Back to the days of the Barbary Pirates

October 24, 2013
front1
(Pirates seize two Americans off Nigeria’s coast)
(But in Obamastan they celebrate “iftar dinners just like Thomas Jefferson” 200 years ago)
More on that “historical iftar dinner” below the fold…

Obama again spreads false claim that Thomas Jefferson hosted first Ramadan iftar dinner at White House

by HUGH FITZGERALD August 14, 2012
Obama said during his iftar at the White House on August 10: “As I’ve noted before, Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia — perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” The State Department retailed the same PC myth last year in this article, “Thomas Jefferson’s Iftar,” July 29. The State announcement quotes Obama saying in 2010: “Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan – making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.”
Longtime Jihad Watch writer Hugh Fitzgerald busted this myth in his piece “Barack Obama, The New York Times, that Iftar Dinner, and the rewriting of history,” which was first published here at Jihad Watch on August 26, 2010. Here it is again:
Barack Obama, The New York Times, that Iftar Dinner, and the rewriting of history
by Hugh Fitzgerald
“The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” — Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the “Annual Iftar Dinner” at the White House
Really? Is that what happened? Was there a “first known iftar at the White House” given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the “first Muslim ambassador to the United States”? That’s what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at the 2010 “Annual Iftar Dinner,” knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all to see. Apparently Obama, and those who wrote this speech for him, and others who vetted it, find nothing wrong with attempting to convince Americans, as part of their policy of trying to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds, that American history itself can be rewritten. A little insidious nunc pro tunc backdating, to rewrite American history. And that rewrite of American history has the goal of convincing Americans, in order to please Muslims, that the United States and Islam, that Americans and Muslims, go way back.
As Obama so unforgettably put it in his Cairo Speech (possibly the most inaccurate, the most cavalier about historical truth, of any speech by any President in American history):
As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)
We could go through those two appalling paragraphs with such historians and keen students of history as Gibbon, John Quincy Adams, Tocqueville, Jacob Burckhardt, and Winston Churchill, but that is for another occasion. We could point out that the highly selective quotation – for example from John Adams, whose views on Islam are falsely implied by quoting such a statement as “the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims” which was mere pleasing rhetoric, and that phrase “in itself” left open the possibility of other reasons for enmity, including Muslim hostility. Not John Adams himself but his son John Quincy Adams (our most learned President), who was far more knowledgeable about Islam, was to write about that:
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
But John Adams himself drew conclusions about Muslims and Islam that were far from favorable. John Adams’ unfavorable view of Islam was obscured and turned on its head by Obama, in quoting that single phrase that was part of negotiations-cum-treaty designed to free American ships and seaman from the ever-present threat of attack by Muslim pirates in North Africa (known to history as the Barbary Pirates). John Adams’ unfavorable view of Islam was shared by all those who, in the young Republic, had any dealings at all with Muslim envoys. Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Qur’an in his library not because he was an admirer of that book, or the faith of Islam, but because he was both curious and cultivated. Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison used Jefferson’s own copy of the Qur’an. Yet that copy, since it was translated into English by George Sale, has for most devout Muslims no validity whatsoever, for the Qur’an must be read and understood in Arabic. A Qur’an in a language other than Arabic cannot even be called the “Holy Qur’an,” though apparently Obama, and his speechwriters, did not know this, in their fulsome description of Jefferson’s copy of the Sale translation that was appropriated by Representative Ellison for his own crude and transparent political ploy. Obama wrongly refers to Sales’ version as the “Holy Qur’an,” and every Muslim at that dinner knew such a book could not possibly be called that. A small mistake, but then there are so many mistakes, and Obama and his speechwriters are so eager to please, and yet so ignorant withal, that these mistakes add up.
There is not a single American statesman or traveler or diplomat in the days of the early Republic who had a good word for Islam. Look high, look low, consult whatever you want in the National Archives or the Library of Congress, and you will not find any such testimony. And the very idea that someday Muslims, adherents of the fanatical faith of Islam, would be here and would dare to invoke the Freedom of Conscience that is guaranteed by our First Amendment, through both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, would have struck them as impossible. For everyone knew then, as so many now apparently do not know, that Islam itself inculcates not freedom of conscience, but blind, unquestioning submission of the individual Muslim to Authority, that is, the Authority of the Qur’an, as glossed by the Sunnah, and the Authority of the Shari’a, the Holy Law of Islam to which all Muslim law codes are supposed to aspire and, ideally, to be modeled on, the Holy Law which embodies, in codified form, the texts and tenets and attitudes of Islam. This, too, Barack Obama and his speechwriters, and such people as John Brennan, Deputy Special Assistant For Homeland Security and Terrorism to the President, apparently do not know.
