16.000 polícias para retomar o controlo de Londres

 David Cameron today warned rioters that they would face the 'full force of the law' as he recalled Parliament, after violence swept across the country for a third night.
An unprecedented 16,000 police officers will be on the streets of the capital tonight, the Prime Minister announced, compared with just 6,000 last night. Today huge swathes of the capital woke up to the charred debris of burned out buildings and streets littered with waste.
Theresa May caused fury today by appearing to rule out using the Army and water cannons to quell any future disorder. Police were last night criticised for being absent when much of the looting and ransacking took place and, when they were present, keeping their distance from rioters.
Today a 26-year-old man who was shot as he sat in a car during rioting in Croydon died in hospital [...]

Ver notícia no Daily Mail 

Uma quantidade de disparates sobre o Egipto

"David Cameron has criticized ‘state multiculturalism' in his first speech as prime minister on radicalization and the causes of terrorism.
 "At a security conference in Munich, he argued the U.K. needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism. He also signaled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism. ... As Mr. Cameron outlined his vision, he suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism".
 ‘Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons,' he argued. ‘Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,' the prime minister said."
For those of us who have been calling for years for the United Kingdom and Europe to become "intolerant" of the radical Islamist threat to our culture, this is a thrilling and gratifying moment.
It is the obligation of both citizen and statesman to avoid both illusion and self-delusion when considering national threats. And so it is ironic that on the same weekend that the British government finally removes the scales from its eyes and looks straight-on at the mortal threat that aggressively asserted Islamist values pose to our civilization, in Egypt - at the constant hectoring of Washington voices - the remnants of the Mubarak government begins its halting, perhaps inevitable march toward the illusion of Egyptian democracy. [...]

Ver artigo no Rear Clear Politics

Ataque suicidida em Estocolmo

At a Sunday morning press conference, Säpo said it had taken over the investigation into the nearly simultaneous bombings from the Stockholm police. The investigation will be overseen by chief prosecutor Tomas Linstrand.

"We are opening an investigation into a terrorist crime under Swedish laws," Anders Thornberg, head of Säpo's security department, told a press conference, a day after the explosions targeted shoppers in the Swedish capital.

Thornberg called the incident “very serious”, although he reiterated that Säpo had no plans to raise the threat level in Sweden as a result of the attack.

“We’re now working to assess whether similar events might take place. We can’t rule it out,” he said.

He added there is “no connection” to between Saturday's attack and a bomb threat investigation Gothenburg from early November, a probe which was subsequently dropped without any charges being filed.

Saturday's attack consisted of two explosions which occurred just minutes apart shortly before 5pm local time.

In the first blast, a car exploded, injuring two passers-by who were sent to hospital with minor injuries. Police say the vehicle was filled with cannisters of liquefied petroleum gas.

A second blast occurred just minutes later about 200 metres away, killing one man. An eye witness who arrived on the scene before police told the Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper it appeared something had exploded on the man's abdomen.

Ver notícia no The Local 

Direita populista radical com ganhos eleitorais na Suécia

A far-right party that blames Muslim immigrants for social ills won seats in Sweden's parliament for the first time on Sunday, marking the latest advance of anti-immigrant populism in Europe.

With votes counted from 99% of Swedish districts, the Sweden Democrats had won 5.7%, clearing the 4% threshold needed to enter Parliament and resulting in 20 seats in the 349-seat legislature.

The result is a shock for Sweden's political elites and many ordinary Swedes, who have long prided themselves on being one of the Western world's most tolerant and open societies.

"Today we have together written political history," said Jimmie Akesson, the 31-year-old leader of the Sweden Democrats.

The Sweden Democrats' populist campaign against immigration, particularly of Muslims, has underscored the spread of a pan-European backlash against liberal immigration policies, which is increasingly rattling the region's political establishment.

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt four-party Alliance won 172 seats, below the 175 needed to form a majority government and opening the possibility of minority rule after the left-leaning three-party Red-Green coalition won 157 seats. [...]

Ver notícia no Wall Street Journal

Politicamente correcto silencia debate importante: o que aconteceu à liberdade de expressão?

Nothing is as it used to be. In this season of public outrage, the case of Thilo Sarrazin has grown far bigger than Sarrazin. It's much bigger than the man or the Islam-critical book he wrote.

The Sarrazin case is also a Merkel case, a case for his party, the center-left Social Democrats, and for the German political and media establishment. Sarrazin has become code for the outrage over how the politically correct branch of Germany's consensus-based society have dispatched their stewards to escort this unsettling heckler to the door. On their way, they seem to be trying to teach him a lesson, as well: "We will beat tolerance into you."

Sarrazin isn't telegenic and he often gets tangled up in statistics. When it comes to styling, he's at a loss - he is unkempt when he appears on the myriad talkshows that keep our entertainment society going. He slips on one banana peel of political correctness after another, opening himself to attack with his statements about genetics. But his findings on the failed integration of Turkish and Arab immigrants are beyond any doubt.

Sarrazin has been forced out of the Bundesbank. The SPD wants to kick him out of the party, too. Invitations previously extended to Sarrazin are being withdrawn. The culture page editors at the German weekly Die Zeit are crying foul and the editors at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung are damning Sarrazin for passages he didn't even write.

Technicians of Exclusion

But what all these technicians of exclusion fail to see is that you cannot cast away the very thing that Sarrazin embodies: the anger of people who are sick and tired - after putting a long and arduous process of Enlightenment behind them - of being confronted with pre-Enlightenment elements that are returning to the center of our society. They are sick of being cursed or laughed at when they offer assistance with integration. And they are tired about reading about Islamist associations that have one degree of separation from terrorism, of honor killings, of death threats against cartoonists and filmmakers. They are horrified that "you Christian" has now become an insult on some school playgrounds. And they are angry that Western leaders are now being forced to fight for a woman in an Islamic country because she has been accused of adultery and is being threatened with stoning.

