Just 6 months after Turkish racist-terrorist crimes against Israel on the High Seas, Islamo-fascism on the rise in formerly democratic-secular Turkey as radical Islamic terrorists and their supporters demand right to impose sexist moving prisons on female College Students

Every morning Yasemin Derbaz puts on the piece of cloth that marks her out as an observant Muslim.

Millions of other Turkish women do the same: it is estimated that at least 60% cover their heads.

Now, for the first time, almost all universities across Turkey have abandoned the official prohibition on women wearing headscarves.

The ban ended when the government issued a statement in September saying it would support any student expelled or disciplined for covering her head.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

I feel happy that I don’t have to stop in a mosque on the way and change into my wig”

Yasemin Derbaz

The Islamic headscarf has become a divisive symbol, which bars women from jobs and education, and came close to bringing down a government two years ago.

Yasemin can now go to her architecture classes at Yildiz Technical University for the first time without wearing a large hat or a wig to cover her hair.

“I feel happy that I don’t have to stop in a mosque on the way and change into my wig,” she said.

The exact status of the headscarf ban is mired in confusion.

There is no law against wearing one. Nor does the ban originate with modern Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, although he did discourage women from covering their heads, and passed a law barring men from wearing traditional Ottoman clothing.

Emine Erdogan was blocked from entering a military hospital in 2007 for not removing her headscarf

The more recent ban on headscarves in universities and for public servants dates back to regulations passed by government departments in the 1980s, after the last military coup.

With leftist groups harshly suppressed, Islamic parties made strong gains among the Turkish electorate in the elections that followed, prompting a reaction from the avowedly secular military.

The university ban was only properly enforced after the military forced out an overtly Islamic prime minister in 1998.

What the regulations had in mind was not the traditional scarf, tied around the neck by peasant women in Anatolia, but the hijab, also called a turban in Turkey, which has become a symbol of pious or political Islam, worn by growing numbers of urban, educated women since the 1980s.

It is for that reason that military buildings will allow headscarfed women in if they take out the pin that holds the tightly-wound hijab in place – they have a special pin-box at reception.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

The state should be impartial to race, religion, everything”

Hursit GunesOpposition CHP party

Emine Erdogan, the wife of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was blocked from entering a military hospital in 2007 for refusing to remove hers.

Mr Erdogan tried to overturn the university ban in 2008, through a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to education.

It passed through parliament, but was thrown out by the Constitutional Court.

But this year, with the momentum behind him after winning the constitutional referendum in September and more compliant bureaucrats in the Board of Education, the government in effect ended the ban by stealth.

The Constitutional Court is in any case being restructured following the referendum, and is less likely to challenge the governing party so boldly in future.

Caught off-guard

The main opposition party, the secular CHP – previously a strong supporter of the university ban – wanted to negotiate its end with the government, but was denied the chance.

Lawyer Fatma Benli says that her headscarf bars her from appearing in court

But the party has vowed to maintain the ban on civil servants wearing headscarves.

“The reason why we don’t allow a headscarf for, say a judge, is that it is a symbol of religion. The state should be impartial to race, religion, everything,” says Hursit Gunes, a deputy secretary-general of the party.

There are still academics appalled by the prospect of headscarves on campus.

“Universities are supposed to be places where science and scientific thought can be discussed freely,” says Nezhun Goren, a biology professor at Yildiz Technical University.

“Religious faith can’t be discussed, you either accept it or reject it.”

Disadvantaged

The resistance to headscarves among many secular Turks seems to be driven by something deeper – a belief that the rigorous adherence to Islam it symbolises in the wearer will eventually reverse the modernisation of Turkish society under its strictly secular system.

Lawyers are still barred from wearing the headscarf in court

Headscarfed women say right now they are the ones who are disadvantaged.

Fatma Benli is an experienced lawyer who specialises in defending women. But her headscarf bars her from appearing in court – she has to appoint bare-headed proxies to defend her clients.

“For 12 years I’ve been working long hours as a lawyer and I have specialist skills, in international law, so I should be well-paid,” she says, “yet I still have to rely on financial help from my parents to run my office”.