But let’s return to that assertion about Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner,” or rather, to that dinner that Barack Obama would have us all believe was the first “Iftar Dinner” at the White House way back in 1805. What actually happened was this.
The American navy, fed up with the constant depredations by Muslim corsairs, who were not so much pirates as Muslims who were encouraged to prey on Christian shipping, and who at times even recorded the areas of the Mediterranean where they planned to go in search of Christian prey, seized a ship that belonged to those who were ruled by the Bey of Tunis. And the Bey of Tunis wanted that ship back. He sent to Washington, for six months, a temporary envoy, one Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, who was not, pace Obama, “the first Muslim ambassador to the United States,” but, rather, a temporary envoy.
Here, from the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, is a bit of the background to the story:
The crisis with Tunis erupted when the USS Constitution captured Tunisian vessels attempting to run the American blockade of Tripoli. The bey of Tunis threatened war and sent Mellimelli to the United States to negotiate full restitution for the captured vessels and to barter for tribute.The backdrop to this state visit was the ongoing conflict between the United States and the Barbary states, autonomous provinces of the Ottoman Empire that rimmed the Mediterranean coast of North Africa. Soon after the Revolutionary War and the consequent loss of the British navy’s protection, American merchant vessels had become prey for Barbary corsairs. Jefferson was outraged by the demands of ransom for civilians captured from American vessels and the Barbary states’ expectation of annual tribute to be paid as insurance against future seizures. He took an uncharacteristically hawkish position against the prevailing thought that it was cheaper to pay tribute than maintain a navy to protect shipping from piracy.
Jefferson balked at paying tribute but accepted the expectation that the host government would cover all expenses for such an emissary. He arranged for Mellimelli and his 11 attendants to be housed at a Washington hotel, and rationalized that the sale of the four horses and other fine gifts sent by the bey of Tunis would cover costs. Mellimelli’s request for “concubines” as a part of his accommodations was left to Secretary of State James Madison. Jefferson assured one senator that obtaining peace with the Barbary powers was important enough to “pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers.”
Despite whispers regarding his conduct, Mellimelli received invitations to numerous dinners and balls, and according to one Washington hostess was “the lion of the season.” At the president’s New Year’s Day levee the Tunisian envoy provided “its most brilliant and splendid spectacle,” and added to his melodramatic image at a later dinner party hosted by the secretary of state. Upon learning that the Madisons were unhappy at being childless, Mellimelli flung his “magical” cloak around Dolley Madison and murmured an incantation that promised she would bear a male child. His conjuring, however, did not work.
Differences in culture and customs stirred interest on both sides. Mellimelli’s generous use of scented rose oil was noted by many of those who met him, and guards had to be posted outside his lodgings to turn away the curious. For his part, the Tunisian was surprised at the social freedom women enjoyed in America and was especially intrigued by several delegations of Native Americans from the western territories then visiting Washington. Mellimelli inquired which prophet the Indians followed: Moses, Jesus Christ or Mohammed. When he was told none of them, that they worshiped “the Great Sprit” alone, he was reported to have pronounced them “vile hereticks.”
So that’s it. Sidi Soliman Mellimelli installed himself for six months at a Washington hotel, for which the American government apparently picked up the tab. And as to that request for “concubines,” apparently Jefferson asked the Secretary of State, James Madison, to attend to the matter. It’s amusing to note how little the behavior of Muslim and Arab rulers has changed. It is only we who do not see them, or allow ourselves to see them, as primitive and exotic creatures to be amused by or often contemptuous of, but not as creatures to whom we need accord any undo respect, for their sole claim on our attention is that some of them, through an accident of geology, have acquired a lot of money. And there are people in Washington who are happy, in their desire to do well themselves, to convince the American government that it must bend over backwards in treating of Arabs and Muslims. There is no need to do so, and it is easy to show why not. In fact, the description of Mellimelli’s requests may put many in mind of how so many Muslim and Arab rulers, including “plucky little king” Hussein of Jordan, when they used to come to Washington, would have round-the-clock escort girls service them in their hotel rooms. But what was most maddening was that the bills were paid by the ever-compliant C.I.A. I presume the oil money has made that, in some cases, no longer necessary.
Sidi Soliman Mellimelli was quite an exotic specimen:
The curious were not to be disappointed by the appearance of the first Muslim envoy to the United States – a large figure with a full dark beard dressed in robes of richly embroidered fabrics and a turban of fine white muslin.Over the next six months, this exotic representative from a distant and unfamiliar culture would add spice to the Washington social season but also test the diplomatic abilities of President Jefferson.
During the six solar months Mellimelli was here, the lunar month of Ramadan occurred. And as it happens, during that Ramadan observed by Mellimelli, but naturally unobserved, hardly noticed, by the Americans, President Jefferson invited Sidi Soliman Mellimelli for dinner at the White House. He probably during that six-month period had done it more than once. Mellimelli replied that he could not come at the appointed hour of three thirty in the afternoon (our ancestors rose much earlier, and ate much earlier, and went to bed much earlier, in the pre-Edison days of their existence). That time fell, for him, but not for Thomas Jefferson or anyone else in the United States of America, during the fasting period of the month of Ramadan. He replied that he could not come at the hour set, that is, at half-past three, but only after sundown.
