Friday, September 16, 2005

Should Israel Send Peacekeeping Forces to Sweden?

Should Israel send peacekeeping forces to Sweden, now that they have some troops to spare following the Gaza withdrawal? They could send special envoy Benjamin Netanyahu to carve up some borders and give southern Sweden to Muslims. And then he could get the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts:

Jihad is Only an Inner Struggle

A high school teacher in Malmö, Sweden, discovered that about a dozen Arab students were laughing and shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while watching a DVD of infidel hostages being beheaded in Iraq. The headmaster didn't think the incident was such a big deal.

Apparently, this wasn't the only such incident:

Security police to monitor children

Swedish security police unit Säpo plans to keep tabs on Muslim schoolchildren who express admiration for suicide bombers and other terrorists. Teachers are expected to assist in monitoring the attitudes of young pupils, and the plan has sparked strong reactions, newspaper Aftonbladet reports. Talks are already planned between school authorities and Säpo, and many educators do not feel that watching and reporting on students is part of their job. Sweden's Liberal Party is behind the proposal. "We see for us a form of information exchange: Säpo should inform teachers about these (dangerous) groups but the schools should also give important information to Säpo about how young people think," said Liberal Party MP Lotta Edholm. "If one is going to observe students on a very vague basis and do what Säpo has asked it could have long-term and destructive consequences for the individual student," Eva-Lis Preisz of the National Union of Teachers in Sweden told Aftonbladet.

"Get teachers to spy on danger pupils"

Teachers in Stockholm could be asked to report pupils who praise suicide bombers, if new proposals are put into action. But Säpo, Sweden’s security police, say that they are cautious about any moves to turn teachers into informers. The proposal for teachers and security police to start cooperating, which will be put before the city’s education committee next week, was originally the idea of the Liberal Party. The party came up with the idea after the London terror attacks in July, in which the bombers were young Muslim men, one as young as 18. The Liberal Party’s Lotta Edholm told Aftonbladet “Muslim extremism is now a threat against a number of pupils in Stockholm’s schools.”

No Place in Malmö Schools for Underground Kids

The authorities in the southern city of Malmö have decided that the children of underground asylum-seekers will no longer be allowed in schools. The official who chaired the meeting says any other decision would have violated the law, but in reporting the story, the newspaper “Sydsvenska Dagbladet” says the decision violated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child, which says all children have a right to education. Another official says despite the ruling, individual principals will be allowed to let in such children on their own discretion. But a member of a group working with asylum seekers in Malmö says the new ruling will give principals an excuse to exclude the underground children. In the last year nine out of ten asylum seekers have been refused permission to live in Sweden, and thousands have chosen to go underground to stay here.

Jihad in Swedish Schools

At least 139 schools in Sweden suffered arson attacks during 2002 alone. Such as an incident in Malmö, where three schools were put on fire during one night. "Teenage boys" are suspected to behind the arson. Björn Vinberg from the fire department in Kroksbäck in the Malmö area says it's humiliating and degrading to put out fires again and again in the same immigrant areas, with school kids laughing at them and lighting a new one just afterwards. His colleagues have been to the same place no less than twenty times, all totally unnecessary. The Swedish Radio programme 'Kaliber' reported on Sunday that "almost all" Islamic schools and congregations in Sweden have contacted potential sponsors in Saudi Arabia. Many of these Saudi foundations ask for influence in return.

Violence and threats pose such a big problem in high schools in Malmö, that the local school board wants to install surveillance cameras and security guards in the buildings. The plans, which are to be carried out next fall, include tougher control of students’ comings and goings, and equipping school staff with security buttons, so that they can alert security guards if they are attacked. The city’s education director Matz Nilsson said unruly and aggressive students had become a more common sight in the high schools of Malmö, the home of some of Scandinavia’s biggest and roughest slums. ‘Schools must have their grounds under control,’ he said. ‘We must establish receptions to control who enters and leaves school buildings.’ ‘There is no way around it, we must have camera surveillance,’ said Kay Nilsson, the school board’s security chief. Malmö’s high school reported 125 students to the police last year, compared with 71 in 2003.

All-Arabic Preschool Classes in Swedish City

Malmö, Sweden's third largest city, has now taken another step towards its Islamization: Starting from the fall of 2005, the district of Hyllie will begin education in Arabic only for groups of immigrant preschool children. The idea is that once the children learn the language of their parents, it will become easier for them to learn Swedish as well.