Strangely enough, a good number of our fellow Turkish citizens are more outraged by Sarrazin's book than they are about those things.

Should those Turkish immigrants fortunate enough to have exemplary careers not start exerting a bit of influence over their fellow immigrants and their neighborhoods, so that the Koran shows its gentler, more charitable face? Isn't it time for them to stand up and show their backing for plurality and freedom of expression?

That certainly wasn't the case recently when the Migration Board, an umbrella group for immigrant organizations in Berlin, spoke out successfully against a reading by Sarrazin during the International Literature Festival in the German capital. Bernd Scherer, who heads the House of World Cultures, the venue of the festival, buckled under the pressure and cancelled the event. Now the reading is to be held at another venue on Friday - under police protection. [...]

Ver artigo no Der Spiegel

A consciência de culpa está a paralizar a Europa

Europe is not aging gracefully. More than half a century after it began taking the steps that eventually resulted in the European Union, it is at best a vast market without a consistent military or political personality—and one that matters less and less in world affairs. Henry Kissinger’s old witticism about Europe’s having no phone number is more relevant than ever. What happened? One can cite a number of factors: the persistence of nationalist egoism; the excessive importance of the EU’s two major founders, France and Germany; Great Britain’s aloofness and readiness to follow Washington’s instructions; the imbalance created by the influx of former Soviet satellites. But more decisive than any of these reasons is that since the end of World War II, Europe has been tormented by a need to repent. [..]

Ver artigo de Pascal Bruckner no City Journal

Sharia no Reino Unido: ameaça a uma lei para todos e à igualdade de direitos

A new report by One Law for All has found Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals to be in violation of UK law, public policy and human rights.

The report is being launched to coincide with a 20 June 2010 rally on the issue of Sharia law.

Based on an 8 March 2010 Seminar on Sharia Law, research, interviews, and One Law for All case files, the report has identified a number of problem areas:

- Sharia law’s civil code is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. With the rise in the acceptance of Sharia courts, discrimination is being further institutionalised with some UK law firms additionally offering clients advice on Sharia law and the use of collaborative law.

- Sharia law is practiced in Britain primarily by Sharia Councils and Muslims Arbitration Tribunals. Both operate on religious principles and are harmful to women although Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are wrongly regarded as being of more concern because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act 1996, making their rulings binding in law. [...]

Ver notícia em One Law For All

A Turquia quer projectar os seus interesses na Europa através da diáspora in Der Spiegel

Leaders of Turkish descent across Europe recently received an invitation to a fancy event in Istanbul, all expenses paid. But what sounded innocent enough appears to have been an attempt by Ankara to get members of the Turkish diaspora to represent Turkish interests abroad. Turkish-German politicians have reacted angrily to the brazen lobbying.

The invitation that numerous Turkish-German politicians received in February sounded enticing: Lunch in a five-star hotel in Istanbul, travel expenses included. The session was titled: "Wherever One of Our Compatriots Is, We Are There Too."

Around 1,500 people of Turkish descent from several European countries accepted the tempting offer. Among the speakers at the event, which took place at the end of February, were businesspeople, NGO representatives and a member of the Belgian parliament of Turkish descent. But the meeting, which has sparked outrage among Turkish-German politicians, was more than a harmless gathering of the Turkish diaspora.

The event was organized by the Turkish government, which is led by the conservative-religious Justice and Development (AKP) party, in an attempt to send a clear message to the participants that they should represent Turkey in other countries. Turks living abroad should take the citizenship of their new home country -- not, however, with the intention of becoming an integrated part of that society, but so they can become politically active, said Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who spoke at the event. Erdogan also compared Islamophobia with anti-Semitism in his speech and said that countries which oppose dual citizenship are violating people's fundamental rights. (Germany, for example, generally does not allow its citizens to hold dual nationality.)

'Crime Against Humanity'

Participants in the session told SPIEGEL ONLINE that the Turkish prime minister then repeated a sentence which had already sparked fierce criticism when he said it during a 2008 speech in Cologne: "Assimilation is a crime against humanity." And even stronger language was apparently used by one representative of the Turkish government. According to Ali Ertan Toprak, the vice chairman of the Alevi community in Germany, who was present at the lunch, one speaker went so far as to say: "We need to inoculate European culture with Turkish culture."

The language in the invitiations already suggested the attitude of the Turkish government toward Turkish-German politicians. Ankara perceives them as being its own. Invitations sent in the name of Turkish Labor Minister Faruk Celik to German Bundestag members were addressed as "my esteemed members of parliament" and Erdogan was referred to as "our prime minister."

Turkish-German politicians and religious representatives in Germany are now voicing sharp criticism of Ankara. "It was very clearly a lobbying event on the part of the Turkish government," said Toprak. He said that he himself was shocked about how openly the Turkish government had expressed its view that Germans of Turkish descent should represent Turkey's interests. "If members of the (conservative) Christian Democratic Union who oppose EU membership for Turkey had been there, they would have got a lot of material for their arguments," Toprak says.

Highly Problematic

Canan Bayram, a member of the Berlin state parliament, said she only attended the meeting because, as an integration spokeswoman for the Green Party in the city, she felt she needed to see what an event like this was like. Of course she covered her own travel and accommodation expenses, she said. "It was important to me that I make it clear that, as a member of a German state parliament, I do not allow the Turkish government to pay my expenses." Sirvan Cakici, a member of the Bremen state parliament for the Left Party who attended the Istanbul meeting, also emphasized that she paid for her expenses herself.