Jefferson, a courteous man, simply moved the dinner forward by a few hours. He didn’t change the menu, he didn’t change anything else. And moving the dinner forward by a few hours hardly turns that dinner into a soi-disant “Iftar Dinner.” Barack Obama’s trying to do so, trying that is, to rewrite American history, with some nunc-pro-tunc backdating, in order to flatter or please his Muslim guests, is false. And, being false, is also disgusting. It is disgusting for an American President to misrepresent American history to Americans, including all the schoolchildren who are now being subject to all kinds of Islamic propaganda, cunningly woven into the newly-mandated textbooks, that so favorably misrepresent Islam, as here.
Now there is a kind of coda to this dismal tale, and it is provided by the New York Times, which likes to put on airs and think of itself as “the newspaper of record,” whatever that means. The Times carried a front-page story on August 14, 2010, written by one Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and no doubt gone over by many vigilant editors. This story contains a predictably glowing account of Barack Obama’s remarks at the “Annual Iftar Dinner.” Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:
In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.
Question for Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and for her editors at The New York Times: You report that there is a “White Hosue tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson.” I claim that you are wrong. I claim that there is no White House Tradition at all about Iftar Dinners. I claim that Thomas Jefferson, in moving forward by a few hours a dinner that changed in no other respect, for Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, was not providing the first of the “Annual Iftar Dinners” that, the New York Times tells us, has since Jefferson’s non-existent “Iftar Dinner,” have been observed “sporadically.”
When, then, was the next in this long, but “sporadic” series of iftar dinners? I can find no record of any, for roughly the next two hundred years, until we come to the fall of the year 2001, that is, just after the deadliest attack on American civilians ever recorded, an attack carried out by a novemdectet of Muslims acting according to their understanding of the very same texts — Qur’an,Hadith, Sira — that all Muslims read, an understanding that many have demonstrated since that they share, not least in the spontaneous celebrations that were immediately held in Cairo, and Riyadh, and Jeddah, and in Ramallah, and Gaza, and Damascus, and Baghdad, and all over the place, where Muslims felt that they had won a victory over those accursed kuffar, those ingrates, those Infidels. And it was President George Bush who decided that, to win Muslim “trust” or to end Muslim “mistrust” — I forget which — so that we could, non-Muslim and Muslim, collaborate on defeating those “violent extremists” who had “hijacked a great religion,” started this sporadic ball unsporadically rolling. And he did it, by golly, he did. He hosted an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. It was held just the month after the attacks prompted by Islamic texts and tenets and attitudes on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, on a plane’s doomed pilots and passengers over a field in Pennsylvania.
And thus it is, that ever since 2001, we have had iftar dinner after iftar dinner. But it was not Jefferson or any other of our cultivated and learned Presidents, who started this “tradition” that has been observed only “sporadically” — i.e., never — until George Bush came along, unless we are to count as an “iftar dinner” what was merely seen, by Jefferson, as a dinner given at a time convenient for his not-too-honored guest.
Yes, and how splendidly Bush, and now Obama, have proven to Muslims that there are no hard feelings. Do you think the three trillion dollars spent in Iraq and now in Afghanistan (not counting the hundreds of billions that, over time, have gone to Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, even the “Palestinian” territories), have done that? It has all been designed to improve the lot of Muslims on the unproven assumption that this will make them less attentive to the texts, the ideology, of their Total Belief-System, and hence more willing to grandly concede to us Infidels a territory of our own, a place in the sun of our own. Yes, George Bush, that profound student of history and of ideas, kept telling us, in those first few months after 9/11/2001, that as far as he was concerned, by gum, Islam was a religion of “peace and tolerance.” And just to prove it, by golly, he’d put on an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. And that’s just what he did. And that’s how the “tradition” that Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and her many vetting editors at the newspaper of comical record, The New York Times, began. It’s all of nine years old, through the disastrous presidencies of Bush and now of Obama.
And stop rewriting history, in ways little and big, about the American “connection” to Islam – including that absurd attempt on the front page of The New York Times just yesterday, to run a story on Christians from the Middle East, fleeing Islam and Muslims for the United States (as they fled, too, to South America, or to Australia) and appropriating the history of Arabic-speaking Maronite and Orthodox immigrants in that story on “Little Syria” to make American readers think that “see, Arabs, Muslim Arabs, go a long way back in New York City, so let’s not get so hot and bothered about a little mosque someone wants to build.” Was there ever such deceit, day after day, than in the way The New York Times has become a willing collaborator with the O.I.C., and others who want nonstop Mister Feelgood stories about Islam in America?

