people are treated by courts as murderers, their believes have no considerations or consequences in the legal process.

Linz

Rosie's picture

Why is your latest post addressed to me? You make not the slightest effort to answer me.

Silly boy. Bad reading boy. The Redneck journalist variety. Eye

Your request: Please explain how it breaches the Constitution.

From my post addressed to you and Leonid (and the answer to your question, why was that post addressed to you?):

My response: I have my personal view of why the Oklahoma legislation was in breach of the Constitution, (based on my experience of law and how to interpret it), because I am not a US Constitutional lawyer, I would like to read the full Oklahoma Judgement first. Can anyone get hold of a copy?

I know I have already given you my opinion by email but it would be improper and unwise to answer the question publicly without reading the case as I am not familiar with US precedent and would wish to answer it properly. I do recall from somewhere that the court requires an example of how the breach of the constitution affects the individual making the claim personally which would explain the hurt feelings bit - and that would tie in with my informal emailed answer.

I would take it as law (!) that the legislation was a breach of the Constitution however. These Constitutional law Judges do not get it wrong. But I am interested to read the case all the same.

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You're disgusting.

Linz

Rosie's picture

Why is your latest post addressed to me? You make not the slightest effort to answer me.

Silly boy. Bad reading boy. The Redneck journalist variety. Eye

Your request: Please explain how it breaches the Constitution.

From my post addressed to you and Leonid:

My response: I have my personal view of why the Oklahoma legislation was in breach of the Constitution, (based on my experience of law and how to interpret it), because I am not a US Constitutional lawyer, I would like to read the full Oklahoma Judgement first. Can anyone get hold of a copy?

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Why is your latest post addressed to me? You make not the slightest effort to answer me.

Here's what I posted to you:

_________________________

I'm sorry, but as already explained, not surprised, to see you joining the ranks of the useful idiots for the Sharians. I can't imagine why Leonid has suddenly deserted you.

You say:

1.1 All legislation must comply with the principles of the Constitution (in this case the legislation was ultra vires the Constitution because it breached the rules set out in the Constitution regarding legislation about religion).

Please explain how it breaches the Constitution. Here's the First Amendment to the Constitution, the one relevant to this argument:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here's the amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution approved by the voters but blocked by the useful idiot judge:

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

Shall the proposal be approved?

For the proposal

Yes: __________

Against the proposal

No: __________

Again, please explain how this breaches the constitution.

Breaching the constitution is not what the useful idiot judge charged it with, in any event. What she said was that the measure

"conveys an official government message of disapproval and hostility toward his [the complainant's] religious beliefs, that sends a clear message he is an outsider, not a full member of the political community, thereby chilling his access to the government and forcing him to curtail his political and religious activities."

"While defendants contend that the amendment is merely a choice-of-law provision that bans state courts from applying the law of other nations or cultures - regardless of what faith they may be based on, if any - the actual language of the amendment reasonably, and perhaps more reasonably, may be viewed as specifically singling out Shariah law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff's faith."

In other words, it's all down to this hurt feelings bollocks that you, Rosie, so love. State law is now to be based on Islamogoblins' umbrage. "Forcing him to curtail his religious and political activities"? What unmitigated garbage! How is this piece of shit's right to engage in religious and political activities curtailed by an amendment that says all legislation must be based on the Constitution which guarantees him freedom to believe and practise (without IOF) his stinking, stupid savage superstition ?!

The Islamosavages are trying it on. Wake up, numbskulls!!!!!!

_______________________________

In case it wasn't clear, I was asking you to explain how the Proposition voted for by Oklahoma voters which "makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases" and "forbids courts from considering or using international law" and "forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law" represents a breach of, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." You had already said, categorically, "in this case the legislation was ultra vires the Constitution because it breached the rules set out in the Constitution regarding legislation about religion." I'm still awaiting your explanation, not an horrific revelation that you're now sympathetic to Mordi superstition too! Your unproven allegations of journalists' bias against the judge in the exorcism case are just that—unproven (and I would argue, if it were relevant, unfounded) allegations, and prove nothing at all about the Oklahoma case. You state your PC opinion as though it were fact and then snidely ask me, "Sound familiar Linz?" Does what exactly sound familiar? Two words occur to me.

This is a trained legal mind at work?!

I do note that you've now downgraded your categorical assertion to an unstated "personal view of why the Oklahoma legislation [sic] was in breach of the Constitution," but you want to read the full judgment before sharing, notwithstanding having rushed in in your previous posts. The extracts I quoted show clearly the judge's staying of the Proposition was based on the Islamosavages' claim that their right to practise their religion was somehow under attack and their feelings were hurt.

Leonid and Linz

Rosie's picture

Religion has no place in the court of law. Rugby rules are acceptable to secular society...its rules are are not based on some supernatural authority.

There was a case in NZ not so long ago involving a large Maori family, their genuinely held superstitions about evil spirits existing within a person and the employment of particular methods to remove such evil spirits. In the event of one of these mass gatherings to remove such an evil spirit from a child, because the method involved a somewhat reckless use of immersion of the child in water, the child actually drowned and died.

There was a lot of hooha about this case in the Press and even here on SOLO because the people who performed the ritual (one of whom was the mother) were charged but not convicted of either murder or manslaughter. On the simple reporting of the case by journalists it seemed and claimed that the Courts were treating Maori differently from Pakeha - allowing them a lower standard, tolerating and respecting rituals that would not be tolerated by Pakeha, and so forth. Again, with my understanding and faith in law, its necessary impartial application by the Judges and my trust in the courts I could not believe what I was reading and so I got hold of a copy and I read the full judgement.

The position had been badly misunderstood by non legal minds and it became very plain that the emotion and over-sensitivity to a particular political view and attitude that had become entrenched in the minds of Pakeha Journalists and others like them (known as rednecks) had caused them to misread the Judgement. The redneck's view disapproved of the Waitangi Tribunal and the payment to tribes under the Treaty or any other benefit or right ascribed to Maori as a result of the Treaty, believed Pakeha were overcompensating for past injustices to Maori, which they believed were not injustices at all, and they also believed that the law relating to the Treaty was incorrect and just a "PC" sort of thing for votecatching by politicians. Their twisted attitudes actually caused them to misread the Judgement - to actually be unable to read it with impartiality- and instead had somehow read their pre-conceived political views into the Judgement and then used the outcome of the Judgement to support their views that Pakeha Judges were soft and Maori were receiving special treatment! As a result they completely overlooked and failed to understand the subtleties of law as applied to the facts of the case! I was incredulous.

I bellieve we are experiencing a similar thing with this Oklahoma case.

Not only were the facts of the supernatural belief that the removal of the evil spirit would occur as a result of the ritual relevant to the facts of the case and the defence so that it was required to be heard by the Court in evidence in the same way that evidence from a religious practice can also be relevant (only this was in the criminal court which court is not available to Muslims whose dispute is based on Sharia Law);
not only was the ritual based on a supernatural authority and not accepted by secular society as is the case with Islam;
not only did the case involve a race that had received unfair treatment by the white majority on grounds of its race in the same way that innocent Muslims had received unfair treatment as a result of their religion;
not only was this race now perceived to be receiving special treatment because of the past injustices in the same way as Muslims are now perceived to be receiving special treatment;

but, as a result of the negative political attitude to Maori by the journalists, they had read what they wanted to read and ignored what did not support their view and (with undoubted ingenuity) had therefore misunderstood, misreported and misrepresented the Court in its judgement and led the public in an incorrect and highly destructive belief that the Court was not impartial in the application of the law.

Not only did they claim the Court was not impartial but they were claiming it was wrong. The Judge was biased. The Judge did not know how to apply the law to the facts without twisting and construing the law to reach a decision that would accord with his PC political convictions. Even murder would not be judged fairly and with justice by a Judiciary with PC principles where Maori were concerned. And our Judiciary therefore could not be relied on to perform its job of imparting justice.

Sound familiar, Linz?!

In actual fact, after reading the full Judgement, it was absolutely plain and clear to me that it was not the Judges but the Journalists who were guilty of those exact characteristics with which they were accusing the Judge. It was a most extraordinary paradox.

My opinion is that the same thing is happening here with this Oklahoma case. And, although I have my personal view of why the Oklahoma legislation was in breach of the Constitution, (based on my experience of law and how to interpret it), because I am not a US Constitutional lawyer, I would like to read the full Oklahoma Judgement first. Can anyone get hold of a copy?

Leonid

Rosie's picture

Here is a link to one of your posts that had the effect of "reassuring" me that there were no concerns for you that Shari'a law was being acknowledged in UK courts with regard to some disputes between Muslims.

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

If you read my post just prior to this link, to which you are replying, you will see how your response does not confirm my concerns or raise any other concerns of your own regarding Shari'a law in the UK court system but, rather, seems to nonchalantly dismiss them - this is certainly how I took it back then. It does not seem to reflect or raise your current position or concerns.

With regard to your reply to my point about Sharia law being heard in court as evidence only, you will appreciate that this occurs only with commercial and domestic disputes - not the criminal court - so your example of Shari'a law being the defence to the removal of an arm would not be allowed. Domestic disputes are heard in the Family Court whose rules are less formal and more particular. The relevance of this to our discussion is that the culture of the parties is relevant and an established criteria for consideration in terms of both the dispute and determining the outcome and appropriate solution - particularly for children.

Rosie

Leonid's picture

To start with, I don't recall that I ever expressed satisfaction of “the practice of the UK courts hearing disputes between Muslims based on Sharia law and special courts for this purpose,". I even not aware of such a practice. If this is a case, it definitely represents a deviation from the principle of separation of religion and state. As you may already know, I don't approve on such a practice, unless you are talking about Muslim religious courts, which have nothing to do with the state or legislature. They are not courts of law in the full sense, but rather institutions of arbitrage. Their rulings not endorsed by the power of state but accepted voluntarily.

"My understanding had been that the UK were allowing UK citizens to be governed by two different sets of law."