Dilek Cindoglu, a sociologist at Bilkent University who does not wear a headscarf, has done research which shows that the restrictions on headscarfed women in the civil service have spilled over into the private sector.

“Once they get employment they are being discriminated against in terms of promotions, salaries, and in terms of dismissals should the company decide to reduce the workforce.”

I asked Yasemin if she understood the fear many secular Turks feel about openly pious Muslims like herself.

“I am forcing myself, but I cannot say that I totally understand it.”

She argues that she was the one left with the psychology of fear, not them, because for 10 years she was unable to go to school wearing her headscarf.

FIFA joins the dhimmitude club as they cave to Islamic financial blackmail and award reactionary Islamofascist monarchy the World Cup.

Berlin 1936.  Beijing 2008.  Now Qatar 2022.

It’s not the first time a prestigious athletic award as been squandered on a nation of immoral, fascistic pigs who think that everyone should be like them.  I’m not a big soccer fan, but this is totally inappropriate.  For starters, Qatar is one of a handful of nations which does not even recognize Israel’s right to exist.  Expect to see women being forced to wear burkas with only eye slits while watching the games.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/533646-qatar-hosts-world-cup-2022-are-you-kidding-me

 

A Wonderful Pro-Tolerance Video from Sweden

My friend Hakeem just sent me this video from Sweden.  It’s quite wonderful to see that Sweden has promoted tolerance within their borders, although personally I believe that the part about Jews going into Ramallah is a little bit overdone.  As you know, Ramallah is quite a dangerous place for us Jews.

Note: some of the comments may be a bit disturbing.  But as civilized people, we can ignore the comments and focus on the beautiful message of the video itself.

Savage Greek Freaks Show their Ugly Faces

http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=1666

1. The acquittal of the neo-Nazi writer Kostas Plevris by the Greek judiciary is an indication of the extent to which members of the Greek establishment have adopted anti-Semitic ideas.

2. The trial and its aftermath demonstrated furthermore the extent to which elements in the Greek judiciary and media are in sympathy with the neo-Nazi far-right, and hostile to the movement against anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism.

3. Democrats everywhere should express their support for the committed minority of anti-Nazi campaignerrs in Grece who are fighting against the rising tide of officially sanctioned anti-Semitism.

It looks like the Greeks have shown their ugly faces.  It’s no secret that the Greeks persecuted Jews from time immemorial, and the trend continues today.  Greece must be punished with heavy sanctions and also by being thrown out of the EU; the United States and NATO should also consider military action or a regime change if these actions continue.  Anti-semitism is not a European value.

England is a nation of Anti-Semites!

Shimon Peres said England was “deeply pro-Arab … and anti-Israeli”, adding: “They always worked against us.”

He added: “There is in England a saying that an anti-Semite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary.”

His remarks, made in an interview on a Jewish website, provoked anger from senior MPs and Jewish leaders who said the 87-year-old president had “got it wrong”.

But other groups backed the former Israeli prime minister and said the number of anti-semitic incidents had risen dramatically in the UK in recent years.

The controversy follows the furore last week overDavid Cameron’s remark that Gaza was a “prison camp”, as he urged Israel to allow aid and people to move freely in and out of the Palestinian territory.

Mr Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who is three years into his seven-year term as president and was awarded an honorary knighthood by the Queen in 2008, said that England’s attitude towards Jews was Israel’s “next big problem”.

“There are several million Muslim voters, and for many members of parliament, that’s the difference between getting elected and not getting elected,” he said.

“And in England there has always been something deeply pro-Arab, of course, not among all Englishmen, and anti-Israeli, in the establishment.

“They abstained in the [pro-Zionist] 1947 UN partition resolution … They maintained an arms embargo against us in the 1950s … They always worked against us. They think the Arabs are the underdogs.”

By contrast, relations with Germany, France and Italy were “pretty good”, he added.

He made the comments in an interview with the historian Professor Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev published last week in Tablet, a Jewish news website.