The Rape of a Nation

September 28, 2012

 

(Sheik yer Mami)The Rape of a Nation
Paul Weston is Chairman of the British Freedom Party

As a follow-up to his essay yesterday about the latest “grooming and pimping”, Paul Weston presents this overview of the apocalyptic crisis in Britain brought about by uncontrolled immigration from the Third World.
Britain is a very odd place these days. We are being subjected to what amounts to a racial and cultural war against us, yet our politicians refuse to talk about it, and the overwhelming majority of the indigenous population seem too cowed and fearful to force the politicians to not just recognise the problem, but to actually do something about it.
Consider the recent story regarding the rapist Mawawe Ibraham Karam and what it tells you about the cultural and social fabric of England in 2012. Karam is an illegal immigrant from Sudan who attacked and raped a drunken indigenous English girl in Nottingham earlier this year. Despite the clear distress of the girl, any number of passers-by ignored her predicament, as did local taxi drivers.
Viewed in isolation, this is just a drearily predictable end of a night out in the modern Britain built around liberal/left values. “Empowered” girls too drunk to control their own lives; predatory third-world immigrants taking advantage of them and a mass of timid; cowardly Brits too scared to confront a rapist — and so lacking in basic decency they would not help the victim even after the rapist had fled the scene.

In 2011, nearly a fifth of all suspected rapists and murderers arrested were immigrants. Ninety-one were accused of murder while four-hundred-and-six were charged with rape in England and Wales. All too typical is the case of the murderer Younas Beraki, a failed asylum seeker from Eritrea who had been deported three times before Britain’s criminally negligent UK Border Agency (UKBA) allowed him back again in order to commit murder.
Out of half-a-million asylum and illegal immigrant cases, only ten percent were ever deported. Perhaps Mr Beraki was one of them, but if having been deported they can simply cruise straight back again we might just as well save money by closing down the “border controls” and declaring Britain open to all — which we effectively have.
Britain is not just a safe haven for rapists and the occasional solo murderer. We have sunk to such a disgraceful low that we also allow in mass-murdering war criminals. Figures obtained by the Yorkshire Post under the Freedom of Information Act, show that between June 2010 and December 2011, the immigration agency identified eight hundred and five people worthy of investigation relating to torture, genocide and crimes against humanity.
Last year it was disclosed that a special war crimes unit within the UK Border Agency had recommendation action against four-hundred-and-ninety-five individuals in the previous five years. Redress, a human rights pressure group, said: “A major concern is what is happening to those suspects. Does the UKBA refer them all to the Metropolitan Police for investigation with a view to seeing if they can be prosecuted here?”
Michael McCann, the chairman of the All-Party Group for the Prevention of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, agreed: “We need a frank exchange between the UKBA and police and we need ministers to provide straight answers to straight questions.”
A UKBA spokesman said: “We are determined to ensure the UK does not become a refuge for war criminals and have robust processes in place to identify and seek to remove anyone suspected of such a crime.
And how successful have our wonderful border agents been? As of May 2012 only three suspected war criminals have been deported.
Still at large, for example, is Mr Mueen-Uddin, who allegedly played his own small part in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi civilians by Pakistani troops in 1971 when Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) was fighting for independence from Pakistan.
Mueen-Uddin was a member of a fundamentalist party, Jamaat-e-Islami, which supported Pakistan in the war. In the closing days, as it became clear that Pakistan had lost, he is accused of being part of a the Al-Badr Brigade, which rounded up, tortured and killed prominent citizens to deprive the new state of its intellectual and cultural elite.
Having made his way to Britain he helped to found the extremist Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), Jamaat-e-Islami’s European wing, which believes in creating a sharia state in Europe. Up until 2010 Mr Mueen-Uddin was vice-chairman of the controversial East London Mosque, controlled by the IFE. He was also closely involved with the Muslim Council of Britain, which has been dominated by the IFE for years.
Along with the war criminals, rapists and murderers comes Multicultural Britain’s new participation in child-slavery, child-sacrifice and sex-slavery. An undercover Sunday Telegraph reporter was offered children for sale in Nigeria: two boys aged three and five for £5,000 and a ten-month-old baby for £2,000. Teenage girls — including some still pregnant — were willing to sell their babies for less than £1,000. One international trafficker, tracked down in Lagos, claimed to be buying up to five hundred children a year.
The children, estimated by British police to number in their thousands, are then sold to African families in London, Birmingham and Manchester where they are used as domestic slaves and fraudulent cash cows with regard to housing and other welfare benefits. Some of the children are also subjected to physical and sexual abuse, while others even find themselves accused of being witches and become victims of exorcism rites in “traditional” African churches in Britain.
The sex-slave trade mainly consists of girls trafficked from East Asia and Eastern Europe. Abigail Stepnitz of thePoppy Project (set up to provide support for trafficked women) estimates there are ten thousand sex-slaves in Britain. She also lays the blame squarely on Britain’s immigration system, which she says plays into the hands of the gangs.
Prime Minister David Cameron promised he would put a stop to all this, yet last year saw an influx of close to half a million more immigrants. How many future rapists and murderers of native Brits are among them? No one knows of course, but we do know there will be many.
Going back to the Nottingham rape and the cowardly non-action of passers-by, this one incident is symbolic of the greater rape of the entire nation. The indigenous Brits are being demographically pushed aside whilst their wives, girl-friends and daughters are raped with impunity under the very eyes of our ruling elites who choose to ignore it in the interests of community cohesion — and the reason they can ignore it is very simple, the Eloi Brits just meekly accept their second-class status and cause no trouble for the politicians or the police.
Truly, this is a country and a people staring into a racial and cultural abyss. A civilised indigenous race seems to have rolled over and allowed itself to be defiled, abused and defeated by the uncivilised detritus of the Third World.
What happened to us? When did we lose our will to survive as a proud and unified people? What on earth is wrong with the British? Our immediate ancestors would have been rioting in the streets long, long ago.
Can it really be because we are afraid of being called a word? Are we really so frightened of being called “racist” we are prepared to allow our children and grandchildren to inherit Hell On Earth? If defending your people, your culture, your country and your very civilisation apparently makes you a racist, then it is a badge I will wear with pride.