Your understanding is obviously wrong. As a lawyer you should be aware of the fact that without executive power of the state Muslim courts are simply talk shops. Such a law cannot govern anybody, unless people give their full voluntary consent. From the legal point of view such courts are extra-judicial; they have nothing to do with the legal system.

I also never said that Sharia law cannot be discussed in the court. I said it cannot have any legal status. If certain act is a crime from the common law point of view, but from Sharia point of view it is not, court has no right to take Sharia in consideration. If husband beats his wife and claims that he is innocent because he's acting in according with Sharia, such a statement should be simply ignored by court without any further examination. Your analogy with rugby is irrelevant. Rugby is not a religion; its rules are acceptable by secular society and not based on some supernatural authority. I don't understand how the introduction of Sharia or any religious practice in courts can endorse the separation between legislature and executive power of the state. If anything, it only could be detrimental. It would mean the usage of executive power in order to enforce religious rule-like in medieval times. I have no need to understand Muslim religious practice and so the courts. Such a practice has nothing to do with justice; it shouldn't have any place in the secular legal system. For me this is sufficient argument to conclude discussion on this issue. However, if people want to live in accordance with Sharia, they are free to do so as long as they don't infringe the rights of others and don't impose their religion on the secular courts. They can use their own religious courts instead. State has no obligation whatsoever to enforce religious rulings. As I mentioned many times before, in the case of collision, common law prevails. There are no religious crimes under Western system of law. If Muslim court executed arm amputation, Sharia cannot be used as a mitigation factor and perpetuators should be treated as common criminals who committed assault and grievous body damage. If Christian fundamentalist denied medical treatment from his child on religious grounds and child died, he should be charged as a murderer, not as a Christian. Religion has no place in the court of law.

No problem at all. But, hey,

Rick Giles's picture

No problem at all.

But, hey, the point of what you're doing is to create awareness of the threat of Islamic terrorism. It seems like you've made multiple points and have a long, dull, follow-up in pre-production. Can we at least admit, given that, that making a clear positive case for this issue is not a simple matter?

If you can't get it down in a sentence, or a paragraph, or a page, you must truely be a lawyer.

The unchanging philosophy to which I have adhered, throughout my life, is to be true to myself.

That's actually quite a big deal, I'd like to hear more about that. Go on?

Rick

Rosie's picture

Many apologies, Rick.

I made a grand start replying to you last Friday having ignored SOLO (and everything else) for over a week while I was sorting out crime, corruption, allegedly false convictions and prison sentences. I have my draft reply still but, from memory, I didn't post it because it wasn't quite ready and I decided to come back to it. You had asked for so much, I think, that even after a long time on it I didn't quite complete it. Then, as you correctly point out, I got distracted! I will need to reread it.

(It probably isn't very interesting anyway, but I will endeavour to complete it!)

The unchanging philosophy to which I have adhered, throughout my life, is to be true to myself.

Incidentally, my name and

Rick Giles's picture

Incidentally, my name and photo are legitimate - but why do you ask?

I'd like to know a bit about you if that's ok? You're a Kiwi, that's a start. We've not been introduced. I wonder what your philosophy is.

You've started something I wish you to continue, Rosie, so I'm happy to drop this question if it means you attend to the 7 others?

Utter twaddle, Rosie!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm sorry, but as already explained, not surprised, to see you joining the ranks of the useful idiots for the Sharians. I can't imagine why Leonid has suddenly deserted you.

You say:

1.1 All legislation must comply with the principles of the Constitution (in this case the legislation was ultra vires the Constitution because it breached the rules set out in the Constitution regarding legislation about religion).

Please explain how it breaches the Constitution. Here's the First Amendment to the Constitution, the one relevant to this argument:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here's the amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution approved by the voters but blocked by the useful idiot judge:

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

Shall the proposal be approved?

For the proposal

Yes: __________

Against the proposal

No: __________

Again, please explain how this breaches the constitution.

Breaching the constitution is not what the useful idiot judge charged it with, in any event. What she said was that the measure

"conveys an official government message of disapproval and hostility toward his [the complainant's] religious beliefs, that sends a clear message he is an outsider, not a full member of the political community, thereby chilling his access to the government and forcing him to curtail his political and religious activities."

"While defendants contend that the amendment is merely a choice-of-law provision that bans state courts from applying the law of other nations or cultures - regardless of what faith they may be based on, if any - the actual language of the amendment reasonably, and perhaps more reasonably, may be viewed as specifically singling out Shariah law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff's faith."

In other words, it's all down to this hurt feelings bollocks that you, Rosie, so love. State law is now to be based on Islamogoblins' umbrage. "Forcing him to curtail his religious and political activities"? What unmitigated garbage! How is this piece of shit's right to engage in religious and political activities curtailed by an amendment that says all legislation must be based on the Constitution which guarantees him freedom to believe and practise (without IOF) his stinking, stupid savage superstition ?!

The Islamosavages are trying it on. Wake up, numbskulls!!!!!!

An interesting inconsistency, Leonid!

Rosie's picture

Either an interesting insight in to your character or an extreme change of opinion on your part is revealed by your post, Leonid. You see, early in the piece on another thread about Muslims, I became very alarmed when it was mentioned that the UK courts were hearing disputes between Muslims based on Sharia law. I expressed my alarm immediately without researching the matter. My understanding had been that the UK were allowing UK citizens to be governed by two different sets of law. And based on this presumption, and given all I had studied in my law degree about the sanctity of the rule of law, the checks and balances between three independent bodies to prevent abuses of power thereby preserving the democracy and the clever means by which a constitution is largely unalterable (entrenchment, double entrenchment and the separation of powers) - that all this could be just ignored and apartheid (in effect) allowed, I had a fearful prediction of the future of the West and saw everything in the light of nations and governments having no integrity that it could happen without debate, no respect or conviction for the constitution or the principles of freedom and democracy, no regard to the rule of law and one law for one people, weak, manipulatable, corrupt even (were they paid by the oil barons?) and without any regard at all for the blood spilled by their forbears in creating and maintaining the marvel of the UK - the Westminster System.

You responded to my post. You are not a lawyer so did not explain it in a way that was familiar or was legally clear but you did disagree with me and you did offer reassurance that my fears were not grounded. You mentioned that Sharia law would not rule over UK law if there was a conflict.

As a result of this comment, and your seeming certainty about the point, and I suppose I did find it somewhat surprising that all three powers of the UK could let this occur without challenge, or without a revolution or without even a major news article, I did some research and found the situation to be not as I had initially understood, but as I have reported in my post below.

The extraordinary anomaly now, however, and for which I would be interested to hear your explanation, is in your complete change of attitude, and intellectual viewpoint. Where you were perfectly and totally satisfied that the practice of the UK courts hearing disputes between Muslims based on Sharia law and special courts for this purpose, so much so that you reassured me on the point that there was no problem, suddenly, with the shift of geography to the same situation in the US, you are now saying that no court should hear any dispute arising out of a religious practice. And more than this, you are saying that no mention of any religious practice should be discussed in a court at all. And doing so rather fiercely!

And, conversely, given that while we were looking at the same situation in the UK courts, for you to have reassured me that it was all OK, you must have appreciated that the entire "Sharia law in the courts" business had been fully misunderstood and misrepresented and was actually just a factual circumstance of a dispute under national law and not the court getting involved in Sharia law at all since this understanding is the only explanation that makes it OK.

Yet, this can't be right, because your post below actually shows that you have no understanding at all that the disputes revolving around Muslim religious practice are no more than a fact of the case, and if you did not know this fact which is the only explanation that would satisfy an academic acceptance of it in terms of being within the rule of law, what were your reasons back then for being so complacent about the same situation in the UK?

It is most inconsistent of you Leonid.... and perplexing. Smiling

I look forward to your explanation.

Leonid

Rosie's picture

I am not sure that you have grasped the points.

The first point concerns the relationship between the Constitution and any legislation. The second point concerns the separation of powers (and I do NOT mean the separation of chuch and State here!) and the checks and balances. The third point concerns the nature and relevance of Sharia law to a court - not the fact that it is a religion but only insofar as the practice must be understood where something controversial in the practice has been sufficient to bring a charge under US law and the defence to the claim is in the facts of that practice. I have given a non-religious example by way of analogy to illustrate this below.

1.1 All legislation must comply with the principles of the Constitution (in this case the legislation was ultra vires the Constitution because it breached the rules set out in the Constitution regarding legislation about religion).

The legislation ( the amendment), in this case, was ultra vires the Constitution.

1.2 The separation of powers are as between the executive power (the monarch in the case of UK or the President in the case of the US) , the legislature power (Parliament or Congress) and the Judicial power (the Judiciary or Court which interprets and administers the legislation by way of cases and any controversies arising).

The separation of powers is the separating of powers that make up a political system. Separate and distinct bodies are allocated separate and distinct roles and this system then provides checks and balances by a process within the system that can monitor each power's activities within the political system so that any abuses of power can be checked.

If you want to see in detail how the separate powers function in the US to act as a check and balance upon each other I have put a link here The section of the article about the function of checks and balances as a result of the separation of powers is about half way down.

1.3 In the case Linz reports as "an outrage" we see the checks and balances function occurring by the Court following a challenge that particular legislation is in breach of the Constitution.

1.4 When a judge or a lawyer gives a legal opinion or judgement he is applying facts of a dispute to the law and deciding on the controversial issues - usually whether a practice or act comes within a word in the statute - and the personal feelings of the lawyer or Judge about the content matter of the case are irrelevant to the decision. We are trained in a particular way to do this and our own personal feelings are not a relevant fact of any case!