The wide-ranging interview covered Mr Peres’ role as one of Israel’s longest-serving political leaders – an MP for 48 years, twice prime minister, and holder of other ministerial posts over the decades. He is firmly on the Israeli Left.

He was awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 jointly with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat for his part as foreign minister in the peace talks which produced the landmark Oslo Accords.

But following his comments, James Clappison, the Conservative MP for Hertsmere and vice-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, said: “Mr Peres has got this wrong.

“There are pro- and anti-Israel views in all European countries. Things are certainly no worse, as far as Israel is concerned, in this country than other European countries.”

The MP added that he could “understand the frustration” that people in Israel felt with “certain elements of the British broadcast media” which present an unbalanced view of Israel.

He said: “I can understand Mr Peres’ concerns, but I don’t recognise what he is saying about England.”

Yet in Israel, Mr Peres is far from alone in holding such views, which have gained a wider following, particularly on the Right, since the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat over accusations that Mossad sent agents using British passports to assassinate a Hamas commander in Dubai.

Aryeh Eldad, a right-wing member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, accused Britain of working against Israeli interests for decades – ever since it “betrayed” its promises to build a Jewish homeland when it governed Palestine under a League of Nations mandate.

“Both governments from the right and the left prefer Arab interests over Israeli interests,” said Mr Eldad, whose father Israel was a leading figure in the Stern Gang, the most radical of the Jewish terror groups that fought British mandatory rule.

“The other layer is an ongoing, subtle form of anti-semitism. It is not as overt as it was in Germany, it is a quiet, polite form.”

Some leading Jewish commentators in Britain disagreed. Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, minister of Maidenhead synagogue and a writer and broadcaster, said: “I am surprised at Peres. It is a sweeping statement that is far too one-sided.

“Britain has supported both Israel and Arab causes at different periods over the last 50 years. There are elements of anti-semitism but it is not endemic to British society.

“The tolerance and pluralism here make Britain one of the best countries in the world in which to live.”

Mr Peres found support, however, from other pro-Israeli groups. Jacob Vince, the director of Christian Friends of Israel, said there was anti-semitism in the UK although many people had a positive view of Israel but were unwilling to express it publicly.

Mr Vince said it was “difficult to see how many MPs would not be influenced by the number of Muslim voters in their constituencies”.

The Government was not treating Arabs as the underdogs but rather was trying to appease them, he said. “The question is how well they understand those with whom they are seeking conciliation.”

Mr Peres is “measured and moderate,” he added.

He said: “His comments have serious connotations and I am sure would not be said lightly.”

One Israeli politician expressed disbelief that the doveish Mr Peres had launched such a broadside against the British.

Benny Begin, a cabinet minister whose father Menachem was prime minister and before that leader of Irgun, the group that killed 91 people in an attack on Jerusalem’s King David Hotel in 1946, said: “Peres? I simply can’t believe he said that.”

The latest figures show that the number of anti-semitic incidents in Britain is rising, according to the Community Security Trust (CST), a charity set up in 1984 to monitor such incidents.

The situation in Britain had worsened “significantly” in the past decade, a spokesman said.

In 2009 there were 924 anti-semitic incidents, the highest figure since CST began keeping records in 1984, and 55 per cent higher than the previous record in 2006.

The figures include reports, accepted only when backed by evidence, of physical assaults, verbal abuse and racist graffiti.

The monthly figure has soared from 10-20 incidents in the 1990s to 40-50 now.

Last year nearly half of the 924 anti-semitic race attacks recorded by the CST showed a political motivation, with 66 per cent of those including some reference to Israel and the Middle East.

A 2009 report by the US-based Anti-Defamation League found one in five Britons admitted Israel influences their opinion of British Jews, and the majority of those said that they felt “worse” about Jews than they used to. It found, however, that Britain was less anti-semitic than other European countries.

German Nazi Racism is Still Alive and Well

I’m sure most of us remember the 1936 Olympics.  The horrific event when Nazi Germany attempted to snatch gold medals in sports from citizens of the civilized world.  At this Olympics, the racist Germans used sports as a propagada showcase to attempt to prove racist theories on supposed “Aryan” superiority.