Sex trafficking victims reveal horror of witchcraft and torture being used to enslave women in Scotland | Vlad Tepes

January 30, 2012

sex trafficking Image 2

(VladTepes) Multiculturalism at its multicultiest! And think of all the great restaurants these guys must own! Daily Record: Jan 27 2012

Exclusive by Annie Brown

VICTIMS of human sex trafficking have told how they were enslaved by witchcraft, torture and death threats in modern-day Scotland. The harrowing stories of ten women were compiled by campaigners investigating the world’s fastest growing organised crime. Nine came from Africa, one from South America.In one of the testimonies to a Glasgow charity, a 21-year-old told how she was branded and forced to take a “witchcraft oath” to prevent her escaping. She said: “I had to take the oath. I was given this mark on my hand. I was told that this mark, if you tell anyone what has transpired, you are going to die. “They gave me a razor blade to eat, they took my armpit hair, they removed my nails from my toes and my fingers. “They removed the hair on my body, they tied it up and put it in this shrine, then they tear my body and told me that if I tell anyone, ‘you will just die’. When I saw the shrine, it was so big, I was so scared.”The women tell their stories in research commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The main centres for sex trafficking are Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Paisley, Stirling and Falkirk but it also touches small towns and villages. So far Scotland has had just one successful prosecution – while there have been 150 in England and Wales. Human rights lawyer Baroness Helena Kennedy, who headed the investigation, said: “As a criminal lawyer I have heard and read many stories of women being beaten, abused and suffering psychological torment, so there is not much that shocks me.  “However, the evidence that we took from women not only shocked me, as it would any woman, but resolved me to ensure their voices, their experiences, their insights, were heard.
“These are stories of ordinary women – mothers, daughters and sisters – vulnerable due to poverty and discrimination, being deceived into Scotland and subjected to horrifying sexual violation.
“These violations occur across Scotland, and not only in our cities; the women and girls are exploited indoors, in private “sex” flats, not in shadowy back streets. They may seem fine and in control when in fact they are mentally shackled and controlled by traffickers.
“It is now up to us all to work together – across our families and communities, our villages, towns and cities, and in our politics – to identify and, together, rid Scotland of the modern slavery in our midst.”
Kennedy published a report on Scotland’s failure to tackle trafficking last November – but this is the first time the voices of victims have been heard.
The research found women are trafficked from across the globe to Scotland but mainly from Nigeria, China and Brazil and many come via England.
But there is evidence that an increasing number are taken straight to Scotland.
All of the victims had been vulnerable in their home countries.
Many had lost family, were fleeing poverty, abuse or tribal violence and had turned to trusted community “aunties and uncles”.
The women were mainly locked in flats and rooms, forced to have sex with up to 15 men a day, beaten and not allowed to use contraception.
Their passports were taken and they were told their families would be killed if they tried to leave. Even when the women became pregnant they still had to have sex with punters.
Women who were considered “new” were particularly popular in brothels.
Some even talk of their children being held with them. One woman was locked in a room with her daughter who had to listen to her mother being raped.
She said: “There was a room attached to my bedroom with a toilet and a shower. The trafficker said that I should look smart as it is money I have to make.
“When men came, the trafficker would unlock the door and take my daughter away.