That is why Linz's response to my explanation of the Judgement, and agreement with it on that rational basis, was so out of line, saying that I had reached a conclusion on a political or emotional level - a "closure of ranks" with some Christian (and I am still buggered by what he meant by that - what closure of ranks? and with which Christian am I colluding so that I have sacrificed my independence, my integrity and my reputation as an academic and lawyer in so doing?!). The practice of law is is a completely academic exercise. The personal opinion of the lawyer is not a relevant fact to be taken in to account in the discipline and practice of the law; it is not relevant to the facts and nor would it be ever considered a relevant reason to be included in the judgement or legal opinion. Linz's misunderstanding of the application of the law is astonishing if he thinks that conclusions can be reached about a legal judgement which are not based on the law and facts alone but, instead, emotion, solidarity with the religious Journal that has reported it (!) or some other absurdity.

In this instance, where it is a constitutional issue, in the US they usually have a special Constitutional Court who decides such matters since it is of such importance that Judges specialising in the Constitution alone are appointed. In constitutional cases - where legislation is challenged by a claim to the court that certain legislation is ultra vires the Constitution - the legislation becomes the fact and this is measured against the relevant article of the Constitution to which that legislation must conform.

1.5 These constitutional Judges know the Constitution inside out - every case that interprets each article, and every document that has been written recording the history, purpose and reason behind each article. They do not get it wrong. They would have to be corrupt to get it wrong. And if they are corrupt then, using a fair legal process, the President has the power to dismiss the Judge - another working example of the checks and balances within the separation of powers.

1.6 In this case, the subject matter was relevant only so far as the legislation was about religion and there is an article in the Constitution that prevents legislation about religion in this way.

1.7 Your point about the practices of a religion should not be even mentioned in a court is a bit short sighted becuase it is not the fact that it is the rules of a religion that is relevant to the court but the fact that those practices record a certain practice or way or behaving that may in some way relate to whatever is in dispute.

By way of analogy, let's look at the practice of rugby to illustrate the point that it is not the religion bit that is relevant to the court but the practice bit and consider this fiction: Following a rugby game Rugbyhead1 lays a claim of assault in the court against Rugbyhead2 - an act he claims to have occurred whilst they were playing rugby. The defence of the charged Rugbyhead2 is to say, oh, but that wasn't assault! That was simply a conventional rugby move. Rugbyhead1 does not agree. He considers it was not a conventional rugby move but a deliberate assault . The nature of the defence would require a Judge to carefully examine the practice of rugby to determine whether the alleged assault was or was not a conventional rugby move.

It is the same point with the case involving Sharia law. It is not the fact that it is a religious practice that is relevant, it is the fact that the dispute arose during or out of a religious practice and the relevant facts of that practice that are pertinent to the dispute, and which facts must be made known to assist the court in understanding the defence, so that he may make a decision. The decision is not a decision according to Sharia law. It is a decision according to US law in the same way as the charge may not be acharge under Sharia law but a charge under US law. Sharia law is just a fact of a case like the practice of the rugby game - relevant only so far as it contains, or may contain, some of the relevant facts of the case and in particular with regard to understanding the defence.

If this distinction is difficult for the non legal mind to see clearly, then this confirms my suspicion that some people, like Linz and you, are "outraged" simply because you can't understand or see that these courts are not judging Sharia law or giving it "special treatment" or additional value or any special respect or affirming Islam in any way but are only interested in the little bits of the facts of the practice relevant to the claim under US law. My suspicion for the purpose of the legislation in the first place was that the courts would have found it rather timely having to get to grips with Sharia law to appreciate which facts were relevant (a job usually done by the barrister presenting to the court), problems explaining to Muslims when all the facts of the case weren't presented to the Court because most were irrelevant to the charge under US law but now I can see another reason why it may have been enacted: members of the public were becoming fearful that the US courts were tolerating Sharia law and taking part as judges in Muslim disputes and making decisions in accordance with Sharia law.

The courts are not making decisions on Sharia law. They can't do this even if they wanted to. They do not have the jurisdiction to do so. The case points this out and makes it clear and plain to the fearful public that it is a religious practice only without any legal status in the US. Its relevance to the court is simply the same as any practice which is a relevant fact of the case and in the claim for the defence.

Rosie

Leonid's picture

Thank you for providing the plethora of technical details, but this is a matter of principle, not technicalities. In principle, state and religion are separated and should stay like that. Government has no right to interfere with religious affairs, but religionists have no right to influence secular law. In the case of collision between secular and religious law, the law of the land should prevail. If Federal court has to take in consideration Sharia then it becomes an executive branch of the Muslim court, that is-it deploys the power of state to enforce religious ruling. In such a case the separation between state and religion goes through the window. In the secular state Sharia, Talmud, or Voodoo laws shouldn't have any legal status whatsoever. If people want to live in accordance to the certain religious rules, it's their private business, as long as they don't infringe the rights of others. However religious court cannot enforce its decisions, this is the prerogative of the state. The adherence to religious law therefore is always voluntarily action which shouldn't even be discussed in the state court of justice.

Oh Rubbish!

Rosie's picture

What a load of nonsense you speak.

Extraordinary and irrational conclusions appear to have been drawn despite there being no reference or connection to what I wrote and no evidence to support them!

Firstly, "Goblinites close ranks" - an allegation of a Christian collaboration between me and er... the other party to this collaboration was omitted...who could it be I wonder? the Christian Journal which Linz himself chose to report the case? and what could this collaboration be? It is a great mystery. Perhaps Linz believes that the Christian Journal and I are in some way together responsible for an Oklahoma Judge's decision about whether the legislation is ultra vires? Or, if not responsible for it, we agree with it simply because there is some remote Christian connection between us which ..er..logically..er.. must mean that we will agree with an unknown and unrelated Judge's decision... even though there is no evidence to suggest we do... or that the Judge has some relationship to this unknown and undeclared collaboration..... In fact there is no logic at all as to why a Journal (or the unknown other Christian party) and I "have closed ranks" !!! or what we have actually closed ranks about!!!

All that can be said of Linz's imaginative allegation that I have closed ranks on an unknown and unstated matter, on grounds of Christianity with an unnamed party, (possibly neither matter even known to Linz) is that it all arises as a result of a legal analysis and explanation for a judicial decision - although my writing contained no reference to, or connection with, Christianity or any Christian, no mention of anything raised in his delusions at all! It is pretty amazing that such a story can be created involving unknown people and secret matters for paranoid closing of ranks and collaborations, conspiracies for other strange religious alliances and all sorts of other strangenesses - simply from a strict legal analysis and rather dry explanation for a Court's judgement. LOL.

Secondly, Linz provides another extraordinary and irrational proposition, which is also a startling example of a non sequitur, that I will, or ought to, collaborate again - only this time in a Christian /Islam alliance and he states the purpose this time - a stoning. LOL. Well, again, it is not very clear how this arises from, relates to, or has any rational basis in, my legal analysis/explanation. In fact, it doesn't. What is more extraordinary, however, in this tale of a man's fall from rationality to fantastical propositions, irrationality and insane delusions is that my legal analysis actually did contain a clear and repeated fact that the penalties imposed by Sharia Law are unenforceable in the US or through US courts where contrary to US law. And although stoning is a penalty, no particular penalty was identified by me in my analysis. It just goes to show that those who claim rationality for themselves in all they do are actually as mad as the next man - but possibly madder since they are without insight!

Linz's response is, sad to say, clear evidence of an emotional and intellectual inability to coherently fashion a rational response when faced with a logical and legally valid explanation for a judicial judgement which contradicts his own response which seemed rather hasty and without due diligence to the ordinary requirements of reasonable research. There was no depth of thought behind that wail of despair for the supposed apathy of America's citizens to what he erroneously perceives as "an outrage" but does not exactly explain why with any rational argument or evidence and which was, in fact, a particularly important constitutional exercise by the judiciary in its role as the check and balance to the exercise of a power by the executive, in passing legislation claimed to be in breach of the Constitution, and which claim was upheld by the Court. Thus the executive power had been found by the administrative power to have acted ultra vires and was checked in accordance with the smooth-running, objective, independent and very reliable infrastructure contained in the political system.

Unfortunately, Linz failed to see the brilliance, or even to appreciate the smooth operation, of a system that consistently, tirelessly and effectively works to prevent abuses of a power by any one of the three powers of State and thereby keeps it free from corruption at this level. So, in fact, the American public had no need to fear any apathy at all on their part in relation to this judgement since it actually confirms that the political system is working just fine without requiring their scrutiny or critical gaze; the US constitution is being upheld, the rule of law is being maintained and the political infrastructure, designed to ensure that all three functions of the State are exercising their powers correctly and properly, is active and responsible. In short, the political system remains secure; it is functioning in accordance with its design and is healthy in its function.

If you, Linz, were to understand the concept of a set of principles by which all laws must be objectively measured and which must comply or be found invalid, and if you could understand that this measure must also be objectively guaged or it would be inconsistent with those same principles, and if you could understand that each power of the State must ensure that the principles are complied with by the other powers, and that any legal analysis must also be objective if it is to be accurate and of any value, you would quickly grasp that my legal analysis was without sentiment, religious overtone, or subjective motive; it was impartial, objective, coldly analytical. I have been trained by Cambridge and Oxford academics, world-class scholars and lawyers from one of the top 5 internationally reknown law firms. I am incapable of analysing the application of law in any other manner and certainly could not even imagine writing a legal opinion that contained the stories you think my writing suggests!!!

To answer the points that you have raised but clearly do not understand:

1. All legislation is an "official statement" of the government and what it represents. How much more of an official statement can you get of a country's position than the law on it, for your prostate's sake?

2. When the government (the executive power) enacts law that is contrary to the first amendment, legislation which identifies a particular religion then goes on to outrightly and without discretion forbid a court to consider its practices in any case - regardless that it may be relevant to the facts of the case and, as such, discretions and other US law may be applicable which, without knowledge of the facts, otherwise would not have been available; in passing the legislation, incorrectly implying that the practices of that particular religion are capable of preventing a court exercising its judgement in accordance with State and Federal law, so that a prohibition requires enactment to exclude a court from ever considering Sharia law, when (a) the religion declares itself to be subject to US law, and (b) in expressly forbidding its consideration by any court, the government has also acted improperly in forbidding the court (as a separate power of the State) the free exercise of its own administrative powers and discretions regarding the hearing of evidence (since evidence is only ever what these religious practices can be accorded given the non-legal status of Sharia law in the US) and, furthermore, (c) legislates so that the effect of the legislation is to restrict the rules of evidence so that one group of people is prejudiced and is not afforded the same rights to be heard as any other group
there is a clear breach of the US constitution and, in fact, a breach also of the important principle at the base of our legal system which you raised, albeit mistakenly in the context, that all men must be equal before the law.

