14 Words by Email

Catholic priest in 'sham civil partnership' with Muslim to keep him in UK

A high-profile Catholic priest has been suspended after a Mail on Sunday investigation discovered he was in a sham ‘gay marriage’ to help a Pakistani immigrant stay in Britain. Father Donald Minchew – a former Anglican who converted to Catholicism after attacking the Church of England’s loss of traditional values – admitted entering into a civil partnership as a favour to a family friend desperate to work in Britain. .

Remember Dresden

You guys burnt the place down, turned it into a single column of flame. More people died there in the firestorm, in that one big flame, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.” –Kurt Vonnegut, Jr

Texas: Professor discusses building a dream of White genocide.

For over 30 years, Rice University Sociology Professor Dr. Stephen Klineberg has been studying the demographics of Greater Houston, in Texas. Houston’s demographic data reveals that it’s now 33% White, 41% Hispanic (mixed-race), 18% Black, and 8% Asian, and more than 70% of all children are non-White, with the over-60′s being the only age group where White people are still a majority..

This is Europa - Gotland -

On Gotland, you don’t have to travel very far to see the sun rise and watch it sink into the sea on the same day. The sea is always close by

French Jew Brutally Assaulted by Muslims in Paris

A Jewish teacher was savagely beaten by a group of Arab men in a brutal anti-Semitic attack in Paris, according to the Bureau for National Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism (BNVCA). The attackers - who shouted "death to the Jews" and "filthy Jew" during the assault - broke the victim's nose and drew a swastika on his chest after tearing open his shirt.

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

UK: Muslims, Confiscate Student's Easter Eggs

Children who took Easter eggs to class allegedly had them confiscated by “Muslim morality squads” patrolling a school in Birmingham, England, according to press reports.
The school is at the centre of an investigation into claims Islamic hardliners are attempting to infiltrate and run secular state schools in the city.
The mother of one of the students — who did not want to be named for fear of reprisals — told the Daily Express that groups of older students were taking the eggs from younger children and teachers were ignoring their actions.
“My daughter tried to bring in an Easter egg for a friend and one boy grabbed it and smashed it against a wall,” she said.
“Another girl of about 11 brought in a little Easter bunny toy that she wanted to show her friends. They grabbed that off her too. All talk of Christmas and other non-Muslim festivals is banned. The teachers just turn a blind eye to it.”

She added, “Older boys are going round in these morality squads telling off girls if they do not wear veils.”
At least six schools in the city have been implicated in a “Trojan Horse” plot by extremists to “Islamize” secular state education. This has included illegal segregation of students according to sex and discrimination against non-Muslims.
Up to 20 more schools are also under investigation.
A local Labour MP, Khalid Mahmood, said a small group of individuals was trying to change the ethos of schools by stealth.
On Monday, Jack Straw, a former Labour Cabinet minister, said schools, even if they were mostly Muslim, had to respect British values.
“We have to accept and the schools with a majority of Muslim parents have to accept — as they do if they are Hindu, Sikh, Jewish or Christian — that we also live within the United Kingdom,” Mr Straw told the BBC.
“Alongside values that are religiously based, there has to be a clear understanding that this is the U.K., and there are a set of values, that are indeed Christian based, which permeate our sense of citizenship.”
‘Alongside values that are religiously based, there has to be a clear understanding that this is the U.K., and there are a set of values, that are indeed Christian based’
He said segregating boys and girls was not acceptable.
The Islamicization allegations started circulating about two months ago and are the subject of a criminal investigation by West Midlands Police.
Michael Wilshaw, chief of the Office for Standards in Education, is also heading an inquiry and will report to Michael Gove, the Education Secretary. This could lead to governors at the offending schools being removed from their posts.
Mr. Gove has also appointed Peter Clarke, the former head of Scotland Yard’s Counter Terrorism Command, to investigate the intimidation claims.
Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images
Matthew Lloyd/Getty ImagesEducation Secretary Michael Gove
“Wider, more comprehensive action is needed,” he said. “These allegations need either to be substantiated and firm action taken, or to be shown to be baseless.”
Tahir Alam, the hardline Muslim Council of Britain activist accused of being the “Trojan Horse” plot’s ringleader, denies any involvement, calling the investigations a “witch-hunt” and “fabrication.”
Mr. Clarke’s appointment is also being criticized by local politicians.
“If you bring someone in badged counter-terrorism then the interpretation of the situation is pretty obvious,” Albert Bore, chairman of the local city council, told The Birmingham Post newspaper.
“The big Muslim community out there in Birmingham are going to feel a little uneasy that the person that Michael Gove has brought in is a counter terrorist expert and not from an education background.”
Birmingham City Council confirmed Monday it was investigating 25 schools and a former school principal, Ian Kershaw, has been appointed as its own chief advisor.
For his part, Chris Sims, the chief constable of West Midlands Police, described the appointment of Mr. Clarke as “desperately unfortunate.”
It would “inevitably draw unwarranted conclusions from his former role as national co-ordinator for counter terrorism,” he added.
National Post news services