Apparently their attitude hasn’t changed much.  Not content to leave racism at home, these hate-filled German monsters arrogantly defeated an African team on their own soil, adding a touch of colonialism to their stolen victory.  Is this not the same display of hatred that was shown by Adolf Hitler towards people of African descent?  African people have never harmed Germans on German soil, and have even been willing to put aside racist rhetoric that is echoed ad naseum by the Whites, especially Germans.  It’s clear that they have a vendetta against people with a different skin color.

Germany must be punished.  Their win must be annulled immediately and Ghana should replace them as the winners of this match.

Unpatriotic Conservatives

Despite being socially liberal, I have many friends, mostly older people (such as my former mentor Meir) who are members of the Republican Party.  And we agree on more than a few issues, ranging from foreign policy to some domestic issues.  Generally, most liberals oppose the War in Iraq (as I did when Bush was in office), and most conservatives are for it.

There has been something that has been deeply troubling to me since the election of President Barack Obama, a issue that twists and tortures my mind, because of its insidious and vile nature, which if left unchecked, will threaten peace both at home and abroad.  If these people have their way, entire nations may be wiped from the face of the earth, chaos will reign, our freedoms will be squashed under the totalitarian boot of hate, and our way of life as we know it will come to an abrupt end, signaling the destruction of everything that we have ever held dear.  I am talking of course about unpatriotic conservatives.  Perhaps “conservatives” is too kind a word, as they are not in any way within the ranks of the Republican Party – perhaps “right-wing extremists” would be better.

You see these people every day.  Within the ranks of the Tea Party or the 9-11 truthers.  Those who criticize Obama at every turn, abusing the Constitution for their own wicked ends.  We see them in the press, in ugly voices such as Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, or Patrick Buchanan and in academia by people like Dinesh D’Souza.  They aspire to “take over” the Republican party and to replace it with something even more extreme than what we are already seeing from them.  Should they ever attain power, they would like, for starters, to scrap the American commitment to maintaining peace in the Middle East – a tradition since the 1950’s, and force America into an isolationist turtle shell of fear.  And should they be successful in this, our social values of tolerance will take a hit as well.  Blacks will oscillate from every tree in the south, illuminated not by electric lighting but by flaming crosses.  Gays will be burned in the streets has heretics, and the Pope will probably have the final word on what goes on in America.

I don’t want that world.  I prefer America the beautiful, America the diverse, not the AmeriKKKa of some post-apocalyptic theocratic police state which comes from the dreams of bigots and right-wing extremists.

The paleoconservatives’ (as they like to be called) dictatorial inclinations convince me of only one thing: that Paleoconservatives have conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then all the people within this sinister organization will be free to control us.  Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how pathological, insensate blatherskites are born, not made. That dictum is as unimpeachable as the “poeta nascitur, non fit” that it echoes and as irreproachable as the brocard that if the paleocons can one day castigate whomever they oppose then the long descent into night is sure to follow.

Probably the only people in the world who share the worldview of the paleocons are the terrorists whom America is fighting in the middle east.  Which is why they go to such lengths to defend the moral implications of terror.  Our top priority MUST be to take a strong position on Paleocons attack on morals, which, after all, erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty.  And what better way to do this than to support everything that they oppose, and oppose everything that they support?  We will also be fighting the terrorists when they do this.

So let’s band together.  Let us sound out our resounding cry for women’s rights and feminism, for abortions, for gay rights and gay marriages.  Let us voice our support for full freedom of speech, and let cartoons of Muhammad be broadcast back-to-back with vivacious TV shows.  Let us show the strength of our diversity – men of all colors arm in arm, hand to hand, shoulder to shoulder, body to body.  Anyone refusing or condemning this shows his true colors – I question as a dhimmi in league with Islamic extremism, an enemy of Western civilization, of freedom, and of America.

Prop 8 Tries to Annul Marriages

Remember when Prop 8 backers said they wouldn’t target existing marriages?