Just as the Jews and any relevant Judaic law was heard by the court in disputes to do with bankruptcy in the example I gave - an effort which clearly failed to clarify and simplify the point by the usually useful teaching tool, analogy - and which would have been a similar breach of the first amendment to fail to do so; and just as a court must have the power to hear any rules that govern any group or any evidence whatsoever that is relevant to a dispute affecting that group, for the purpose of accurately applying US law to the relevant facts, so the court must afford that opportunity to all citizens and their organisations and legislation MAY NOT be enacted lawfully which would COMPLETELY REMOVE THE RIGHT FOR A COURT TO HEAR ANY RELEVANT FACTS PERTAINING TO A DISPUTE FROM ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE; AND WHERE THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE IS IDENTIFIED BY THEIR RELIGION, AND IT IS THE RULES OF THE RELIGION THAT ARE FORBIDDEN AS EVIDENCE IN ANY CASE, IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND AT ANY TIME AND IN ANY COURT there is a breach of the First Amendment, and such legislation is invalid.

2. Why do you say the purpose of the amendment was to seek to prevent special treatment of Sharia law? Its purpose was not clearly stated, in fact. It was dubious, ambiguous. It was this ambiguity that led me to devote a paragraph discussing the possible interpretationsfor the purpose as expressed in the article. Your suggested purpose for the amendment was not even one of the possible purposes discussed however. That suggested purpose is highly unlikely given that both the court and the government are well aware that Sharia Law has never been given "special treatment" - this would be illegal, unconstitutional and there are sufficient checks and balances to prevent this. In law there are rules to assist in working out the purpose for legislation if it has not been provided. One of these rules is to first examine the wording of the legislation. In this case the amendment sought to forbid the "consideration" or "use" of Sharia law by a court in making a decision under US law. This would not indicate the purpose you suggest - to prevent special treatment of Sharia law. It actually provides special treatment of Sharia law in forbidding it as any form of evidence in a court of law regardless of its relevance.
My own opinion for the purpose of the legislation is that, in all likelihood, given the time delays involved in the court system between the original application and the hearing, it would most likely have been an attempt to resolve a complaint or a request by the Judiciary about the prolonged amount of time in court being spent discussing and understanding Sharia law, the determination by the court of which practices of Sharia law is relevant to the facts of the case in the application of US law, and the possible difficulty and timeliness involved explaining to Muslim parties when Sharia Law is not relevant for the purpose of the court's decision.

3. If there is any suggestion that the principle of law, that the law must apply equally to all people, has been abandoned, it could only be in light of the amendment which seeks to forbid the same rules of evidence, ordinarily available to all citizens, to parties who have disputes in court that involve Sharia law. These parties would have restrictions imposed regarding the evidence they may produce to the court.

4. If my views towards the Islam situation have altered, they have altered in one respect only. And that one respect is in terms of the law and how the situation can only be dealt with in accordance with law (as the law is and not how one wishes it to be) if such dealing is not to be based in anarchy, if it is to be legitimate, respected, acceptable to international law so that this law is not transgressed by the government's treatment of its citizens, able to be judged in accordance with set law, based on the principles contained in a country's constitution or founding law, there must be legal authority for any action and punishment, the punishment must be enforceable by law; there are many checks and balances in place which has quelled my initial concerns that it may not be so difficult for Muslims to destroy democracy by using the system of democracy to win votes, gain political power and once the Government was Muslim, to finally replace the law of the land with Sharia Law. The truth is that this would actually be impossible without a major war or revolution because of the doubly entrenched constitutions and legislation that have established democracy in the founding law of a country, the rule of law and the requirement for the separation of powers, and the checks and balances contained in that political infrastructure to prevent the abuse of any exercise of power for the purpose of maintaining a democracy, as contained in a country's founding law.

So, tell me, Linz, using only logic, justifiable supporting evidence to any claim and rightful legal analysis, why you think it "an outrage" to ban legislation in breach of the first amendment, legislation which forbids the hearing of any evidence by a court in any circumstances where that evidence concerns one particular religion where the dispute concerns members of that religion and their dealings have been based on the rules of that religion and which rules are not contrary to US law because, where any religious practice is in conflict with US law, the religion states that the law of the land must apply over the religious practice.

And why is it "an outrage" to you to ban legislation whose effect is to remove a right to the same rules of evidence for one group of people but which all other citizens may enjoy? and, in so doing, would allow the executive power to legislate unconstitutional, undemocratic practices and to abandon the fundamental principle of law, and hard fought for right over Kings, that the law shall apply equally to all men?

And why is it an "outrage" to ban legislation which by its very banning provides good evidence that employment of the checks and balances built in to the system are being actively pusued by way of the separation of powers to maintain democracy; this procedure allows one of the three powers to challenge any act of one of the other three powers which may be ultra vires. The charge is then examined and determined in accordance with legal process. This is, in effect, what happened here. The administrative power challenged the executive power who had acted ultra vires by enacting law contrary to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Why is the banning of the amendment which offers evidence of an effective and valuable infrastructure that works to prevent abuse of a power, and thereby serves democratic stability, "an outrage"?

Goblinites close ranks ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

No surprises in your defence of this outrage, Rosie. You goblinites belong together, and your erstwhile attacks on Islamogoblinism reeked of inconsistency. Now you've gone home. Enjoy! Maybe you could set up IslamoChristo stoning clubs.

One thing:

Judge Miles-Lagrange issued a temporary restraining order a few days after the amendment passed. Imposing an injunction on Monday, she concluded, "The court finds that plaintiff has shown that he will suffer injury in fact specifically, an invasion of his first amendment rights will be violated by Oklahoma's official condemnation of his religion/faith."

This is not even grammatical, let alone constitutional.

And there was no "official condemnation" of anyone's "religion/faith." Just an insistence that no one's "religion/faith" would be accorded special treatment in law: the same law that applies (or is supposed to apply) equally to all.

Actually, Linz,

Rosie's picture

I believe that the ruling is technically and constitutionally correct.

The effect of the ruling is to clarify the status of Sharia law in the US. The article suggests that its status is now defined and held by the Court to be a religious practice or guide only. Its purpose is then clearly confined within the court for consideration on that basis only. I.e., in terms of the religious context to the dispute only.

If it were not held to be a breach of the first amendment, this would have meant that Sharia Law had a legal status equivalent to any other international legal system. To ignore or minimise its association with religion in order to hold that it was predominantly a legal system (more than a religious practice) would mean that it had to be, in one way at the very least, independent of the Islamic religion. Clearly it could not be described in this way as it claims to be the law of Allah - to be obeyed by those who believe in and follow Allah. i.e., Muslims.

The First Amendment states that the government can not pass legislation with respect to the establishment of a religion. By this I take it that government may not legislate with regard to religion. This will no doubt include the inability to pass laws that limit or remove the court's administrative powers and discretions regarding a religion - for example to consider any relevant facts or practices of a religion that may bear upon a case.

Legislation is allowed citing the system of law applicable by a particular Court - in the US this would be State or Federal law.

In this case, the legislation challenged was an amendment clarifying and refining the applicable State or Federal law law - by forbidding a court from considering or using international law and Sharia law in deciding cases.

The issue here, therefore, is whether Sharia Law is the practice of Islamic religious tradition or a legal system equivalent in status to other international law. If it were the former, the legislation would be in breach of the First Amendment since the effect of the legislation would be to limit the power of a court in forbidding it any consideration of any relevant practice of Islamic law in reaching its decision despite its relevance to the facts of the case and a fair hearing and the fact that Sharia law is not legally enforceable in the US. In other words if Sharia law were not an opposing legal system, threatening the application of, and seeking substitution for, Federal and State law but merely a series of religious practices that explained the context of the case and was at all times subject to US law, it would be unconstitutional to legislate to forbid any consideration of its religious practices, which may well bear upon a case, by a court.

The Court was told:
Sharia law is "not actually 'law' but is religious traditions that provide guidance to plaintiff and other Muslims regarding the exercise of their faith."

For example, though in Islam one can marry more than one wife, Muslims in the United States do not do so because Sharia mandates that they abide by the law of the land, the judge said, citing Awad.

The argument used to persuade the Court that Sharia law is a religious practice only was to compare its application and enforceability in respect of Muslims in the US as compared with Islam countries, like Saudi Arabia. There Sharia Law is applied as a complete legal system (or the law of the land) because there is no distinction between law and religion in a purely Islam country. But because Islam states that Muslims following Sharia Law will always be subject to the law of the land where there is conflict between the two, (a) US Muslims will always be subject to US law before Sharia law,(b) US law can not be used to enforce the penalties of Sharia law and (c) Sharia law's limited power as a religious practice or guide only, is entrenched by the US constitution which separates religion from law so that the law of the land can only be secular. This reasoning was adopted by the court as favouring the argument that Sharia law is religious tradition and a guide only and does not possess any legal status in the US. It is not enforceable under US law. It does not impose any legal impediment to the Court's power to decide a case according to the governing and applicable laws of the US. On the other hand, its practice may be relevant to the facts of the case so that any legislation forbidding a Court from considering it and the relevance the religious practice may have on the case, would be a breach of the First Amendment.

By banning this amendment and agreeing it is in breach of the First Amendment, the US courts are actually declaring that Sharia law is NOT considered a distinct legal system (that could be applied apart from US law) but is distinct from and subject to US law and is the practice of Islamic religious tradition - analogous in this sense to Judaic law. It confirms that Sharia law is always subject to the law of the land and so will only be applicable where the law of the land is not in conflict with the religious practice. I.e., Purely Islam countries where no distinction exists between the law and the religion.