"The Turkish government should pay more attention to the interests of Turks in Turkey, rather than trying to exploit Turkish-Germans as their ambassadors," said Vural Öger, a former member of the European Parliament who was also at the lunch.

Other Turkish-German politicians turned down the invitation because they saw it as highly problematic right from the beginning. "It was clear that this was purely a lobbying event on the part of the Turkish government. As a German politician, I did not belong there," says Özcan Mutlu, a member of the Berlin state parliament for the Greens. "We are not an extended arm of the Turkish government." Memet Kilic, a member of the federal parliament with the Green Party, also declined to take part for similar reasons.

'Unacceptable'

It is not, in fact, the first time that the Turkish government has sought contact to Turkish-German politicians. After the 2009 parliamentary elections, Turkish-German Bundestag members received congratulatory calls from the AKP government. And in October 2009, the Turkish government invited German parliamentarians to an AKP party congress in Ankara.

Ekin Deligöz, a member of the Bundestag for the Greens, says she has in the past received numerous invitations from the Turkish government, which she has turned down out of principle. "I refuse to represent the interests of the Turkish government simply because I was born in Turkey."

Turkish-German politicians feel that, in principle, it is acceptable if the Turkish government tries to seek contact with Bundestag members of Turkish descent. "After all, we act as a kind of bridge," says Kilic. "It's the most normal thing in the world." He adds that it is "unacceptable," however, if Ankara openly says that politicians of Turkish descent should act as a mouthpiece for Turkish interests.

Sevim Dagdelen, a Bundestag member for the Left Party who turned down the invitation to attend the February event, talks of a "parallel foreign policy" on the part of the Turkish government. "I don't want to be part of it," she says. "I find it regrettable and cause for concern that other German politicians are apparently taking part."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,druck-684125,00.html

Leituras: ‘La dernière utopie menaces sur l'universalisme‘ de Caroline Fourest

‘Geert Wilders vencedor nas eleições municipais holandesas‘ in NRC Handelsblad

In the first test of public opinion since the collapse of prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende's coalition government last month, Wilders's populist Party for Freedom (PVV) led in the city of Almere and was second in The Hague, the only two municipalities where Wilders chose to compete.

The fall of the Dutch cabinet and the upcoming campaign for parliamentary elections overshadowed Wednesday's municipal elections. The actual results for the nearly 400 municipal councils hardly seemed to matter. All interest was focused on the implications for the upcoming parliamentary race.

If voters had elected a new parliament on Wednesday, the PVV would have won between 24 and 27 seats in the 150 seat parliament. In one poll, it would be the largest single party.

That would make it tough for Balkenende's Christian democratic CDA to forge a strong coalition without Wilders. Months of talks between parties, and the resulting policy vacuum, could threaten a fragile economic recovery and cast doubt on the scope of planned budget cuts. Dutch coalition governments are usually made up of two or three parties, but polls show the next coalition will likely need four or more parties to reach a majority in parliament.

The popularity of Wilders, who compares Islam to fascism and the Koran to Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf, has dented the image of the Netherlands as a country that has often portrayed itself in the past as a bastion of tolerance.

"The leftist elite still believes in multi-culturalism, coddling criminals, a European super-state and high taxes," Wilders told cheering supporters at a rally in Almere after polling ended on Wednesday. "But the rest of the Netherlands thinks differently. That silent majority now has a voice," he said.

In Almere, the PVV won 21 percent of the vote to Labour's 18 percent, the preliminary results showed. In The Hague, the PVV had 8 seats -- second to Labour with 10 seats. After counting 93 percent of the votes, experts put turnout in the local elections at 56 percent.

Balkenende, now heading a caretaker government, saw his coalition collapse on February 20 after his centre-right CDA failed to persuade its Labour Party partners to extend the Netherlands' military mission in Uruzgan, Afghanistan. The 1,600 Dutch troops serving with Nato there are now likely to withdraw this year as planned.

Both CDA and Labour lost compared to the last local elections in 2006, but Labour appeared to have benefited from its stance over Afghanistan. "The Labour Party is back," party leader Wouter Bos told supporters. "We were declared dead and buried, but with our struggle, humility and ideals we have come back."

Besides Geert Wilders' party, the big winners in Wednesday's elections were right-wing liberals VVD and left-wing liberals D66.

http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2496799.ece/Geert_Wilders_is_major_winner_in_Dutch_polls

Islamistas radicais ‘infiltraram-se‘ no Partido Trabalhista britânico in Telegraph

The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) — which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state — has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve “mass mobilisation” of voters.

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties.

“They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it’s at local government level or national level,” he said.

“They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”

Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and “corrupted” his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years.

In a six-month investigation by this newspaper and Channel 4’s Dispatches, involving weeks of covert filming by the programme’s reporters:

• IFE activists boasted to the undercover reporters that they had already “consolidated … a lot of influence and power” over Tower Hamlets, a London borough council with a £1 billion budget.
• We have established that the group and its allies were awarded more than £10 million of taxpayers’ money, much of it from government funds designed to “prevent violent extremism”.
• IFE leaders were recorded expressing opposition to democracy, support for sharia law or mocking black people. The IFE organised meetings with extremists, including Taliban allies, a man named by the US government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and a man under investigation by the FBI for his links to the September 11 attacks.
• Moderate Muslims in London told how the IFE and its allies were enforcing their hardline views on the rest of the local community, curbing behaviour they deemed “un-Islamic”. The owner of a dating agency received a threatening email from an IFE activist, warning her to close it.
• George Galloway, a London MP, admitted in recordings obtained by this newspaper that his surprise victory in the 2005 election owed more to the IFE “than it would be wise – for them – for me to say, adding that they played a “decisive role” in his triumph at the polls.