sex trafficking Image 1

“While I was with these men I could hear my daughter crying in the other room. It was terrible. When the men were finished they would use the bathroom and then leave.”
Women from Africa described their traffickers as powerful people within tribal communities who had connections with corrupt officials.
The EHRC report said: “These women report being controlled using oaths or juju magic.”
A 21-year-old described how she was forced to take alcohol and drugs so that she would be compliant.
Money was paid to a madam who forced her to work seven days a week and beat her if she failed to keep customers happy.
She said: “It was so painful, they were so rough, they didn’t care, they just wanted satisfaction.
“I saw more than 10 men a day and because I was new, everyone wanted to have me. People waited for me.
“When I finished with one they say go and have this liquid, wash up. My body was so painful.”
The ten women who gave their testimonies had all come through the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance (TARA), a Scotland-wide support service based in Glasgow.
The interviewees were aged 21 to 33, nine of them from Africa, including Somalia, Nigeria, Gambia, Uganda and Kenya, and one from South America. The women had all fled their traffickers.
A couple were helped to escape by regular customers but the men who intervened were the exception.
When one woman told a customer she had been trafficked he became more brutal, while another punter only helped a woman to escape so that he could use her for himself. He abandoned her when she fell pregnant.
One victim said she repeatedly told punters she was trafficked and needed help, yet only one assisted her.
The man, a regular trusted by the trafficker, took the girl to his house, gave her a little money and dropped her at the Scottish Refugee Council.
Another girl was freed when the police raided a brothel and one who had been captive for ten years was found unconscious by police and taken to hospital.
Many victims were told they were under constant surveillance but one Nigerian girl took a chance when her female trafficker went to London.
The victim said: “She said that I could not leave the house. She said that she had people watching me. All she would do was to call the house, if nobody answered then she would know.
“All of this time I was looking out the window. I was thinking to myself who could be watching me? Who would be watching if I just took a step outside? If I left the house? I was so scared. I cannot even remember leaving.”
The victim had been trafficked as a child to north-east England and was then moved to be sexually exploited in Glasgow.
In one account, a victim took a chance when, on her way to the toilet, she noticed the flat door was open.
“I was terrified the men had set a trap for me so I just went to the toilet.
“When I came out I saw the door was still open. I was very scared but I took a chance and ran out.
“I came to the landing and saw three doors. The first two I tried were shut fast. I thought about returning to the flat but the third door opened. I went through this door and there were stairs. I ran down many flights of stairs. I ran out of the flats.”
The victim had been trafficked from Africa and was only prostituted in Scotland. She was trafficked by a trusted community member she turned to after witnessing the murder of her parents and grandparents by the police.
When she ran out of the flat she stopped a couple of female passers-by – the first refused to help but the second took her by bus to the Scottish Refugee Council.


Africa Starves While it’s leaders Worry About Gaza

August 12, 2011

The worst drought in the region since the 1950s, At least 11 million people are touched by the disaster. In the Turkana district of northern Kenya, 385,000 children (among a total population of about 850,000) are suffering from acute malnutrition

Last week, the Archbishop Tutu sponsored a call for an arms embargo against Israel. Next November, Tutu will open in Cape Town the third session of the anti-Israeli Russell Tribunal, a standing organization that held two tribunals against Israel last year in Barcelona and London. During this event, Tutu will seek to determine whether Israel’s policies fit the international legal definition of the crime of “Apartheid.”

In Africa 30,000 young children have died since the start of the crisis. The world raised more than £600 million in aid. There is less than £350,000 in the African Union’s “special famine fund”. This is despite the Union’s 54 countries having a combined GDP of more than £1.2 trillion.

Kalonzo Musyoka, Kenya’s vice-president, Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria’s former president, and Thabo Mbeki, South Africa’s ex-leader, were delegates attending workshops at the £650-a-ticket conference. A golf tournament was planned for the final day. Famine and drought was not on the agenda. Guess what was on the agenda?

A CONVOY TOGAZA?