By analogy to the relationship between US law and Muslims and Sharia law, there is a fair amount of US legal precedent from the 1950s concerning Jews who were parties to contracts for loans/debts in accordance with the practice of Judaic law and who sought relief through the courts following the introduction of US State bankruptcy laws and the ensuing provisions providing immediate and compulsory deliverance from all debts to creditors upon the Court's declaration of a person's bankruptcy. This was not consistent with Judaic law. For example, if a debt is forgiven under Judaic law it is not unconditional so that the debtor is obliged to repay the debt if and when, with time, he can afford to do so. Although the US courts considered the Judaic law for the purposes of understanding the facts of the case, the intentions of the parties and the dispute, the Court held that the parties were subject to US law and the decision by the Court was made accordingly.

Additional Comments:

It must always be remembered that any two parties to a commercial contract under any legal system allowing complete freedom of parties to contract (subject to it being a legal contract which includes legal subject matter) can agree to contract-out of US law and have the contract governed by any other country's law. Thus I imagine that Muslims could have their commercial contracts governed by Sharia Law in effect by including a term stating that the contract shall be governed by the legal system of Saudi Arabia; whether this contract then requires judgment from a Saudi Arabian court if there is any dispute I am not 100% sure but I believe this is a condition to contracting-out of the domestic law.

The article suggests that the purpose of the legislation was to stop the Courts from having to consider Sharia law in the disputes between Muslims yet the legislation cites that the Courts are forbidden from having to "consider" or "use" Sharia law in making a decision. I wonder whether this meant its purpose was to avoid the Courts from having to consider Sharia Law at all in disputes between Muslims using Sharia law; or was the purpose of the legislation to avoid the Courts from having to use (as in apply) Sharia law - in which case the legislators did not understand that where Sharia law conflicts with US law, Islam states that US law will preside in any event so there should not have been any anticipation of conflict. Nor is the law of the land legally obliged to enforce Sharia law where the penalties are in conflict with US law (which is the same point as the Jewish case I mentioned above).

This is a slightly different point and ruling from the UK position which enacted legislation to specifically allow separate courts to deal with certain Muslim disputes under Sharia law - although note that these courts must apply UK or EEC law where there is a conflict between the two.

Oh for Goblin's Sake!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

http://www.christianpost.com/a...

You stupid, stupid, silent Americans. You deeply moronic useful idiots and fuckwits. WHAT ARE YOU DOING WHILE THIS IS GOING ON?????????

Curt Holmes

Leonid's picture

"The profiling should be based on the essential attributes of the perpetrators. Care to list those, Leonid?"

As I mentioned before, profiling is applicable only to certain individuals and should be based on their activities-connections, frequent travel destinations, political activities and so on. For example a person who's traveling 8 times a year to Pakistan, making large contribution to Hamas charity organizations, and openly support Islamism should be profiled, though his activities are not criminal. However I may be wrong and there are some different criteria for profiling. As you said, it's better to leave this question to experts. But profiling based on religion, race, ethnicity or even gender is not only immoral but also could be misleading. For example you asked: "If you were trying to locate a rapist, would you include women so as not to be sexist?" If you are certain about rapist's sex, the obvious answer is " NO”. But if you not, you should include women, since there is such a thing as women rapists. From the other hand you shouldn't include all men just because they have capacity and equipment. You need specific criteria. By profiling all Muslims as potential terrorists one commits the same sort of fallacy.

"So on his next flight to America he may find himself sitting next to the stunning blonde dressed in miniskirt and short blouse from Dior, smelling Channel 5 and holding ostrich lather hand bag full of plastic explosives."

"This sounds more like fantasy than reasoned prediction."

If you think so, think twice. Review the history of Entebbe and many other terrorist actions. Remember that faithful Muslim shahida (suicide bomber) could easily remove her niqab and “smelling apparel", take a bath in order to remove the camel's shit which she usually uses as her body lotion, put on the infidel's garment and dye her hair-all in the name of Allah. Not to mention the possibility that she simply could be a converted WASP. In short, the point of my little dramatization is that substitution of profiling by stereotyping is stupid and dangerous thing to do. It only can promote terrorism.

"Lindsay makes frequent use of the pejorative,"
-like "Islamofascist apologist, advocate and mole. One of the hydra-heads of the drooling beast."

Yes, our "hospitable" host is often behaving as a fully-fledged moron and throwing tantrums as a 3 years old spoiled demented brat. He should learn some better forms of arguments than “ad Hominem" or regurgitation of the old Soviet " Pravda" clichés poorly translated from Russian.

“But what could easily be mistaken for leftist propaganda is coming from your keyboard."

Try not to make this kind of mistakes; otherwise one may decide that you believe in the prerogative of the Left to defend Western values of freedom and individual rights.

Asra Nomani - Profile Me and My Family

Marcus's picture

From the IQ2 debate.

Has to be

gregster's picture

Unintentional reptilian humour "people who don't fit Linz's stereotype of filthy stinky Muslims. So on his next flight to America he may find himself sitting next to the stunning blonde dressed in miniskirt and short blouse from Deon, smelling Channel 5 and holding ostrich lather hand bag full of plastic explosives."

"I'm sure we have teams of experts who can do this..."

Marcus's picture

We do Curt.

There is a section of the book SuperFreakonomics devoted to the topic.

They report that not only is it possible, but it is extremely effective.

Profiling

Curt Holmes's picture

"Profiling based on religion or ethnicity has another names: bigotry and racism."

The profiling should be based on the essential attributes of the perpetrators.  Care to list those, Leonid?

If you were trying to locate a rapist, would you include women so as not to be sexist?

"Then please explain what fits the profile of a jihadist?"

I'm sure we have teams of experts who can do this and do this well.

"So on his next flight to America he may find himself sitting next to the stunning blonde dressed in miniskirt and short blouse from Deon, smelling Channel 5 and holding ostrich lather hand bag full of plastic explosives."

This sounds more like fantasy than reasoned prediction.

"What a great "Pravda" propagandist [Lindsay] could have been!"

Lindsay makes frequent use of the pejorative, no doubt.  But what could easily be mistaken for leftist propaganda is coming from your keyboard. 

"Profiling based on what fits

Leonid's picture

"Profiling based on what fits the profile of a jihadist."

Then please explain what fits the profile of a jihadist? If you think that any Muslim is suspicious as jihadist, then tell how do you identify a Muslim? Profiling which is based on religious or ethnical stereotypes not only creates segregated society, oppressive tyrannical regime; it's also promotes terrorism in the big way and creates huge security breech, because security becomes imprisoned by stereotypes. Terrorists will requite and use people who don't fit Linz's stereotype of filthy stinky Muslims. So on his next flight to America he may find himself sitting next to the stunning blonde dressed in miniskirt and short blouse from Deon, smelling Channel 5 and holding ostrich lather hand bag full of plastic explosives. One may hope that in case of unfortunate event of explosion his last thought would be a regret for promotion of bigotry in the form of imperative" It may be true that not all Muslims are terrorists; it's definitely true that in the current context all terrorists are Muslims. (Also not true-there are eco-terrorist and many others-Leonid). Given that, it's Muslims who should be targeted for special surveillance;" which means according to his own statement unwarranted targeting of mostly peaceful population.

BTW, I'm greatly enjoy Linz' Leninist Soviet propaganda style phraseology. Remind me my youth in USSR. Sorely, Linz is living in the wrong place and wrong time. What a great "Pravda" propagandist he could have been!

Richard ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You're failing to understand the diabolical reptilianism here. This is what, from my article, the thing is calling "disgusting and indefensible":

This whole commotion has arisen because of government's and authorities' refusal to acknowledge one incontrovertible fact: the sub-human creatures whose murderous activities these measures are designed to thwart are Muslims. It may be true that not all Muslims are terrorists; it's definitely true that in the current context all terrorists are Muslims. Given that, it's Muslims who should be targeted for special surveillance; everyone else, unless reasonable suspicion falls upon him, should be left unharassed.

The thing is in pretend-denial about this and then defends the molestation of three-year-olds by federal lesbian goons and the generalized molestation of every single passenger going about his lawful business. Things don't come much filthier than that.

I allow such filth on here only in order that it may be seen for what it is. Evidently, though, folk don't get it. A truly beyond-scary thought.

The thing is purely and simply an Islamofascist apologist, advocate and mole. One of the hydra-heads of the drooling beast.

Profiling based on what fits

Richard Wiig's picture

Profiling based on what fits the profile of a jihadist. It's only because of jihadis that this situation has arisen. Everything else that you mention is just flotsam and jetsom.

Profiling

Leonid's picture

Profiling based on religion or ethnicity has another names :bigotry and racism. The only rational profiling is the one which is based on the reasonable warranted suspicion supported by solid intelligence-like in case of drug trafficking. Profiling is applicable only to individuals, not to religious, ethnic or ideological groups, otherwise we have to detain, search and interrogate any Muslim and ecologist ( a terrorist), any Columbian ( a drug pusher) any Russian and Chinese ( a communist), any Italian ( a mafiosi), any Catholic priest ( a child molester), any African ( a criminal), and so on and so far-the list is endless. All security forces would be occupied full time in airports, and in the meantime terrorists and plain criminals would reign the cities

The article promotes

Richard Wiig's picture

The article promotes profiling. Profiling is the entirely rational thing to do. It helps reduce unnecessary precautions. Your stance is very strange.

."did you actually read this

Leonid's picture

."did you actually read this article?"

Yes I did and I don't think that private security search is such a good idea. First, we are searching for terrorists, not just for explosives. Such a search requires an intelligence which could be provided only by government agencies like CIA or FBI and I don't think they will share it with private organizations for security reasons. Suspects have to be legally detained according to the procedure acceptable by the court of justice. Evidences also have to be collected in such a way that they could be accepted by court. All these are proper functions of state. Second, for the sensitive person it's doesn't really matter whether cop or private security guard searches him. Private sector has its considerable share of sexual abusers and child molesters. I think that for children it's safer to undergo body search in airport than to sing in the local church choir. The solution which this article promotes-namely: fuck the Muslims and let everybody else alone not only morally disgusting and indefensible but also not feasible for the reasons I stated below. If anything, such a measure could only increase the security risk

Leonid...