Well, it turns out that they lied. They lied, because they knew their plan all along.  A plan to oppress the LGBT communities of America, to spit on our sacred Constitution which is beloved by so many.

What typical homophobic paranoia and mental hate. Prop 8 should never have been brought to the ballot anyways. There was too much room for electoral fraud and intimidation, and I am sure that Christian fundamentalist agitators knew this (thus the reason why it was taken to the ballot in the 1st place) It should have been settled diplomatically in the halls of California’s legislature.

The majority should never be able to dictate the will of the minority. It is in fact incumbent on the majority to protect the rights of the minority. To help them to give them what they need to achieve equality.

Here we have an interesting little character known as the Homophobe. The Homophobe wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that he wants to “do good” at the expense of other people’s lives. If the Homophobe really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that we can no longer afford to do nothing about his lazy tactics. Instead, we must strike while the iron is hot and replace today’s chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose.

To put a little finer edge on the concept, the Homophobe’s list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I’ll summarize by stating that his idiotic claim that courtesy and manners don’t count for anything is just that, an idiotic claim. The purpose of this deception may be to fill the air with recrimination and rancor. Or maybe the purpose is to damage the self esteem and mental health of millions of young men and women.

The Homophobe ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you’re not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. This may be a foregone conclusion, but I’m not very conversant with his background. To be quite frank, I don’t care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that the Homophobe has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for him. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will shatter and ultimately destroy our most precious possessions some day. Perhaps I’m reading too much into his double standards, but they don’t seem to serve any purpose other than to strap us down with a network of rules and regulations. This probably does not affect your daily life, but it is a fact: the homophobes must be stopped, by force if necessary.  Be sure to inform your local chapter of the ADL or SPLC if you see such people in life.  Together, united – we will never be defeated!

Hating the needy is still hating

I was walking down the busiest street yesterday, and I noticed an old man in ragged clothing was sitting down on the sidewalk and leaning against the ruddy, cracked bricks that formed the wall of a building. I approached quietly, my shadow overcasting his body. He did not look up at me, but continued to stare down at the ground, acknowledging my existence only by the shadow I casted.

“Sir,” he pleaded in a quavering voice while evading eye contact, “could you please spare a coupla’ dollars? I’m a hungry man and I’ve beena bit down on my luck.”

He then looked up at me, his face gave signs of being used to humiliation and mockery. This was the face of a man who was acquainted with tough times, and the kindness of strangers was his highest providence. Every day he starved, alone in the alleyways as an outcast of society; no family would feed him, no one to shelter this kindly old man. Cold and grim winters he fought with all his endurance, sleeping under bridges without a second thought to discomfort. He was a survivor, I could see. His expression was near emotionless, save for the scarcest hint of hope–hope that even the barest fragment of human kindness still existed. I was destined to console his hope, to nurture it like a mother to a baby.

“Well, I can spare a few dollars,” I said with a slight hint of a foreboding tone. He falsely perceived sarcasm, and his face contorted into humiliation until I pulled out my wallet. Then, I gave him a twenty-dollar bill and winked at him. His face lit up like a menorah, and tears of joy streamed onto my back from his tight hugging. He thanked me, while still hugging me, and told me that G-D would bless me my entire life. He then began running to what I presume was the nearest grocery store; though on his way he turned around, looked back at me, smiled, and ran into the distance never to be seen by me again. While a heartwarming story, a question I have must be answered: Why was this man not nurtured by the government? He existed as an emotionless creature until my saintly deed, for perhaps years or even decades: far too long. Our governments exist to protect The People, to ensure mutual survival and humanity’s success as a team. Governments, when they do not fulfill their intended purpose, become selfish and decry their part in the social contract. Our values have been corrupted by the atrocious, the maligners of modern civilization; people are not accepted for who they are, but must merely be useful to the current regime that controls their lives. The self-important types ignore the obligation of giving people what is rightfully theirs, and keep it for their own self-important purposes.