20.04.2014 -Ein Volk,Ein Reich,Ein Fuhrer !


Monday, 21 April 2014

Negro Bill Cosby Bashes Thugs and Welfare Moms: ‘We Can’t Blame White People



bill

Advertisement
Bill Cosby’s rant against uneducated and apathetic Americans is forcing the country to reevaluate the lifestyles of lifetime welfare recipients.

Cosby, who’s best known for his patriarchal role on “The Cosby Show,” is an outspoken Democrat. But over the past several years, Cosby has criticized President Obama for a range of “broken promises” and railed against entitled Americans for their “thuggish” behavior and incessant willingness to remain uneducated.

“I can’t even talk the way these people talk,” Cosby said. “Why you ain’t, where you is, who you be…Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads…You will never get any kind of job making a decent living,” he added.

Cosby also censured welfare mothers for buying their kids $500 sneakers “when they won’t spend $200 for Hooked on Phonics,” so their children can learn to read.

“People used to be ashamed” of having children with multiple men, Cosby noted, but “Today a woman has eight children with eight different ‘husbands’ or men, whatever you call them now.”

Cosby called on black Americans to “do a better job” in society and take responsibility for their own lives. “We have to start holding each other to a higher standard. We cannot blame the white people any longer.”

Finally, a Democrat is willing to speak out against the real problems in American society. But will these people listen?

Tell us what YOU think!

Below is Bill Cosby’s entire speech, presented at a meeting of the NAACP.

“They’re standing on the corner and they can’t speak English. I can’t even talk the way these people talk: Why you ain’t, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where he work, Who you be… And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. 

Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living. 

People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an education, and now we’ve got these knuckleheads walking around. The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids. $500 sneakers for what? And they won’t spend $200 for Hooked on Phonics. 

I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18 and how come you didn’t know that he had a pistol? And where is the father? Or who is his father? 

People putting their clothes on backward: Isn’t that a sign of something gone wrong? People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn’t that a sign of something? Or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up? Isn’t it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up and got all type of needles [piercing] going through her body? 

What part of Africa did this come from? We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don’t know a thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap, and all of them are in jail. 

Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person’s problem. We have got to take the neighborhood back. People used to be ashamed. Today a woman has eight children with eight different ‘husbands’ — or men or whatever you call them now. We have millionaire football players who cannot read. We have million-dollar basketball players who can’t write two paragraphs. We as black folks have to do a better job. Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids, you are hurting us. We have to start holding each other to a higher standard. 

We cannot blame the white people any longer.”