Marcus's picture

...did you actually read this article?

"Airline companies are within their rights to demand such a search, as you may demand to search anybody visiting your house."

Don't you think that useful

Leonid's picture

Don't you think that useful idiots are better then useless ones?
In regard to TSA-this situation has been predicted by SF libertarian writer Robert Heinlein in his novel “The Puppet Masters". The narrative describes an alien invasion of parasites from outer space, which are living on people's backs, turning them into puppets. In order to discover such puppets the whole population of USA had to strip almost completely naked. Whoever refused to strip had been shot on sight by the people militia, not government. That maybe sound a bit rough, but desperate times require desperate measures. I do understand that TSA may cause some inconvenience to sensitive people, but this is better than to be blown to pieces in the mid-air , or to be hijacked to Algeria, not to mention events like 9/11. This is true that the ultimate solution should be the victory over terrorism, but until that we have to take all necessary precautions to increase safety. Body search is not a violation of rights, it doesn't involve the initiation of force and people who don't want to submit themselves to such a search may choose different mode of transportation. Airline companies are within their rights to demand such a search, as you may demand to search anybody visiting your house.

Thankyou, Useful Idiots!

Richard Wiig's picture

Thankyou, Useful Idiots!

Now passengers face invasive security checks on trains and boats

Marcus's picture

Now passengers face invasive security checks on trains and boats, warns 'Big Sis'

*'National Opt Out Day' protests fail to take place at American airports
*Only short waits at airport security lines across U.S.
*TSA: We must balance demands for privacy with protecting travellers
*NY Mayor Bloomberg tells passengers: 'Get over' patdown outrage
*Napolitano: Trains and boats could be next to have patdowns
*Poll: Half of passengers think searches go too far


Protest: A passenger at Salt Lake City Airport revealed a stark message to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as he stripped off for a search

Passengers furious at invasive security searches at airports across America were warned today they could soon face similar ordeals while travelling on trains and boats.

Thousands of air passengers began their Thanksgiving journeys amid fears protests against increased security measures could cause major disruption.

But public anger is likely to be heightened today after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano revealed tightened security could also be introduced on trains and boats.

She said : 'I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime.
'(Terrorists) are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through.'...

Blogger Matt Kernan recorded his epic experience as he returned to North Kentucky International Airport in Cincinnati from Paris on Sunday.

Exasperated at being told to prepare for a body scan and with time on his hands, the determined businessman decided to make a stand - with remarkable results.

Writing on his website noblasters.com, he said: 'I certainly don’t enjoy being treated like a terrorist in my own country, but I’m also not a die-hard constitutional rights advocate.

'However, for some reason, I was irked.'

'Maybe it was the video of the three-year old getting molested, maybe it was the sexual assault victim having to cry her way through getting groped, maybe it was the father watching teenage TSA officers joke about his attractive daughter.

'Whatever it was, this issue didn’t sit right with me. We shouldn’t be required to do this simply to get into our own country.'

As a result, Mr Kernan informed staff he did not want to go through the infamous Backscatter imaging machine.

He was told he would have to undergo an invasive pat-down search, but again politely told staff that he would consider any contact with his genital areas as assault.

After being told that the two options were TSA policy, he replied: ' I disagree with the policy, and I think that it is unconstitutional.

'As a US citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained.'

As the situation escalated further airport police were called and more senior TSA officials but Mr Kernan refused to back down, remaining calm throughout.

Eventually causing a stand-off between police and TSA officers over who should resolve the situation, Mr Kernan was told by a superviser: 'Here’s what we’re going to do. I’m going to escort you out of the terminal to the public area.

'You are to stay with me at all times. Do you understand?'

He was then escorted by the police and no less than 13 TSA officer through security without a hand laid on him.

He said: 'And then came the most ridiculous scene of which I’ve ever been a part.

'I gather my things – jacket, scarf, hat, briefcase, chocolates.

'We walk over to the staff entrance and he scans his badge to let me through. We walk down the long hallway that led back to the baggage claim area. We skip the escalators and moving walkways.'

He was then waved away by annoyed officers and said: 'In order to enter the US, I was never touched, I was never “Backscatted,” and I was never metal detected.

'In the end, it took 2.5 hours, but I proved that it is possible. I’m looking forward to my next flight on Wednesday.'...

Incidentally, my name and

Rick Giles's picture

Incidentally, my name and photo are legitimate - but why do you ask?

I'd like to know a bit about you if that's ok? You're a Kiwi, that's a start. We've not been introduced. I wonder what your philosophy is.

I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of the threat of Islamic terrorism in the USA and the Islamic desire to have the entire world under Shari'a law. But let me lead you on a brief journey of recent facts supporting this.

I don't share the same understanding and awareness as you or Lindsay, that's why I ask. And thanks for providing some depth.

1. CAIR - the agency set up after 9/11 to ostensibly protect Muslims' interests in the USA. Fairly recently it has been exposed

A front for what? Isn't Hamas a political party in Palestine? We need more facts than this to prove what you set out to prove.

2. Many mosques have been revealed by journalists masquerading as converted Muslims to be terrorist cells

Can you elaborate a bit on what a terrorist cell does or is or why that proves a desire for world domination? Were they arrested? Is it on a different scale of terror than what the IRD or Dep Womans Affairs legally puts over on us?

3. It is no secret that Islam HATES Jews and seeks to remove them.

Arafat and Hitler hated lots of things. But, again, this isn't a recent fact along a journey supporting what a huge religious population is dedicated to nor that the current threat deserves the gravity you attribute. But I appreciate you're only being brief and will want to develop this and other points more fully.

4. The number of acts of terrorism by Muslims is at least 2.5 times greater in the USA than Europe when

Reported acts. But, again, I'm not sure what you mean by terrorism. We do, after all, live in a statist world where schools and hospitals and councils and police are being paid by us to terrorise us day and night. America, more so. What's a terrorist act?

5. A frightening call to arms by Professor Abdal Hakim Jackson and an insight in to the Islamic desire to make the USA Muslim and governed by Shari'a law

For serious? Surely if we had a dollar for every 'call to arms' written or spoken of we'd have a mountain of money piled up to our chins? Libertarians and Greens and Unionists and Christians have been expressing the perspective that the macroeconomy should reflect their values since forever. And, after all, any other position would be inconsistent. So, what's the fuss? Especially, as I say, in the context of the facts which are that there is already an illiberal statist cloak being more and more drawn over us which we are seeminly not alarmed by. Indeed, are being distracted by even as our definition and attention for what is terror and what is anti-freedom is diluted what may be mythological. But you keep talking, this is interesting what you're laying out here.

6. You would have to have been asleep not to know about the recent use of fear tactics being used by Islamic extremists to try and stop people speaking up and against them.

Sorry. Wake me up and tell me all about that?

7. Finally, for now, earlier this year Obama added

Well, that's my concern isn't it? That Obama and his mates are using your fear to control you. Therefore, feeding you more. Can't address this concern of mine by defering to the authority of the arch-statist leader of the world. You'd have to start by telling me why I should respect what he stands for, or why you do?

These facts certainly reveal to me that the objective of the Administration's security measures is to provide safe travel for its citizens

Well, not as stated.

But I understand that maybe you were just getting started and have some deeper integrity to those points which you will reveal now I've made more plain where they need props.

Thanks for stepping up, and I hope we can get some answers out of this.

I can tell you in a nutshell

Rick Giles's picture

I can tell you in a nutshell what we are up against, or I could be every elaborative about it

Why don't you?

You hardly need to research

Richard Wiig's picture

You hardly need to research it, Rick. You only need take a very quick perusal, just enough to make you think "hmmm, maybe it's not a government conspiracy". But once again, you are not interested. Scoring a point is what interests you. I can tell you in a nutshell what we are up against, or I could be every elaborative about it and provide references (which of course you wouldn't investifate) but either way, it would be a waste of time. A complete and utter fucking waste of time.

Rick need go no further than

Rick Giles's picture

Rick need go no further than this site (a non-government site) to see that there is something to look into:

If there's something there you can use, go for it.

My philosophy is that one accounts for one's own views, doesn't provide research assignments to those who ask how you know.

After all, you wouldn't accept that from me would you? All conversation would devolve into an exchange of citations if you did. And yet only a hypocrite would not accept such reciprocation.

So, please explain.

World Without Hope

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

What makes you apoplectic -- and want to bang your head against the wall, until the pain goes away -- is that currently Muslim women refuse on principle to obey this new gov't regulation. And the gestapo TSA is submitting to them! In other words, half of the hyper-evil group which caused this whole god-awful situation, and which needs to be searched the most, or only, may soon be immune to the regulation.

Time to blow up the planet. No more "reform" -- no matter how radical.

TSA

Marcus's picture

Rosie

Richard Wiig's picture

I argue from the point of view of what should be, not what is. That governments, and certain other useful idiots, do their best to evade the nature of the enemy and the war they've engaged us in, is ultimately suicidal. The rational thing to do is to treat it for what it is.

If we are in a "state of war" it is not a legitimate or formally recognised state whereby the rights of certain citizens would be lost and, this, I think, is where Richard's argument is weakest.

Rosie the resolution of your problem is promotion of reson,

Leonid's picture

It's over billion people are living in the West. In USA alone there are 350 millions. If you think that 1% of Muslim population can outbreed non-Muslims in 50 years then I suggest you'll do your maths again. By far approximation it's quite impossible, even if you mistake Muslims for rabbits. Remember also that raising living standards, good education, exposure to ideas of individual freedom and happiness usually translated in decrease of population growth-exactly as it happened to the rest of the Western population. But even if you're right-50 years prediction belongs to the field of the pure speculations, especially in our age of very fast socio-economical and political changes. In such a long time we may face such challenges that Sharia threat would look like a child play in comparison. From the other hand, 50 years exposure of Muslims to the Western values may profoundly change their believes.