At September 16, 2005 2:07 PM, Blogger John Sobieski said...

Sweden is insane. I have never seen a nation so eager to embrace their genocide.

Pedestrian Infidel
The Pedestrian Infidel Blog

At September 16, 2005 5:58 PM, Blogger Jauhara said...

How can a culture be so suicidal? Hell, the islamic death cult finds such manageable dhimwits in Sweden. What I would like to know is this: Are Norwegians and Swedes leaving their countries for someplaces like, you know,Australia or Canada or America?

At September 16, 2005 7:45 PM, Blogger Teratism said...

Sorry folks, but will everybody relax?
You all sound as if compulsory burka and penis chopping will be with us tomorrow morning.
I hope some of our regular subscribers demonstrated outside the Canadian embassy? That worked out nicely.
Voter power?
I suspect a combination of feet-on-the-ground and the politician (Martin?) knowing what reality was but testing the water.

That's what it's all about;

politicians and personal wealth and power. And also leads us to how we can all change the way we are governed.
Voter power.
If there's no-one who reflects your aspirations and requirements...Cool. Create your own party. Easy (not).
I'd enjoy FJM and PDP's comments.

And stop talking about "suicide" etcetera, as it's leading nowhere.


At September 16, 2005 8:08 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

I was very happy to hear that Canada decided not to permit Sharia. Interesting that you had to deny Christians and Jews the right to continue their arbitration (which wasn't hurting anyone) in order to justify the ban to yourselves.

So, Christians and Jews had to suffer for your offense to Muslims. Kind of like a burnt offering, or an offer of Czechoslovakia in return for "Peace in out time."

Or, you know, it also kind of sounds like a Dhimmi Tax.

At September 16, 2005 8:30 PM, Blogger Teratism said...


yeah, I understand that.

But let's face it. Pretty well everything in our laws and societies that have been created and developed over thousands of years are based on the Judeo-Christian idealism.

And that's what I personally like.

But I believe personal religious beliefs and the state should be separate. And there's reasons for that.
Big religion tends to exclude folks who don't subscribe the what it's adherants do.

The state should protect our basic concepts from mad totalitarianism.

Sure it's not perfect but..

Therefore, I like the "semi secular" Jeffersonian-Adams-Washington idealism of statehood.


-Jaco P. (Maybe the finest? Qui), but I prefer Geddy Lee.-

At September 16, 2005 9:01 PM, Blogger John B said...

teratism and Pastorious

Canada didn't ban sharia, Ontario did although Quebec had also stated earlier this year they would not permit sharia tribunals. Martin had nothing to do with the issue, the provincial premier, Dalton McGuinty was responsible.

Although in all liklihood, Christian (Catholic?) and Jewish tribunals were doing no harm - most people including myself were unaware of them - it would be pretty much untenable legally to just ban sharia. During this debate the reason for these arbitrations bacame publicly known, the reason being that family courts were backed up and a previous government decided this would make a nice shortcut. Arbitration for commercial disputes is already well established.

At September 16, 2005 9:14 PM, Blogger sissyblue said...

Does anyone know of a conservative Russian blogger?


At September 16, 2005 9:14 PM, Blogger Teratism said...

John B.

Thanks for clarifying the actors involved.
That means Canada is still fedarated? Good.
I was suprised about the religious courts as well and agree that we can't have any of them, hence my previous post.


At September 16, 2005 11:01 PM, Blogger John B said...


Yes, Canada is a federation and the provinces do have quite a bit of power. I'm not a constitutional expert but I would say they have more power than states in the U.S. do. The provinces are governed by the constitution (passed in 1982) and the Canadian Supreme Court but the provinces have complete jurisdiction in areas such as education, natural resources, health care. The feds have jurisdiction over external affairs, taxation (e.g. duties, etc.), monetary policy and defense (I'm trying not to laugh over that one).

The feds have some clout due to the more comprehensive taxation at the federal level which gets passed to the provinces as transfer payments which is how the federal government influences provincial policies such as health care. As the federal contribution declines, some provinces (notably ALberta with its oil revenue) are inclined to tell Ottawa to screw off.

To further complicate the issue, the provinces can exercise what is know as the "notwithstanding clause" in the constitution and opt out. Quebec did this after disagreeing with a supreme court ruling dealing with English language rights. I believe this is the only case so far since the constitution was adopted in 1982.