Source

Poll Claims 88% of Australians Want Racist Speech to Remain Illegal

Voters have sent an unambiguous message to Tony Abbott and his Attorney General George Brandis: leave the race hate laws alone.
The latest Fairfax-Nielsen poll specifically asked voters if they believe it should it be lawful or unlawful to "offend, insult or humiliate" somebody based on their race.
The answer was a statistically conclusive 88 per cent - or nine out of 10 - in favour of the status quo - that is, that it should remain unlawful to discriminate.
Attorney General George Brandis: Has been pursuing the removal of the provisions in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act with the Prime Minister. Attorney-General George Brandis: Has been pursuing the removal of the provisions in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act with the Prime Minister. Photo: Andrew Meares
The result is a slap in the face for Abbott and Brandis, who have been pursuing the removal of the provisions in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, on grounds of free speech.
Urged on by acerbic conservative commentator, Andrew Bolt and the ultra-libertarian Institute of Public Affairs the government has argued that nobody has a right not to be offended and that, in normal political and public discourse, unpleasant and potentially offensive arguments can be necessary.
Yet the argument has fallen flat, failing to convince voters that the change is justified by any social or legal dysfunction.
Cooking show
Among Greens and Labor voters who took part in the 1400-strong nationwide telephone survey, the proportion against watering down the protections is 92 per cent and even among Coalition voters 84 per cent favour the law as it stands.
The government wants to replace the heads of the law, to wit: "offend, insult or humiliate" with a new one making it illegal to "intimidate or vilify", although, intimidate is already in the act.
On this question, the government can take comfort in the fact nine out of 10 voters want statutory provisions making it unlawful to intimidate and vilify based on race, but it is likely respondents want these provisions in addition to,rather than instead of, existing clauses as the government has proposed.
And, critics say, the prohibition on intimidation is too narrow, encompassing only physical intimidation, when in practice there are many ways a vulnerable person could be literally intimidated.
With the debate at fever pitch last month, Senator Brandis bravely told the Senate that people had the right to be bigots.
The statement was technically correct, in that citizens are free to think whatever they want, but it was a political own-goal, making the government appear to be defending dissemination of hate-speech and racial disunity.
Asked if they agreed with the statement, six out of 10 or 59 per cent of respondents said "no" compared to 34 per cent who  said "yes".
Even among Coalition voters, the government has failed to carry its constituency with 50 per cent disagreeing and 42 per cent agreeing.

Student fought Amsterdam bureaucrats for Holocaust justice


Charlotte Van den Berg was a 20-year-old college student working part-time in Amsterdam's city archives when she and other interns came across a shocking find: letters from Jewish Holocaust survivors saying the city was forcing them to pay back taxes and late payment fines on property seized after they were deported to Nazi death camps.
How, the survivors asked, could they be on the hook for taxes due while Hitler's regime was trying to exterminate them? A typical response was: "The base fees and the fines for late payment must be satisfied, regardless of whether a third party, legally empowered or not, has for some time held the title to the building."

Following her discovery in 2011, Van den Berg waged a lonely fight against Amsterdam's modern bureaucracy to have the travesty publicly recognized. Now, largely due to her efforts, Amsterdam officials are considering compensating Holocaust survivors for the taxes and possibly other obligations, including gas bills, they were forced to pay for homes that were occupied by Nazis or collaborators while the rightful owners were in hiding or awaiting death in the camps.
"I didn't expect any of this to happen, though I'm happy it finally did," Van den Berg told The Associated Press in an interview. "I never dreamed that compensation could be the result."
An unpublished review of those files by the Netherlands' Institute of War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies —— or NIOD —— found 217 cases in which the city demanded that returning Jews pay the taxes and penalty fees for getting behind in their payments.
In one of the letters Van den Berg found, a Jewish man asked for an extension in paying the back taxes because his home had been seized by an organization created by the Nazis in 1941 to despoil Jews of their property. Before deportation, the man was also forced to surrender his assets to the Lippmann, Rosenthal & Co. bank in Amsterdam, which transferred them to the Third Reich — leaving him with neither the house nor funds to pay for taxes on it.
"In conclusion," the man wrote, "I'm asking you in handling this matter to be led by moral considerations."
No response was found in the archives, Van den Berg said.
None of Van den Berg's colleagues or superiors had the time or inclination to take the matter further. So she took up the challenge: "My feeling was, they were too important to just let them lie there," she said. "This was an injustice that was done, not something you could just put aside and forget about."
She did further research and found there were public records on the postwar tax charges in city archives, eventually leading to 342 case files in all.
Van den Berg notified city officials about the documents and received assurances they would be fully investigated. Now and then she checked in, only to learn that nothing had been done. In March 2013, Van den Berg heard that the documents were "one signature away" from being destroyed, as other documents from the era had been. She was told that didn't matter because they had been digitized, but she felt it was important to preserve the physical evidence.
She hoped the letters would one day go on public display.
In desperation, she turned her findings over to Amsterdam newspaper Het Parool in March 2013.
The publication caused an outcry, and the city quickly commissioned a more thorough study by the NIOD to examine the documents and place them in a wider context of the city's postwar treatment of Jews. The study is due to be officially released this month.