"Am I correct in my understanding of your position, Leonid?"

No, you are not. Sorely, as many others on this site, you misunderstood me completely. It's strange, because my position was crystal clear from the very beginning. One cannot defend Western civilization by undermining its very foundations: inalienable rights, freedom of mind which includes freedom to practice any religion, ownership on one own body etc...The political implication of these principles is only one-government as everybody else has no right to initiate the use of force. It can use force only as retaliation against those who initiated it or plan to do so. Even in such a case government should do it under restriction of objective law. Religion in the West is separated from the state. . There are no religious or thought crimes under Western legal system. For example, one may believe (as many do) that a sacrifice of one human being could bring eternal bliss to the rest of humankind. Government has no rights to interfere with such a people, unless they actually practice human sacrifices. There are no state-sponsored pre-emptive strikes in the realm of ideas. If one believes that he can change people's mind set by unleashing the herd of state elephants in the porcelain shop of man’s ideas, he lives in contradictions. The only proper tool to fight bad ideas, be it Islamism, Ecologism, Socialism or whatever you want, is to present and promote the better ideas which pertain to objective reality. Sadly, these ideas are very scarce in the West, and that maybe a reason that Islam or any other religious fundamentalism including Ecologism in the West has certain appeal. It gives, though wrong, some moral and philosophical guideness to the people who are wandering in the Western desert of mind.
In regard to the war against terror, state has full right to use force against terrorists, but against terrorists only. State cannot define terrorist as everybody with Mediterranean look, Arab name, beard or niqab. State also cannot define terrorist on the basis of one’s religion. The consequences of such an approach you've already learned by your own first hand experience. Any further step in this direction as advocated by some Soloists will promote and justify the establishment of totalitarian state, as history proved many times over. In conclusion this is the winning formula and the resolution of your problem : we should fight terror with all our might and fundamentalism with our entire mind and we should know the difference between them. If Islamists promote Sharia through internet you and everybody else can also promote freedom and reason.

The Problem

Rosie's picture

The problem, as I analyse it, is to say we are in a state of war to legally justify actions against Muslims that contravene democratic principles or do not allow the same civil liberties as other citizens.

I don't think this is correct in any formal sense of the expression since there are certain attributes that must exist to be in a "state of war" and these include the government of one country declaring war on another. Obviously, that has not happened. Terrorism is a form of modern warfare but, due to its one-off nature and the resultant and intervening actions of officials to maintain peaceful relations between nations, a state of war has never been declared or formally recognised between the US and the country/ies of the offending terrorists. WW1 began by a single act of terrorism (the assassination) but a state of war only existed following the declaration of war by one nation's government against another.

So, although Muslim mosque leaders and Muslim organisations have openly declared their desired aim is to convert the USA and the entire world to Islam, written this down for all to see and even, in some cases, openly supported violence, jihad and terrorist acts in order to achieve this, an actual declaration of war has never been made by the US government or vice versa in relation to these statements or 9/11 or any other of the many acts of terrorism by Muslims found by the US courts. If we are in a "state of war" it is not a legitimate or formally recognised state whereby the rights of certain citizens would be lost and, this, I think, is where Richard's argument is weakest. Policing mosques and serious action needs to be taken to protect democracy, western civilisation and its citizens but I do not think the abolishing of civil liberties of particular citizens can be properly or legally justified by saying we are in a state of war so that the rules of warfare apply and the liberties of those citizens connected with the offending country may be removed on that basis.

This is the problem and, unless or until war is declared, or new legislation enacted in some way that does not itself breach the constitution, there is no law that can be relied on to isolate Muslims generally i.e.,without specific cause or on reasonable grounds, and refuse them and their organisations the exact same rights and civil liberties as any other US citizen. This is the insidiousness of what I perceive to be a slow, calculating and very cunning strategy to achieve Islamic dominance in the West.

Leonid

Rosie's picture

If that is going to happen then people of the land duly deserve it.

I don't see it that way at all. Western democracy may well find itself hoisted by its own petard - if you know that expression. What I mean by that is, with the Muslims in Western countries populating exponentially and the non-Muslims enjoying a zero population increase so that it is predicted the Muslim population will outnumber non-Muslims within 50 years, the very values and freedoms that underscore democracy could rather insidiously, and easily, be used to bring it down.

How can you declare that the West deserves to fall if it falls as a result of remaining stalwart to the values and freedoms of democracy yet, in the same breath, you oppose any actions proposed to prevent its fall if those actions on their face contravene democratic principles and freedoms? (The advocates of hard action against Muslims avow that these democratic freedoms are no longer a right for Muslims when the context changed on 9/11 when, they conclude, a state of war began).

Am I correct in my understanding of your position, Leonid? If so, isn't your argument contradictory or, at the least, logically flawed and circular?

What stops you to target them through the internet?

What do you mean? Is your emphasis on "stops", "you", or "them"? It changes the meaning depending where the emphasis is.

I'm not dull. I just refuse to substitute passion by rage.

I wasn't for one minute suggesting your writing is dull. It is not dull. It was just a joke for the benefit of the internet policing agents!

Rosie

Leonid's picture

"However, the peace-loving Muslims are actually sleeper agents. They have a vote. One day, some time in the future, that vote may be used to introduce shari'a law across the land."

If that is going to happen then people of the land duly deserve it.

"Back to the youth of the US, they are being targeted by Muslims, mainly through the internet. "

What stops you to target them through the internet?

"Don't be dull with your writing! "

I'm not dull. I just refuse to substitute passion by rage.

Back to the youth of the US,

Richard Wiig's picture

Back to the youth of the US, they are being targeted by Muslims, mainly through the internet.

And in British schools by the sounds of it.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad...

Make the Muslims Pay

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

This loathsome airport strip-search invasion, humiliation, and Fourth Amendment violation constitutes part of the Israelization of America. And it's horrifying, outrageous, and immensely sad. The Muslims have won a great victory over us. And it ought to infuriate us. Why the hell don't we hate them? Why don't we denounce, rebuke and morally condemn them? They've stolen a significant chunk of our freedom from us! They've successfully lowered America's quality of life. People can debate what the proper response to Muslim jihadism should be. But one way or the other, we ought to take it out on their evil Muslim hides!

And certainly President Obama and his family should be subject to this ghastly treatment. So too all the top officials at the TSA, as well as every Congressman and Supreme Court Justice. Let's see how they like it!

Of course -- most of the above are probably above the law. They self-righteously and defiantly refuse to obey the tyranny that they inflict upon their subjects and (as they see it) serfs. But that's part of the problem too!

Leonid

Rosie's picture

I believe that such identification is based on good intelligence.

I agree.

According to an article I read the other day, the Big Threat to the USA at the moment is the number of American youth converting to Islam. They often become the extremist type - nothing like a new convert - and are evidently taking up arms against the US with a vengeance. Obviously, they are unlikely to look like traditional Muslims so the "physical identity search" would indeed be insufficient. As you say, good intelligence behind any search is needed in addition to detection by physical appearances and, of course, that telltale "foreign" name on the passport.

Which reminds me, a true story: When my best friend and I decided to travel to Israel and Egypt for a month in the 80s, we booked our flights to return to the UK from Tel Aviv. My friend has an Armenian surname (but is a 4th or 5th generation NZer so no Armenian connections any longer) and she had at one time assured me that hers was a surname connected to Great Power, Aristocracy and of famous significance to Armenians! Lol. Anyway, returning from the Tel Aviv airport, I walked through the security gates in to the departure lounge without a problem but, to my horror, when I turned back to see what had become of my friend, I saw her being dragged off by a couple of butch-looking, very strong, uniformed women with guns!!! I was completely shocked and double backed to the gates and asked the security people what on earth was going on? They said she was to be strip searched and interrogated. I protested, what for? but they remained poker faced and refused to say anything more to me. In those days, I don't think I had even watched one of those films about drug trafficking let alone had any idea about the Jewish/Muslim problem or terrorism (apart from the IRA and an IRA cell I accidentally stumbled in on in London - but that's another story!). I then asked the poker faces if I could go back through the gates and wait for her. They said, No, I had to get on the aeroplane and leave. I kicked up a bit of a fuss but to no avail. I was, admittedly, pretty scared by these very tough humourless people and so, I am ashamed to say now, I left her behind.

She was kept for almost TWO DAYS before they let her go. She told me, when she got back, that when they realised she was innocent, they told her that she had been detained because her surname was associated with terrible goings on and that she should never return to Israel if she wanted to avoid trouble with the authorities. So much for her honourable surname: a story of Riches to Rags in three generations. Eye

Back to the youth of the US, they are being targeted by Muslims, mainly through the internet.

Speaking of the internet, I also read that the US Security people have developed an enormous archive of every single internet discussion and website about or mentioning Islam, Muslim and terrorism and these are rigorously gone through by officials as part of an intelligence gathering exercise. So bear this in mind when you next post. I.e., Don't be dull with your writing! Eye

And, in an academic study I read last night, many USA citizens are so afraid that they prefer to have their civil liberties impinged than take any risks with the Muslims' acts of terrorism.

And so (finally) I return to Linz's editorial, the impingement of civil liberties (apparEntly acceptable to many in fear of a worse situation), the need for a more sensible, focussed method for obtaining security and my agreement with Leonid that intelligence is almost always the most reliable means of sniffing out the terrorists in our midst. Looks and surnames are not always sufficient.

However, the peace-loving Muslims are actually sleeper agents. Eye They have a vote. One day, some time in the future, that vote may be used to introduce shari'a law across the land.