At September 17, 2005 1:31 AM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Actually, I am with you on the seperation of church and state thing. It just bugs me that it will be seen as a victory by the Islamists to have denied Christian and Jewish arbitration.

Jaco P. is where I took the name from. Yeah, he's one of my favorite musicians, and I like the name.

John B.,
Thanks for the info.

At September 17, 2005 8:37 AM, Blogger truepeers said...

john b,

most of the Canadian constitution long predates the Constitution Act of 1982, which introduced only the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an all-Canadian constitution amending formula (no more role for the British parliament which had originally ratified the constitutional agreements drawn up by the British NOrth American coloniess in the 1860s and 70s).

At September 17, 2005 3:57 PM, Blogger John B said...

pastorius and teratism:

Re: relgious based arbitration

The Toronto Star today ran a column by Lynda Hurst (see link). It appears that no Christian groups have used faith based arbitration since it's inception in 1991 and only a handful of Orthodox Jews have.

Some quotes from the article in case registration is required:

"Contrary to government comments in past media reports and current statements by Jewish and Muslim activists, no known Christian church has made use of Ontario's 1991 Arbitration Act to settle marital breakdown or child custody disputes.

"I've consulted fairly widely and no one is aware of any such thing," says lawyer Janet Buckingham of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. "Of course, churches mediate and counsel if people request it, but arbitrating legal matters? No."

"The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto agrees (annulments are purely a church matter). It, like the fellowship, would like the myth put to rest."

"Most unsettling of all was the ease with which sharia advocates played the religion card, accusing Muslim opponents — and thousands of other objectors across Canada and a nervous world — of Islamophobia.

But the card's silencing power didn't work. Anyone clued in on the debate knew it turned on just two issues: Did the religious rights of a group (or at least one section thereof) supersede the equality rights of individual women in the group? And could the province legally remove an existing right from the small Hasidic Jewish community?"

"Though attention centred mainly on the sharia battle, the guardians of the beit din, or rabbinical court, were also and ever in the mix. Their powers of persuasion were clearly evident in the report released last December, after months of consultation, by former New Democrat attorney-general Marion Boyd. Hasidic Jews had been using the arbitration act for 13 years without problems, she was told. Why should they forfeit it because of the sharia brouhaha?

It now emerges, however, that this too was a distortion. Only a handful of domestic cases ever come before the local beit din which generally deals with business disputes; two last year, to be precise."


Thanks, I'm aware that Canada was governed by the British North America Act of 1867 which laid out the framework of provincial vs federal responsibilities as I noted. It was later complemented in 1960 by the Canadian Bill of Rights passed by the Diefenbaker government. In my attempt to be brief, I probably oversimplefied things. Personally I was ambivalent about the 1982 constitition for the same reason many other Canadians were - it would give too much power to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. This fear I think has been born out, particularly given the eagerness of the supremes to "read into" the constitution and either strike down laws deemed unconstitutional or amend existing laws. IMO, there needs to be a mechanism to "bitch slap" the court on occaision to remind them that they were not elected.

At September 17, 2005 7:31 PM, Blogger truepeers said...

john b, you're right about the court; it exemplifies the gnostic elitism that rules in Canada, the great fear of any true revelation about humanity that has appeared in the guise of religion, and the consequent preference for all kinds of secular, metaphysical, or gnostic mysticism. Kind of the thing you see in the Toronto Star:

But the card's silencing power didn't work. Anyone clued in on the debate knew it turned on just two issues

-really, speaking for myself, I think Islamophobia was a big part of the story, as it should be. It should be clear that Islam is a religion that has not been good for women, and there is no obvious reason why it must become much better in this respect under modern Candian conditions. Maybe it can change, but it is still in the put up or shut up phase from my perspective, i.e. yet unproven. What riles me is the kind of elitism that would first of all declare we must, in the general case, defer to the apotropaic gesture - "the card's silencing power" - even while, in this specific instance, we play the role of the gnostic grandee to declare that the card does not work on us. Yeah right, Toronto Star.

What's most annoying is that the accusation of Islamophobia has been modelled on that of Judeophobia. But the two phobias are very different phenomena, and treating them as analogous, and as similarly regrettable, is yet another gnostic crime, the sort of thing in which our lawyers excel, precisely because they have little regard for the historical specificity of revelations into the human, a specificity differently exemplified by the quite different religions.


Post a Comment

<< Home