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Illegal immigrant murdered a British teenager but we can't deport him because he is GAY (although he kept it quiet until he was about to be packed off)

An illegal immigrant who murdered a British teenager less than a year after he arrived in Britain cannot be deported because he is gay, a top judge has ruled.
The 29-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been released from jail and is now free to roam the streets after Lord Justice Maurice Kay said that sending him back to Jamaica would violate his human rights as a homosexual.
The judge referred to Article Three in the Human Rights Act, which protects an individual from inhuman or degrading treatment.
The murderer, referred to only as JR, arrived in the UK in December 2000 when he was 15, and, with another person, was 'party to the murder of another teenage boy' less than a year later in 2001, the judge said.

He and his co-defendant were convicted of murder and sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure in September 2002, before being freed from prison in June 2012.
Ever since he was released, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has been battling to have him sent home.

JR successfully appealed her decision to deport him to the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT), and won again at the Upper Tribunal when Mrs May challenged that decision last year.

Now, Lord Justice Kay, sitting with Lord Justice Lewison and Sir Stanley Burnton at the Court of Appeal in London, has blocked the Government's final attempt to have JR deported.

The judge said JR spent 11 and a half years in custody before declaring himself gay in April 2012.

The First-Tier Tribunal accepted he was homosexual, and that he would be at risk of 'inhuman or degrading treatment' if returned to Jamaica.The Upper Tribunal later refused Mrs May's appeal, after hearing JR's mother give evidence that she 'knew all along' that her son was gay.

His 'late disclosure' of his sexuality was said to have been 'prompted by societal attitudes, particularly that of Jamaicans towards gays'.

At the Court of Appeal, Catherine Rowlands, for Mrs May, argued that the offender's eleventh hour assertion of homosexuality should have been rejected 'on credibility grounds', as 'he had made no mention of it' during a previous asylum application.
Human rights: The Jamaican, known only as JR, has been allowed to stay in Britain by the Court of Appeal
Human rights: The Jamaican, known only as JR, has been allowed to stay in Britain by the Court of Appeal

The barrister argued that 'the claim of homosexuality was contrived and brought as a last resort to avoid deportation.'
But Lord Justice Kay dismissed the appeal, saying the FTT had obviously found JR's mother 'an impressive witness'.

He added: 'I consider that the Upper Tribunal was correct to find no error of law in the FTT's treatment of the issue of homosexuality'.

Mrs May accepted that, if the man was genuinely gay, he could not be deported, and the Upper Tribunal had also found that he 'no longer constitutes a significant danger to the community of the UK.'
The judge went on: 'It follows from what I have said that the Secretary of State's appeal must fail.'
But in a warning to any offenders hoping to avoid deportation by pretending to be gay, he added: 'I should add, however, that this case turns on its specific and quite unusual facts. It should not be seen as providing more general succour to others convicted of grave crimes.'

OTHER CRIMINALS WE CAN'T GET RID OF BECAUSE OF 'HUMAN RIGHTS'

Last month Mafia don Domenico Rancadore escaped deportation to his native Italy after a British judge ruled that the cramped Italian jails would breach his human rights.
The 65-year-old who fled arrest in Italy 20 years ago and came to Britain, where he has lived ever since, was sentenced to seven years in prison in his home country for running a branch of the Mafia involved in drug trafficking, extortion and racketeering.
In December 2013 a Somali criminal with a history of violence was allowed to walk free after a High Court judge ruled that detaining him any longer would breach his human rights.
Abdi Ismail, 33, was convicted of a string of crimes since arriving in Britain in 1993, including racially aggravated threatening behaviour and assault on police.
In 2011, he was sentenced to a 15-month jail term for assault and told he would be deported after attacking a friend with a knife, but a judge let him walk free after deciding he had been detained for too long.
Last year, a vicious Somali rapist who was jailed for ten years after threatening to kill his pregnant victim as he raped her was allowed to stay in Britain because he has other family members here.
Mustafa Abdullahi, 31, came to Britain aged 11 and immigration judges ruled he had been in the UK so long that deportation would deprive him of the right to a family life.