Rick

Rosie's picture

I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of the threat of Islamic terrorism in the USA and the Islamic desire to have the entire world under Shari'a law. But let me lead you on a brief journey of recent facts supporting this. I have not gone in to any depth below about the religious Islamic documentation that inspires and incites this desire and behaviour. Res ipsa loquitur. Smiling

1. CAIR - the agency set up after 9/11 to ostensibly protect Muslims' interests in the USA. Fairly recently it has been exposed that this "civil rights" organisation is just a front with senior members of its organisation arranging financial support for Hamas. This information was made public by Anti-CAIR and an ensuing lawsuit. As a result of the lawsuit CAIR has been excluded from its previous enjoyment in important government discussions.

http://archive.frontpagemag.co...

2. Many mosques have been revealed by journalists masquerading as converted Muslims to be terrorist cells. A documentary was made of these revelations and can be found on a previous thread about the Muslim threat to Western Civilisation. It was posted by me but, I am sorry, I can't recall which thread it was. It included pretty sick-making, violent sort of language inciting hatred and violence against American citizens - all on film.

Then there is the 95 page report of the hate ideology filling American mosques - hatred for Jews, Christians, disloyal Muslims who are deemed not Muslim enough and America itself.

3. It is no secret that Islam HATES Jews and seeks to remove them. Nazis and Muslims (headed by Hitler and the uncle of the Palestinian man with the tea towel on his head (now dead), and ironically winner of the Peace Prize whose name eludes me for the moment) were in cohorts to exterminate Jews.

In the United States, jihad terrorist attacks against Jews is a living threat.

4. The number of acts of terrorism by Muslims is at least 2.5 times greater in the USA than Europe when examined in terms of number of Muslims per capita and numbers of recorded acts of terrorism.

5. A frightening call to arms by Professor Abdal Hakim Jackson and an insight in to the Islamic desire to make the USA Muslim and governed by Shari'a law. Not just him, of course, but all the other US Muslim organisations and individuals, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, all openly declaring their point by point plan to achieve this.

6. You would have to have been asleep not to know about the recent use of fear tactics being used by Islamic extremists to try and stop people speaking up and against them.

7. Finally, for now, earlier this year Obama added 675 million Muslims to the ultimate US Terrorism List.

These facts certainly reveal to me that the objective of the Administration's security measures is to provide safe travel for its citizens as opposed to your theory that they wish to restrict freedom of travel to its citizens and are blaming the Muslims for this covert (and, if I may say so, rather strange and seemingly pointless) exercise of power.

What do you think about all that, Rick?

Incidentally, my name and photo are legitimate - but why do you ask?

Janet Napolitano Unveils New TSA Public Relations Campaign

Marcus's picture

"In an effort to boost compliance with new full-body scan policy, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano volunteers to pose in front of the scanner for a TSA poster to be displayed at all airports as part of the TSA public relations campaign.

In related news, a previously unknown group of Straight Rights Activists has started a petition asking why gay men get to have their genitals groped by same-sex TSA officers, while straights can't get the same treatment from members of the opposite sex.

The straight activist group demands the "right to be groped" by a woman instead of a man during the screening procedures at airports. Enhanced pat-down with romantic music and candle light is desirable but optional."

The People's Cube

Now perhaps Rick can lay his

Richard Wiig's picture

Now perhaps Rick can lay his views on the table at long last. Before 9/11 it's understandable that a lover of liberty could have little inkling of the Islamic enemy; after 9/11 there's no excuse.

Rick need go no further than this site (a non-government site) to see that there is something to look into:

http://www.thereligionofpeace....

When he has finally managed to work out that there might be something to this Islamic terrorist stuff, then, and only then, will he be worth talking to.

"Security officials found a

Leonid's picture

"Security officials found a formula for identifying the profile of your garden-variety terrorist.

This works very well and has a high hit rate."

Fine. Then there is no need to identify Muslims, just terrorists who could be Muslim jihadists, eco-terrorists, Columbian drug traffickers, Mexican gangsters etc...etc...etc...I don't think however that such an identification could be based on the look. How Muslim terrorist looks anyway? He may look like a blonde WASP who converted to Islam. I believe that such identification is based on good intelligence.

Security officials...

Marcus's picture

...found a formula for identifying the profile of your garden-variety terrorist.

This works very well and has a high hit rate.

Obama ruled it out as racist because it generally targeted those who looked like muslim terrorists.

Of course border control, police and the secret service still use it, but for the sake of political correctness they have to pretend that they're not using it.

"Given that, it's Muslims who

Leonid's picture

"Given that, it's Muslims who should be targeted for special surveillance; everyone else, unless reasonable suspicion falls upon him, should be left unharassed. "

Great proposal! Unfortunately you just forgot to explain how you're going to identify a Muslim? By appearance? But not all Muslims are wearing beards as you do and not all Muslim women wear Niqab. Some non-Muslims look as Muslims and vice versa. To me , for example, you look like an Iranian. Besides, there are many converted Muslims who could be of Caucasian, African or Oriental origin. How do we identify them? Can we use their names? But many people with typical Muslim names are Christians, Copts or even Jews. From other hand, many converted Muslims keep their original names. Maybe we should check pricks for circumcision? But then we are again in the square one. And what about Jews and other non-Muslims who practice circumcision? Should we introduce the clause of religion and ethnicity into identification documents as it was in old good USSR or just force all Muslims to wear a patch with the crescent as Jews were forced to wear Magen David patch in Nazi Germany? Give to it a thought, State Security Minister in waiting.

Huh? I don't think this is

Rick Giles's picture

Huh? I don't think this is correct, Rick. Firstly, all this "extreme" security is occurring because of the high threat of Muslim terrorists. (No pun intended!) Secondly, the objective of the extreme security is not to tighten the State's grip on our freedom of movement but to ostensibly provide our safe freedom of movement.

Who told you so? Government?

It serves them for you to hold such views.

Rosie, is it? Is that your real name and photo? We've not met.

Linz

Rosie's picture

Is there any legal precedent for successful claims against the government for breaches of the fourth amendment by the government, do you know?

Rick

Rosie's picture

Now then, if the State wants to tighten its grip on our freedom of movement to what plausible bullshit myth can they appeal? "Oh no, dear taxpayer, it's not we who wish to boss you around but those bad Muslims who make us do it to you for your own good."

Huh? I don't think this is correct, Rick. Firstly, all this "extreme" security is occurring because of the high threat of Muslim terrorists. (No pun intended!) Secondly, the objective of the extreme security is not to tighten the State's grip on our freedom of movement but to ostensibly provide our safe freedom of movement.

The point of Linz's Op-Ed is to point out that the method being employed to achieve this objective is inappropriate (a) because of the PC pretence that it is not simply a check on the only real threat: Muslims - being potential terrorists - and thus everyone, nonsensically and unreasonably, gets searched; (b) because its extremism and unreasonableness is a breach of the fourth amendment; and (c) because Linz considers that it is not the job of the gummint but the airlines to decide the security measures. (The cost of this current indiscriminate security could not be met by the airlines without increasing airfares dramatically and thus if it were the airlines' responsibility it would only provide measures that target reasonable threats.)

This editorial, though it wants very much to be doing the opposite, gives statism the enabling succor it NEEDS. Whitehouse Press Secretaries get paid to spin what you write for free.

Huh? For the reasons above, this editorial is spot on (for those that can comprehend it) and is certainly not one that would come from a Whitehouse press secretary! It is clearly against the indiscriminate security methods, criticises the gummint for taking it on and then again for doing so in such a wholly unreasonable fashion so as to breach the fourth amendment; and all this for the sake of PC appearances and, probably, (my addition) so as not to threaten international relations by offending the Muslim friends of Obama - the politicians and oil barons of Saudi Arabia et al which, if it had been left in the hands of the airlines as it properly should have been, would not have been an issue.

Not the Muslims

Rick Giles's picture

Sticking up for children? Nice to see.

it's definitely true that in the current context all terrorists are Muslims

Do you want to flesh that leap of logic out some?

What's really going on here, if I may, is that the state likes power. Likes it very much. Will sell us whatever bullshit we buy to get it.

The State bullshits the feminist lobby and champions its programs. But only the programs that expand state power such as paid parental leave.

The State bullshits the students and champions student interests. But only the interests that expand state power, such as interest-free loans.

The State bullshits environmentalists and champions their policy. But only the policy that expands state power, like carbon credits.

Now then, if the State wants to tighten its grip on our freedom of movement to what plausible bullshit myth can they appeal? "Oh no, dear taxpayer, it's not we who wish to boss you around but those bad Muslims who make us do it to you for your own good."

This editorial, though it wants very much to be doing the opposite, gives statism the enabling succor it NEEDS. Whitehouse Press Secretaries get paid to spin what you write for free.

Marcus, I'd have said....

Craig Ceely's picture

"egalitarian," rather than socialist. But you're right.

All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more....oh, it's become tiresome repeating that one, hasn't it?

I can't see...

Marcus's picture

....why the rejection of "profiling" is driven by concerns of racism.

Did Obama and friends ever consider that innocent people of "non-muslim" description are therefore being handled in a racist way?

In other words, if there are no terrorists amongst non-muslims, innocent people are only being targeted by security because they are "non-muslim" and innocent.

It's part of the socialist ethic. Sacrifice the victim and protect the criminal for equality of misery.

Excellent op-ed

Richard Goode's picture

Excellent op-ed.

You'd make a great Immigration Spokesman for the Libertarianz Party.

It's the junk, stoopid....

Craig Ceely's picture

Except it isn't, is it? Linz, I have beseeched thee before: don't hold back, say what you're feeling!

I fly a lot, on business. A lot. I'm that guy in front of you who requires four of those security bins for his carry-on items. Nor do I apologize for that: none of this was my idea.

Reminds me, though, of a Buckley comment from the 1970s, on an occasion of Arafat flying to Paris: something on the order of, It must be nice to be able to board a plane knowing that this one won't be hijacked.

Yes, this has been going on for far too long -- since I was an innocent, in fact -- and it has cost us far too much, and for naught; and the appeasers of today are only making it worse for all. Well, not for all, actually: the perpetrators are laughing their bearded, barefoot, superstitious asses off over how we in the west are handling this.

I fear you are giving thanks too soon, but still, it must be said, and you said it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.