And to speak of the mindset of these people; they hate democracy and all that is good. They hate kindness and charity. Only they want to be ahead, for in their psychology they are narcissistic and megalomaniac; these vipers hold down and prohibit equality for grandiose visions of worship. My own philosophy has me motivated to do more than sit back and wiggle my finger; I want to actually DO something to correct this malady. Most people will read my words, nod their heads, and then go buy something on ebay without a care in the world. No. Do *something*, even if it is seemingly insignificant; starting is the thickest barrier, we we must overcome inertia.

Imagine a world of social equality, where race, class, religion, sexual orientation, gender, and education are not barriers.  We can achieve this if we push for the bettering of “inferior peoples”, for no longer would there be economic dividers.  Social injustices will too be deprecated, for accepting the need of charity to the needy is one of liberalism and tolerance.  All people are thinking beings, capable of loving another human.  And should we deny life to such people?  Disregard equality and promote suffering?  I hope none think as this.  But as long as there are capable people who ignore our efforts to give a hand out to those who require it, there will be spitters and sociopaths.

A Victory for Free Speech

http://www.jewishjournal.com/community/article/uc_irvine_suspends_muslim_student_group_20100614/

This is splendid news.  I cannot say how happy I am that the anti-semitic Arabs were punished for their hate.  Too often, the American community is focused on what white racists do to blacks, and sometimes ignores what is being done to innocent Jewish people just for being Jewish.  We can only hope that other colleges follow suit with the same ideas.  I would, in fact go so far as to say that all Muslim groups, and even some Christian groups need to be banned from campuses nationwide, as many Muslim and Christian ideologies tend to be authoritarian and undemocratic.

Some people might ask, “isn’t banning someone from campus against free speech?” No.  Because hate speech is not free speech.  Let us remember that hate has consequences.  The consequence of  using anti-semitic slurs and constantly criticizing Israel in this case was being suspended from campus for a year.  But, let’s look at the wider picture.  Today it’s about Israel, tomorrow the racists, be they Arabs or Whites, could come for you.

I’m sure you’ve seen them, stumbling around like the failures they are and constantly bickering with each other. They’re simply bigots, even to each other. But we don’t care if they hate and hurt each other– simply the beauty of the self-destructiveness of hate. But what we do mind is if they cause trouble to the good people of the world, particularly minorities. Sure, we can allow them to spread their hate speech under the watchful eye of a tolerance-policing democratic authority, but we also have to be aware that hate has consequences.

For example: I recently recieved a comment about how Israel was guilty for the flotilla clash.  Utter trash that isn’t even recyclable. Using the investigative powers of the Information Superhighway, I searched this hateful user’s screen name and after hours and hours of searching, I found his personal information. Job, name, address, age, etc. I promptly called that person’s place of employment and alerted the bigot’s superior of their hateful actions online. They thanked me and told me that the person would be reprimanded, and probably fired for saying such disgusting things. I also gave the personal information to various pro-tolerance groups, three of them being the Southern Poverty Law Control Center, Anti-Racist Action, and One People’s Project. I then went to bed at 2:00AM after having meticulously tracked this bigot down. Hate has consequences.

People, particularly Ku-Klux-Klan or terrorist sympathizers, will tell me I am not respecting the right to free speech. One must keep in mind that the First Amendment applies only to the FEDERAL government, although very progressive groups have been eroding state’s rights for quite a while now. The First Amendment does not apply to speech that can be deemed hateful, as I illuminate in one of my earliest articles. Remember, that person was still able to communicate their feces-laden ideas; sick and perverted maligning that are obviously untrue upon a short introspection. I did not abridge this right, I merely engaged in my right to respond as one should when confronted with the most venomous of evils upon Earth. Why should one sit quietly and meekly when spat on by the flames of intolerance? Sometimes our action ought to be the hater’s education.

Allow the bigot to squeal and regurgitate ideas that intelligent people in academia take as jokes. But don’t let it end there; ensure that your local chapter of Anti-Racist Action or Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice are well aware of this person’s activities. Let that person fear for their life, and let that fear one day manifest into a love greater than that they have ever known. Violence shall be the fire that burns the vegetation of hatred, and the fertilizer shall allow the seeds of tolerance to be fertile and yield the fruit of pure love.