Mr Galloway now says they were one of many groups which supported his anti-war stance and had never sought to influence him.

The IFE has particularly close links to Tower Hamlets council. Seven serving and former councillors said Lutfur Rahman, the current council leader, gained his post with the group’s help.

Some said they were canvassed by a senior IFE official on his behalf. After Mr Rahman was elected, a man with close links to the group, Lutfur Ali, was appointed assistant chief executive of the council with responsibility for grant funding.

This was despite a chequered employment record, a misleading CV and a negative report from the headhunters appointed to consider the candidates. The council’s white chief executive was subsequently forced from his post.

Since Mr Rahman became leader, more council grants have been paid to a number of organisations which our investigation established are closely linked to the IFE.

Funding for other, secular groups was ended or cut. In the borough’s well-known Brick Lane area, council funds were switched from a largely secular heritage trail to a highly controversial “hijab sculpture”, angering many residents who accused the council of “religious triumphalism”.

Schools in Tower Hamlets are told by the council should close for the Muslim festival of Eid, even where most of their pupils are not Muslim.

Mr Rahman refused to deny that an IFE activist had canvassed councillors on his behalf. He said: “There are various people across Tower Hamlets who get excited, who get involved.”

He would not comment on concerns about infiltration, saying they were “party matters”. He said: “If you look at our flagship policies, like investing £20 million to tackle overcrowding, you can see that we are working for everyone.”

The IFE said it did not seek to influence the council and had not lobbied for Mr Rahman. “If anything, existing members of the Labour Party have joined the IFE, rather than the other way round,” it said.

The group insisted it was not a fundamentalist or extremist organisation and did not support violence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7333420/Islamic-radicals-infiltrate-the-Labour-Party.html

Noruega: Publicação de cartoon de Maomé pelo jornal ‘Dagbladet‘ leva a protestos e ameaças in The Foreigner

Tensions are mounting in advance of today’s planned demonstration by Muslims against Dagbladet and the Prophet Mohammed cartoon. Though several media editors have defended the paper’s right to free expression, many think it acted unwisely.

Background

The trouble started after Arfan Qadir Bhatti, a suspected terrorist, approached Dagbladet, after discovering a link to the offending cartoon on the PST’s (Police Security Service) Facebook group. PST removed comments by the most aggressive debaters, including Bhatti’s.

When the paper broke the story on 03 February, Bhatti – an active participant in the debate in the group – claims he was censored, whilst profane comments directed against several groups were allowed to stay.

Dagbladet chose to print the drawing on its front page to illustrate its grossness. Lars Helle, the paper’s acting Editor in Chief, refused to apologise, despite the upset it caused.

Yesterday, Trygve Slagsvold Vedum, the Centre Party’s (Sp) Parliamentary leader, told NTB he believes Dagbladet has allowed itself to be used by individuals who just want to stir up trouble. Helle denies this.

Unwise

Eight newspaper editors NRK asked criticised Dagbladet’s decision to reproduce the cartoon.

“When we see how some Muslims react to this type of drawing, one should at least think twice before plastering this all over the front page,” says Tom Hetland, Editor in Chief of Stavanger Aftenblad.

Aftenbladet has previously published Kurt Westergaard’s Prophet Mohammed caricatures.

Arne Strand, Dagsavisen’s acting Editor in Chief, defends Dagbladet, however.

“An editor can’t think about whether it’s wise or not; he/she should always consider what’s right, journalistically. In this case, it was.”

Violence

Though no details have been given about today’s protest, police and demonstrators are holding their cards close to their chest. Muslim organisations and the police are concerned things could turn ugly.

“I’m worried about which direction it could take. Even though people say it will be peaceful, I’m anxious about the risk it will go wrong,” Shaoaib Sultan, secretary general of Islamisk Råd (IRN) told Aftenposten.

Calls to attend have also been published on Bhatti’s Facebook group. This has made Johan Fredriksen, chief of staff for the Oslo police, anxious. According to VG, Bhatti hasn’t taken responsibility for the arrangement, but has appointed himself as administrator for the arrangement.

Calls for peace

But Bhatti says he only wants a peaceful march.

“I’m not behind the demonstration. As a Muslim, I’m also extremely upset by the caricatures; they mock Islam and Muslims. I’m duty-bound to defend our dear Prophet Mohammed’s honour. But Muslims will only benefit by a peaceful demonstration, and we’re going to prove it,” he tells VG.

IRN, an umbrella organisation for the Islamic religious community and organisations in Norway, has recommended Muslims to stay away from today’s demonstration, for fears that it may become violent.

“It is our opinion that the current demonstrations can be easily exploited by unruly forces for their own purposes, and thus will not be beneficial for either Muslims or society at large,” it writes in a press release.

The organisation encourages Norway’s Muslims to show their support for the Prophet Mohammed by being good ambassadors for Islam, and protesting using other, peaceful means.

"Up to Allah"

Meanwhile, Mohyeldeen Mohammed, spokesman for a group of young Muslims called “The Volunteers”, says peace is up to Allah.

“The crusade is about the war on Islam, Norwegian soldiers in Afghanistan, and the mockery of our prophet. It’s also a demonstration against Dagbladet, all those who have printed and supported printing the caricatures.

“It’s also a protest against the authorities who allow it to happen. I can try my best, but it’s up to Allah to decide if it will be peaceful,” he tells NRK.

Dagbladet’s Internet site was brought down by Turkish hackers in a targeted Denial of Service (DDOS) attack on Wednesday evening, and says it will be asking the police to prosecute those responsible.

"We carried out the attack because Dagbladet didn't respect our values, history, or the Prophet Mohammed," they told the Turkish newspaper Beyazgazete News.