source

Monday, 14 April 2014

Canada: Nine Months in Jail for Blasphemy Against Islam

Caution: If you happen to be in Canada, and you say something in public that hurts the feelings of Muslims, you may well be sentenced to nine months in jail.
That’s what happened to Eric Brazau in Toronto. Mind you, I’ve seen a video of Mr. Brazau’s street-corner theatrics, and he also wore offensive attire, made insulting facial expressions, and laughed derisively at or in the general direction of Muslims. So he was lucky to get off so lightly. In the face of such heinous crimes, the judge was lenient — he/she/it could have thrown the book at Eric Brazau.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading and transcribing this discussion on Ezra Levant’s TV program:
Transcript:


00:08 If you commit the crime of sexual assault in Canada,
00:12 are tried, convicted and sentenced, your average time in jail will be about…
00:16 two months. But if you hand out fliers that are mean
00:20 to the ‘religion’, the set of ideas called ‘Islam’, well, you
00:24 will serve nine months in jail. That’s not just a theory, that’s a fact.
00:29 That’s what Eric Brazau served as a result of a recent sentence, and joining me now
00:33 in studio to talk about this is Chris Schafer, Straight Talk contributor, and legal expert.
00:37 Chris its great to see you again. It’s the first time we have had you on the show in your new capacity
00:41 as a SUN News Network Legal Beagle. In the past you were with the Canadian Constitution Foundation,
00:45 but any way you slice it, you’re for freedom. (CS) I am for freedom Ezra, and happy to be here.
00:49 Well, one of the freedoms I hold dear is the freedom of speech. I believe it is the freedom upon which all others are based,
00:53 and in fact if you take away my other freedoms, keep me my free speech, and I’ll use it to fight
00:57 for those other freedoms. In this case, Eric Brazau,
01:01 well, you read the full case and I’d like you to tell our viewers the facts. What
01:05 did Eric Brazau do, to get himself charged, not with the Human Rights Commissions,
01:09 but with a police criminal charge? Give us the facts.
01:13 (CS) Basically, he stood in a street corner and was a little bit over the top,
01:17 outrageous some would say, dressed up in theatrical
01:21 outfits and handing out pamphlets and having protest signs against
01:25 Islam. And basically had a little show and tell on the street corner
01:29 (EL) Was that here in Toronto? (CS)Correct. (EL) Well, I see that all the time I go by Dundas Square,
01:33 they are giving out Korans. I mean, actually, most of the street theater there is the Korans being handed out.
01:37 (CS) Go by the consulate, Israeli consulate in Toronto almost any day
01:41 and there’s self hating Jews there protesting outside and
01:45 other groups, Muslim religion protesting, they’re never arrested, charged.
01:49 I’ve hung out at out occupy Toronto, I’ve been to Line 9 protests, I mean, their specialty is
01:53 theatrical words designed to generate hate. So this guy was dressed up,
01:57 and he was handing out these pamphlets, and he was just sort of — was he ranting or…
02:01 was he just talking? What was he doing? (CS) He was protesting, he was ranting, he was
02:05 acting out aspects that he believed…
02:09 (EL) He didn’t touch anyone? (CS) To my knowledge there was no violence, the guy,
02:13 if you read the court decision, was a — came off as quite
02:17 pleasant in some respects, but… (EL) So, but he was charged with
02:22 the criminal code provision of spreading hatred. (CS) Correct (EL) Hatred is a human emotion.
02:26 I mean, you can’t just remove that from your heart, any more than you can
02:30 say, ‘you are now in love with him’. (CS) You stick ten judges in a room, Ezra…
02:34 and you’ll get ten different opinions of whether this material constituted
02:38 hate, and we saw that in a supreme court decision recently, in the Whatcott supreme court decision,
02:42 looked at criticism of homosexuality in Saskatchewan. Different judges at different appeal courts reach
02:46 different conclusions of whether that material constituted hate.
02:50 I’m willing to bet the same thing here. (EL) Some people hate the Toronto Maple Leafs,
02:54 they love this sports team. Some people hate this political party and love that political party.