500 Nigerians, Mostly Christians, Killed in Post-election Violence: Christians Told to Leave the North

April 29, 2011

(Nigeria) It has been estimated that more that 500 Nigerians, mostly Christians and other southerners have been so far killed in the post-election violence that erupted in some parts of the tick Muslim populated north.
Reports also have it that the Nigeria Muslim Council (NMC) issued an ultimatum on April 6, demanding Christians leave the north of the country within the week.
These views are contained in a report by the Release International, (www.releaseinternational.org) a United Kingdom (UK) based Christian advocacy group stressing that at the same time 60 churches were burnt and thousands of Christian homes destroyed in protest at the electoral victory of southern Christian Goodluck Jonathan.
More…


Nigeria election riots

April 21, 2011

In anticipation of the results of Nigeria’s remarkably smooth presidential vote over the weekend, angry young men took to the streets across the country’s mainly Muslim north on Monday with knives and clubs.
Despite the fact that international and domestic observers said this was the first relatively free and fair election since the tumultuous country moved beyond military rule 12 years ago, someone had convinced the mobs that the election had been rigged in favor of incumbent president Goodluck Jonathan, a southern Christian.
Protests soon turned deadly, with churches, mosques, homes, and businesses set ablaze in the northern cities of Kaduna and Kano. In Kaduna on Tuesday, Christian neighborhoods were targeted, and known supporters of Mr. Jonathan’s ruling People’s Democratic Party were burned alive and hacked with machetes. Reprisal attacks by Christians quickly followed. More than 200 have been killed, according to one local rights group.
The Muslim-Christian violence underscores a bitter reality: The age of “do-or-die” politics and “thugs-for-hire” patronage networks is not dead in Nigeria. And although Nigerian politicians do have the power to tamp down local rivalries that quickly morph into brutal religious violence, more often than not, these leaders do the opposite.
On Tuesday after his official defeat in the presidential race, after dozens of people had been killed and more than 10,000 displaced, popular opposition leader Muhammadu Buhari characterized the violence as “sad, unfortunate, and totally unwarranted,” but issued no direct appeal for calm. “We have commenced consultations at the highest levels to recover your stolen mandate,” Mr. Buhari said Wednesday.
For his part, Mr. Jonathan told CNN on Tuesday that the violence was “not spontaneous” and thus was a planned disruption, though the president said he didn’t want to accuse anybody. Jonathan also said the “crisis” was linked to the festering problem of jobless, hopeless young masses in both northern and southern Nigeria.
How religious violence pops off
In such an environment, the often intense divide between deeply religious Muslim and Christian citizens, and the always high-stakes nature of politics and power, means that political violence frequently becomes religious.
Given the “ready army” made up of thousands of discontented youth, this violence frequently escalates, with politicians using the chaos and bloodshed as leverage as they jockey for influence and a greater share of the oil-rich country’s immense economic spoils.
Aside from the latest wave of violence in the north, the country’s Middle Belt region – where the mainly Muslim north meets the predominately Christian south – has become a case study in how Nigerian politicians fuel religious violence.
Muslim and Christians in the Middle Belt’s unofficial capital, Jos, in Plateau state, now live cheek by jowl in what many residents call a religious apartheid.
Over the past year plus, since several massacres – of Muslims by Christians and of Christians by Muslims – killed hundreds in January and March 2010, whole communities in Jos have displaced themselves out of fear of further violence.
“People should be able to do things with freedom,” said Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama of the Catholic Archdiocese of Jos. “But instead you must be worried about who is next door to you.”
Fanning the flames
Despite the divergences in the various accounts of how Jos came to be an epicenter of horrific violence over the past decade, many residents pinpoint an issue that drives the conflict: the “‘indigene” concept, which has become a discriminatory, state government-enforced policy.
The Muslim community, which makes up the majority of the population in the northern part of the city, accuses the state government of consistently denying the Muslim community their basic rights as citizens on the basis that they are “settlers” in the state, and therefore not so-called indigenes privy to citizen rights.
Mohamed Lawal Ishaq, a lawyer and a member of a Muslim affairs council, says that – like all Muslim residents in Jos – his children are unable to enroll in public schools because they lack indigene certificates, despite the fact that they were born in Jos, as were there parents.
Like many other Muslims – and moderate Christians – Mr. Ishaq holds Plateau State Gov. Jonah David Jang responsible for such discriminatory polices and says that the governor is fanning the flames of the trouble.
“You expect a leader, during a crisis, to calm a situation,” said Ishaq. “But the governor provokes, worsens, and take sides.”
‘Delivering’ the Muslim vote?
Ishaq’s council seems to be playing a political game of its own, however. He said his council is currently “in negotiations” with several opposition gubernatorial candidates, suggesting that the council is capable of delivering the Muslim vote in the state governor race on April 26.
Although Ishaq says imams in Jos are continuing to call for the community’s youth to remain peaceful during the tense elections period and its aftermath, the fact that the Muslim council is clearly using its religious authority to play politics indicates the ease of religious mobilization for political gain in the polarized society.
Governor Jang told the Monitor in an interview that he is “very conscious of the fact that all of the citizens ” in his state are his responsibility. Jang then gave his take on the Constitution, suggesting that his state’s so-called settlers are, in effect, second-class citizens who should respect, even adopt, the culture, traditions, and religion of the “indigenous” population.
The governor, an evangelical Christian who received a divinity degree from a Nigerian theological college after he retired from the Air Force in the early 1990s, is unequivocal about defending Christianity as the religion of his state. “As a result of the failure of the Muslim jihad here [in the 1800s], they still think they can get [Plateau state] back to Islamicize,” he told the Monitor.
Theory vs. practice
“The Nigeria Constitution absolutely forbids any discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, and circumstances of your birth … that is in theory,” says Sule Kwasau, a lawyer in private practice in Jos. “In practice, some of these absurdities [related to the “indigene” concept] are not only prevalent in Plateau state, they are prevalent all over Nigeria.”
Since Governor Jang’s election in 2007, the crisis in the Middle Belt has worsened. With each new, major wave of violence – notably in 2008 and 2010 – resentment between Muslim and Christians over the killings has increased, until finally reaching its current apartheid-like state in the city of Jos.
“Fighting is no good,” says a waiter in a Jos restaurant, who says his mother is Christian and his father is a Muslim. “We have to learn to live together again.”
Running for re-election in the April 26 elections with the campaign slogan of “REDEMPTION 2011,” the current governor is not publicly seen as taking the initiative to embrace the Muslim community who he views as “settlers,” despite their two century-long history in his state.
Some long-time Jos residents who did not want to be quoted publicly say that Jang has benefited from the ongoing crisis in his state. Last year’s crisis resulted in additional federal government funds being allocated to Jang for bosltering security. Jang has also used the tense situation to rally Christians behind him, cultivating a savior-like image during his gubernatorial campaign.
Meanwhile, the Muslim community is busy rallying its own support base, largely behind opposition candidate Pauline Tellen – the current deputy governor who has fallen out with Jang over the crisis.
“The real problem is bad governance, says Hadjiya Khadija Hawaya, a local Muslim women’s leader, detailing the discrimination her community has suffered under the indigene policy pushed by the current governor.
There is no doubt among Muslims and Christians alike that the local government must play a crucial role in the resolution of the crisis.
“All efforts boil down to the government in power,” said Ishaq, the lawyer at the Muslim council, voicing a familiar refrain of his community.
Catholic Archbishop Kaigama criticized the state government for perpetuating the myth of a one-dimensional religious crisis, saying that the government’s “failure to address other problems” such as poverty, underdevelopment, and youth unemployment is an important reason why the conflict persists.
“The way the leadership responds to these issues goes a long way toward knowing if the conflict will be resolved peacefully,” said Chris Kwaja, a professor at the Centre for Conflict Management and Peace Studies at the University of Jos.
Until then, Jos may well remain a city divided, with citizens living in fear and half-charred homes and bombed-out churches and mosques standing as living memorials to the ongoing tragedy stoked by the politicians in power.