‘Os suíços recusam a construção de mesquitas com minaretes por 57,5%‘ in Le Temps

Contrairement à ce qu’avaient prédit les sondages, l’initiative contre la construction des minarets est acceptée à une large majorité, avec 57,5% des voix (résultats officiels). La majorité des cantons est acquise. Dix-neuf et demi d’entre eux sont en faveur de l’initiative, la palme revenant à Appenzell Rhodes-Extérieures (71,5%) et Glaris (68,8%). Seules exceptions, à Genève (59,7%), Bâle-Ville (51,6%), Vaud (53%) et Neuchâtel, le Non l’emporte. Le Conseil fédéral prend acte du résultat dans un communiqué qui tend la main aux musulmans.

Le «Non» de Genève (59,7%), de Bâle-Ville (51,6%), Vaud et Neuchâtel sur l’initiative anti-minarets, fait figure d’exception. Au niveau national c’est bien le Oui qui l’emporte avec 57,1% des voix, la majorité des cantons étant désormais acquise.

Dans le camp des anti-minarets, Glaris (68,8%), Argovie, Appenzell Rhodes-Extérieures (71,5%), Schaffhouse et les Grisons (58,6%), acceptent nettement l’initiative. En Suisse romande, le Jura (51,2%) et Fribourg (55,9%) sont également en faveur de l’interdiction. Lucerne approuve également le texte, tout comme Zurich à 52,7%. Au Tessin, dont le résultat définitif n’est pas encore connu, on s’achemine vers un net Oui pour l’initiative. Des chiffres provenant de l’Institut GFS et de la SSR.

Tout au long de la campagne, les sondages avaient prédit le Non à 53% il y a encore deux semaines. Ces derniers jours cependant, le Oui avait légèrement remonté dans les intentions de vote.

Un mot revient dans la bouche de tous les commentateurs: la surprise. Les sondages avaient en effet annoncé le Non gagnant Le résultat de la votation faisait la une de plusieurs titres internationaux comme Le Monde ou la BBC en début d’après-midi.

Dans son communiqué publié à 16h00, le Conseil fédéral prend acte du résultat, et rappelle que seule la construction de nouveaux minarets est interdite mais que celle de mosquées continue , et que les musulmans peuvent continuer de pratiquer leur culte en privé ou en groupes. Un communiqué aux allures de main tendue vers les musulmans, qui est d’ailleurs aussi traduit en arabe sur le site du Conseil.

http://www.letemps.ch/

‘O drama multicultural‘ da Holanda: resultados eleitorais mostram uma crescente polarização da sociedade holandesa

In politics, things can turn on a euro cent. Just six month ago Wouter Bos was celebrated for the way he dealt with the financial crisis. The Dutch Labour party leader and finance minister soared in the opinion polls. But all that was forgotten when people went to vote on Thursday, and dealt Bos' party a devastating blow: Labour lost four of its seven seats in the European parliament.

The Christian democrats, the other major coalition partner, also took a severe beating: it went from seven to five seats. That didn't keep prime minister and party leader Jan Peter Balkenende from claiming victory: "We said we wanted to remain the biggest party and that's what happened," Balkenende said, adding nevertheless that his coalition government will have to work hard to regain the public's confidence.

The big winner of Thursday's election was undoubtedly Geert Wilders, whose Party for Freedom (PVV) went from zero to four seats, making it the second biggest Dutch party in the Brussels parliament in its first European election.

Low turnout

The mainstream parties had silently hoped that the traditional low turnout for European elections would prevent a PVV breakthrough, going on the assumption that Wilders supporters are not that interested in Europe and wouldn't bother to vote. That turned out to be wrong. Despite a record low turnout - 36.5 percent, 2.5 points less than in 2004 - the PVV was able to attract 16.9 percent of all voters. According to research by public broadcaster NOS, many PVV voters were men and/or over fifty.

At a party meeting on Monday, Wilders had correctly predicted that the PVV would become bigger than his old party, the right-wing liberal VVD, which he broke away from in 2004. Still, VVD party leader Mark Rutte was not entirely unhappy with his party's three seats - down from four. Opinion polls had predicted a bigger loss. Just ahead of the election, Rutte had caused a controversy by proposing to broaden the definition of freedom of speech to include Holocaust denial. No matter how hard he tried to explain what exactly he meant, Rutte was ruthlessly attacked by political friends and foes alike. "This is a good result, " Rutte said on Thursday night.

But even Wilders had not expected his party to become bigger than Labour. "This the day the PVV finally made its breakthrough," he said. "People have had enough of the Balkenende and Bos cabinet." Wilders will not be going to Brussels himself; preferring to concentrate on national politics. Instead, an aide, Barry Madlener, will lead the PVV's four-man delegation to the European parliament, an institution it would like to see abolished.

'No real answers'

Just two months ago, the other parties said they were thrilled that the PVV had decided to take part in the European elections. Finally, they would get a chance to prove that the PVV had no real answers to European problems, was the thinking. The mainstream parties would have no trouble at all convincing the electorate that Europe was in the end a good thing for the Netherlands, or so they thought.

But the PVV's Barry Madlener, a former real estate agent, ran a better campaign than expected. His message was clear and simple: Brussels should have less power, and Turkey will never ever join the European Union. The mainstream parties, by contrast, had a much fuzzier stand on Europe, as Madlener never failed to point out.

In fact, the only other party to do well in these elections was at the other end of the political spectrum. The left-wing liberal party D66, which went to the polls with an outspoken pro-European stance, won over 10 percent of the voters and went from one to three seats in the European parliament.