02:58 Some people hate an ex-girlfriend. Some people hate Vladimir
03:02 Putin. I mean, why aren’t I allowed to have the human emotion
03:06 called hate? And if you tell me I’m not allowed to feel that,
03:10 is that going to change my mind? I draw the line as when you do something
03:14 criminal with that hate, like punch someone in the nose. But merely having a hurt feeling…
03:18 or hateful feeling, how can you criminalize that, Chris? (CS) Well we have.
03:22 There’s criminal code provisions for that, you know yourself, you know very well…
03:26 the human rights provisions that can drag you before human rights tribunals.
03:30 (EL) Nine months in jail, this guy before his hearings. So you know, he served
03:34 nine months for no violence, no threats…
03:38 (CS) No threats to my knowledge; it was criminal harassment.
03:42 (EL) Lemme… Lemme — as in he was taking, he took a picture of some people in a burka or something. (CS) Correct.
03:46 (EL) I thought that was allowed to take pictures of people in a public place.
03:50 I guess not if you are the wrong species… I mean, imagine if this rule was applied to
03:54 anti-Christian advocates. Or atheist advocates.
03:58 Let’s quote from the ruling, I want to get the ruling on the record here. This is from
04:02 Justice Clements, who issued the ruling, let me quote here. “Brazau’s
04:06 TONE OF VOICE and CONTENT OF HIS SPEECH as captured
04:10 on his own audio recordings suggested he was very angry and had little interest
04:14 in discussion or debate.” Chris, I didn’t know it was against the law
04:18 to be very angry about things. And I didn’t know that you had to have an interest in debate
04:22 before you spoke. I didn’t know that was the law. (CS) Yeah, well, according to this judge
04:26 it is, again, it’s a very subjective section of the criminal code. (EL) That could apply to anyone!
04:30 What protester isn’t angry? If you’re not angry, you’re probably not protesting.
04:35 (CS) The unfortunate reality is that the knife doesn’t seem to cut both ways. (EL) Well, isn’t that the truth? Here…
04:39 Let me read another excerpt from the ruling here. Next one.
04:43 ”Clearly in that context he was not interested in nor did he intend to have
04:47 a discussion or debate on the ideas expressed in that document
04:51 I find he knew the material he was distributing would deeply wound
04:55 and anger Muslims.” I love how he uses the word ‘wound’. I know what a wound is;
04:59 if you have a wound you have to go to the doctor and get (treatment).
05:03 I didn’t know feelings, I didn’t know you could call a hurt feeling — I have no doubt he hurt some feelings…
05:07 just like people hurt my feelings, and everyone’s feelings can be hurt.
05:11 I didn’t know that wounding a feeling could put you in jail for nine months. If he just sexually assaulted
05:15 someone he would have been out in two months. (CS) Yeah, this is what we’re dealing with, Ezra,
05:19 you’ve been experiencing it, and this particular individual experienced the same —
05:23 these groups in society that use this sort of dark
05:27 politics or identity politics in order to quash out
05:31 language and speech they don’t want, and frankly they don’t want other people to hear.
05:35 I would much rather, like you and me Ezra, debate these ideas in a free society and let
05:39 the better ideas rise to the top and the weaker ones fall.
05:43 (EL) Yeah, you know, it’s funny — in a way, this judge is guilty of doing what he claimed Brazau did. This judge isn’t interested in debate…
05:47 this judge isn’t interested in discussion. This judge wants to put
05:51 people he disagrees with in jail! (CS) So what we need to do, Ezra, is —
05:55 I sort of have my hit-list of reforms that need, you need legislatures in this country,
05:59 federal and provincial, to get rid of these laws which restrict freedom, and if they’re not prepared to go that far,
06:03 then at least provide some interpretation, guidance to the
06:07 judges on how they apply this very subjective section of the criminal code,
06:11 and lastly, get rid of blasphemy laws in this country.
06:15 (EL) That’s what this is. This is a ‘fatwa’ against this guy for daring to criticize
06:19 the sharia Koran. Nice to see you on the show, Chris.
 story source

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More