The Netherlands is a more polarised country since Thursday's election. The political landscape has splintered. Stable government coalitions made up of two major parties and a sometimes a smaller third party may be a thing of the past. If national elections were held today with the same outcome, it could take months of negotiations to form a government. And any government coalition would probably require four parties, since most parties have already ruled out governing with the PVV. (The Christian democrats are on the fence about sharing power with Wilders.)

Penalised by voters

All this makes it easy to forget that this election was really about Europe. So what does the Dutch result say about the position of the Netherlands in Europe? The Netherlands was a founding member of the European Union. Does the PVV victory, on top of the Dutch 'no' in the 2005 referendum about the European constitution, mean that the Netherlands is now firmly in the eurosceptic camp?

Not quite. The electoral gains of the eurosceptic PVV are offset by the success of the pro-European D66. Another eurosceptical party, the Socialist Party, gained slightly compared to the 2004 election but lost big-time compared to the 2006 national election. The pro-European Green party held its own.

By contrast, parties like Labour, the Christian democrats and the right-wing liberal party VVD, who tried to be pro-European and eurosceptic at the same time, were penalised by the voters. In the European context too, the Netherlands is now a polarised country.

http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2262197.ece/The_Netherlands_is_now_a_polarised_country
JPTF 2009/06/06

O regresso do passado otomano à Grécia? ‘Emigrantes muçulmanos confrontam-se com a polícia em Atenas‘ in Kathimerini

A Muslim immigrant shouts in front of a row of riot policemen during a rally in central Athens yesterday. Hundreds of Muslims marched through the center to protest the alleged defacement of a copy of the Quran by a Greek policeman.

Police clashed with hundreds of Muslim immigrants in central Athens for a second day yesterday in an escalating protest at reports that a policeman had defaced a copy of the Quran during a routine inspection earlier this week.

An estimated 1,500 demonstrators, mostly immigrants from Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan, hurled sticks and stones at police officers in full riot gear who had been stationed outside Parliament yesterday afternoon. Police responded with tear gas and stun grenades. In the escalating unrest, which saw several store facades smashed, parked cars overturned and traffic lights vandalized, one officer and four protesters were said to have sustained minor injuries. More than 15 protesters were arrested. The demonstration followed a less violent protest that broke out near Omonia Square on Thursday in the wake of reports that a policeman had torn up a copy of the Quran and then stamped on it during a routine inspection conducted on four Syrian migrants in the city center. After word spread about the alleged incident, local migrant groups organized the protest. Later on Thursday an Afghan national was arrested in the run-down Athens district of Aghios Panteleimonas after allegedly throwing a firebomb at a police station, causing limited damage but serious injury to himself.

The Muslim Union of Greece, which represents thousands of immigrants in the capital, said that it had taken legal action against the unidentified policeman alleged to have defaced the Syrian’s copy of Islam’s holy book. Police said an internal investigation had been launched.

Meanwhile, in a related development, Athens Mayor Nikitas Kaklamanis welcomed a proposal by Athens Prefect Yiannis Sgouros to purchase the building of the old Athens appeals court in the city center where hundreds of illegal immigrants have been squatting for the past six months.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100003_23/05/2009_107438
JPTF 2009/05/23

‘Da Fatwa à Jihad: o caso Rushdie e o seu legado‘, de Kenan Malik

‘With images of Geert Wilders being turned back at Heathrow fresh in our minds, seldom can a book have had a more searing relevance to contemporary events. Seldom has a book offered a more revealing portrait of both a religion and a nation's frail carapace and intellectual and moral failings. And seldom do we see so clearly that one of the lessons of history is that no one learns the lessons of history.
The government's shameful and self-defeating ban on Wilders, continuing a policy of appeasement in the face of extremist threat, makes Malik's case for him: that the Rushdie affair continues to cast a long, baleful shadow over the British cultural landscape.
Malik, an Indian-born, Manchester-raised writer and broadcaster, is perhaps best known as an acute commentator on race and a staunch critic of multiculturalism, a case he has refined in his previous books The Meaning of Race (1996) and Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides Are Wrong in The Race Debate (2008). This book is both a social and intellectual history and a personal journey, since the Rushdie affair stands as a decisive turning point in his own relationship with the left, where, as a member of the Socialist Workers' Party in the 1980s, he cut his political teeth [...]‘. (Extracto da recensão do livro feita por Lindsay Johns para o New Humanist).

JPTF 2009/05/21

‘O significado da liberdade‘ in The Economist

At first glance, the resolution on “religious defamation” adopted by the UN’s Human Rights Council on March 26th, mainly at the behest of Islamic countries, reads like another piece of harmless verbiage churned out by a toothless international bureaucracy. What is wrong with saying, as the resolution does, that some Muslims faced prejudice in the aftermath of September 2001? But a closer look at the resolution’s language, and the context in which it was adopted (with an unholy trio of Pakistan, Belarus and Venezuela acting as sponsors), makes clear that bigger issues are at stake.

The resolution says “defamation of religions” is a “serious affront to human dignity” which can “restrict the freedom” of those who are defamed, and may also lead to the incitement of violence. But there is an insidious blurring of categories here, which becomes plain when you compare this resolution with the more rigorous language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 in a spirit of revulsion over the evils of fascism. This asserts the right of human beings in ways that are now entrenched in the theory and (most of the time) the practice of liberal democracy. It upholds the right of people to live in freedom from persecution and arbitrary arrest; to hold any faith or none; to change religion; and to enjoy freedom of expression, which by any fair definition includes freedom to agree or disagree with the tenets of any religion.

In other words, it protects individuals—not religions, or any other set of beliefs. And this is a vital distinction. For it is not possible systematically to protect religions or their followers from offence without infringing the right of individuals.

What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to outlaw? To judge from what happens in the countries that lobbied for the vote—like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan—they use the word “defamation” to mean something close to the crime of blasphemy, which is in turn defined as voicing dissent from the official reading of Islam. In many of the 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has led the drive to outlaw “defamation”, both non-Muslims and Muslims who voice dissent (even in technical matters of Koranic interpretation) are often victims of just the sort of persecution the 1948 declaration sought to outlaw. That is a real human-rights problem. And in the spirit of fairness, laws against blasphemy that remain on the statute books of some Western countries should also be struck off; only real, not imaginary, incitement of violence should be outlawed.

Good manners, please; not censorship

In much of the Muslim world, the West’s reaction to the attacks of September 2001, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has been misread as an attack on Islam itself. This is more than regrettable; it is dangerous. Western governments, and decent people everywhere, should try to ensure that the things they say do not entrench religious prejudice or incite acts of violence; being free to give offence does not mean you are wise to give offence. But no state, and certainly no body that calls itself a Human Rights Council, should trample on the right to free speech enshrined in the Universal Declaration. And in the end, given that all faiths have undergone persecution at some time, few people have more to gain from the protection of free speech than sincere religious believers.

The United States, with its tradition of combining strong religious beliefs and religious freedom, is well placed to make that case. Having taken a politically risky decision (see article) to re-engage with the Human Rights Council and seek election as one of its 47 members, America should now make the defence of real religious liberty one of its highest priorities.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13413974&source=most_commented

JPTF 2009/04/08

Abu Qatada: O islamista radical que se ‘converteu‘ aos direitos humanos para não ser deportado in Daily Mail, 19 de Fevereiro de 2009

Radical preacher Abu Qatada was today awarded compensation of £2,500 by judges, who ruled that his detention without trial breached his human rights.

Qatada, often described as Osama Bin Laden's ambassador in Europe, had demanded tens of thousands for being unlawfully held in Belmarsh prison.

Ten other terror suspects today received similar levels of compensation from the European Court of Human Rights - which were lower than feared.

This was 'in view of the fact that the detention scheme (the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) was devised in the face of a public emergency, and as an attempt to reconcile the need to protect the UK public against terrorism with the obligation not to send the applicants back to countries where they faced a real risk of ill-treatment'.

Today's victory came after Qatada claimed that his detention under anti-terror laws introduced by the Government after the 2001 attacks on America violated the Human Rights Convention.

Today's ruling acknowledged that at the time of the detentions, 'there had been a public emergency threatening the life of the nation'.

But it said the issue was whether the legal measures adopted by the Government in response were 'strictly required by the exigencies of the situation'.

The judges said when someone is detained on the basis of 'an allegedly reasonable suspicion of unlawful behaviour', that person must be given an opportunity effectively to challenge the allegations.

At the time the Government considered there was an urgent need to protect the UK population from terrorist attack and a strong public interest in obtaining information about al-Qaida and its associates, and keeping the sources of such information secret.

But balanced against that, went on the judges, was the detainees' rights to 'procedural fairness'.

Yesterday the preacher lost the latest round of his UK legal battle to stay in Britain.

Critics had branded the human rights case yet another example of human rights and European law madness.

They pointed out that the men could have walked free at any time if they had simply agreed to leave Britain.

News of the case, which by-passed British courts altogether, overshadowed a victory by the Home Office in the long-running saga over whether Qatada can be deported to Jordan.

Law Lords ruled that booting out the preacher of hate would not breach his human rights. But Qatada, 48, - who has already cost the taxpayer £1.5million in legal fees, prison costs and benefit payments - lodged an immediate appeal to the European court. The case could drag on for years, at enormous further cost.

Terror suspects get anonymity protection

Eight of the 11 terror suspects claiming compensation are protected by anonymity orders.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission - which hears all deportation cases involving terror suspects - grants automatic and immediate anonymity to anyone who appears before it.

This can be lifted only if the suspect decides to place his or her name in the public domain, as Abu Qatada did.

It gives terror suspects a protection not afforded to people in the regular court system, where all defendants over 18 are routinely named.

But SIAC's stance reflects the fact that the men have not been charged with any criminal offence and some of the evidence against them is heard in secret.

Qatada, who has been linked to senior Al Qaeda figures, will be allowed to remain in the UK - where his wife and five children live in an £800,000 West London house - while the appeal is heard.
The 11 men awarded compensation today include six Algerians and Abu Rideh, a Palestinian refugee with Al Qaeda connections.

There was no limit to how much the Strasbourg court could order the Government to pay them, which sparked fears that the payouts could be huge.

A family of Congolese asylum seekers was recently awarded £150,000 for being unlawfully detained for only two months. Some of the men in the Qatada case had claimed for three years in prison.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer, a security adviser to the Prime Minister, said last night: 'This is crazy. Qatada and the others were free to leave this country, and consumed our taxes while living here. The whole thing is a nonsense.'

The compensation claim was based on the time the men spent in Belmarsh under a crackdown in the direct aftermath of September 11.

Ministers passed an emergency law which allowed the detention without charge or trial of international terror suspects, who could not be forcibly removed because of human rights law.

It was made clear to the detainees that they would be released immediately if they agreed to leave the UK. In December 2004, the Law Lords ruled their detention was unlawful under the Human Rights Act and quashed the legislation which allowed it.

In March 2005 it was replaced with the controversial control orders.

The 11 men claimed for inhuman and degrading treatment', and unlawful detention, based on the Law Lords ruling.

Their lawyers went direct to Europe because no compensation is available in the British courts.
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'It's ridiculous that this hateful man is continuing to cost British taxpayers so much money.

'If we weren't tied down with all this EU human rights legislation then we could have slung him out years ago and saved a huge amount of money.

'It's wrong that law-abiding people are landed with massive bills for extremists just because we have sacrificed our national right to deport undesirables.'

Qatada is wanted in his native Jordan, where he was sentenced to life in 1999 for terror offences.
Jordan is one of a number of countries with which the UK has signed a 'memorandum of understanding' which the Home Office insists will ensure deported suspects do not face torture.

Qatada was released on bail last summer but returned to prison in November over fears he would try to abscond. His detention costs an estimated £50,000 a year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1148622/Preacher-hate-awarded-2-500-judges-rule-jailing-breached-human-rights.html#
JPTF 2009/02/19

Livros: ‘É um mundo PC! O que significa viver numa terra que se transformou em politicamente correcta‘ de Edward Stourton

O livro do jornalista Edward Stourton, apresentador do programa Today da BBC Radio 4 propõe-nos a uma visita guiada ao fantástico mundo do politicamente correcto (PC), através de um relato... neutral?! (Note-se que, com alguma honestidade intelectual, o autor reconhece ser tão fácil ser neutral neste assunto como escrever livros ‘imparciais‘ sobre o conflito do Médio Oriente...). A leitura adivinha-se estimulante para a intelligentzsia portuguesa, habitualmente tão fascinada com as ‘inovações‘ e ‘boas práticas‘ dos países mais desenvolvidos. Um dos lugares mais vibrantes deste ‘admirável mundo novo‘ é, sem dúvida, a cidade britânica de Luton (um cenário inimaginado, apesar de tudo, pelo escritor Aldous Huxley nos anos 30 do século XX). Esta exemplifica o novo paradigma da sensibilidade PC made in UK e as boas práticas de gestão autárquica do século XXI. A falta de atenção dada ao mesmo no livro, pode constituir, por isso, um motivo de desapontamento. Trata-se de um caso de estudo, a nível nacional britânico, mas também internacional, para os ‘profissionais da diversidade‘ e para todos os que se preocupam com a sensibilidade do ‘outro‘. Entre as ‘boas práticas‘ implementadas pelo executivo municipal encontram-se, por exemplo, o fim das iluminações de Natal nas ruas da cidade e o abandono das decorações com motivos alegóricos à Natividade (ver o artigo de Oliver Burkeman no jornal Guardian, intitulado The phoney war on Christmas). Ah, esta crise onde nos está a levar... Não, não é a crise financeira, é a ideologia multiculturalista, estúpido!

JPTF 2008/11/08

‘Índia e Iraque elevam a gravidade das perseguições a cristãos no mundo‘ in La Vanguardia, 24 de Outubro de 2008

Los violentos ataques a cristianos en India, el acoso que sufren en el vecino Pakistán, y la persecución de los caldeos en Iraq empeoran el balance de los sesenta países del mundo en que se registran graves violaciones de la libertad religiosa, según el informe anual de la asociación internacional de derecho pontificio Ayuda a la Iglesia Necesitada (AIN).

"Se aprecia un gran riesgo de que resulte comprometida la identidad de India como Estado laico, con una involución hacia un confesionalismo hindú de consecuencias impredecibles", sostienen los autores del informe, presentado ayer en la Asociación de la Prensa Extranjera. A finales del 2007, extremistas hindúes iniciaron la peor persecución anticristiana en India en decenios, sobre todo en el estado de Orissa, que se ha recrudecido desde agosto, con al menos 53 muertos, iglesias y casas arrasadas, y quizá diez mil refugiados, sin que las autoridades hayan intervenido.

En Orissa, incluso las respetadas misioneras de la caridad, la orden fundada por la madre Teresa de Calcuta, han tenido que huir. Además, están proliferando en algunos estados (India tiene estructura federal) las leyes anticonversión, que castigan a quien practica el proselitismo, pero sólo si el converso abandona la fe hindú para adoptar otro credo, no si se convierte al hinduismo.

El caso pakistaní es también gravísimo, a juicio de este informe 2008: "Los ataques suelen tener forma de fetua (veredictos emitidos por tribunales islámicos, pero con poder de condenar a muerte también a los no musulmanes), pero también hay asaltos armados a lugares de culto y secuestro de miembros de las minorías." En instrumento de represión religiosa en Pakistán se ha convertido la ley contra la blasfemia, que castiga con cárcel a quien ofende el Corán, e incluso pena de muerte a quien difama a Mahoma. Según los analistas, esta ley es usada arteramente por fundamentalistas suníes para acosar a la minoría cristiana, y a los Ahmadi, comunidad fundada en 1889 que se autodefine musulmana, pero que el islam juzga herética por sostener que Mahoma no ha sido el último profeta.

En Iraq, donde el islam es la religión oficial, el violento acoso a los cristianos, la mayoría caldeos, ha obligado a familias enteras a huir de Mosul, al ritmo de unas 20.000 familias por semana hasta ahora, según la agencia de noticias misionera AsiaNews. Su director, el religioso Bernardo Cervellera, ve un vínculo entre libertad religiosa y desarrollo económico. "Allí donde los creyentes son sometidos a vejaciones, la ausencia de libertad religiosa se traduce en una penalización para el desarrollo global del país - razonó Cervellera-. En cambio, el aumento de la libertad religiosa se convierte inmediatamente en factor de desarrollo y crecimiento."

Entre los países donde se producen violaciones más graves de la libertad de culto, el informe cita a Eritrea - donde hay dos mil personas detenidas por motivos religiosos-, Sudán, Nigeria, Arabia Saudí, Bangladesh, Indonesia y Egipto, entre otros.

http://www.lavanguardia.es/lv24h/20081024/53565890388.html
JPTF 2008/10/24