The Islamisation of Nigeria comes with a feminist Streak.

March 28, 2011

…so Nigeria supports
Osama Bin Ladin
more then
any other country,
but they also
seem to have an
odd feminist streak
for a country dealing

with a strong
Islamic presence

“More than six-in-ten (63%)
Muslim men in Nigeria
favor the stoning of people
who commit adultery,
while 36% oppose it;
Muslim women in that country
are evenly divided,
with 49% saying they
favor and the same number
saying they oppose
the stoning of adulterers.
When it comes to the death penalty
for those who leave Islam,
Muslim men in Nigeria
are clearly supportive
(58% favor and 39% oppose),
while a majority
of their female counterparts
(54%) are against the death penalty
for those who
leave the Muslim religion;
44% of Muslim women
in Nigeria favor it.
Finally, while majorities
of Muslim men
and women in Nigeria
favor punishments
like whippings and
cutting off of hands for crimes
like theft and robbery,
men are somewhat
more likely than women
to say they favor these strict measures
(69% of men vs. 61% of women).”

With Jihad underway in Nigeria, how long before it becomes a full Sharia state??
In Nigeria:

“…Muslim men are considerably
more likely than Muslim women
to say gender segregation
should be the law;

57% of Muslim men in Nigeria
favor gender segregation,
compared with 41%
of Muslim women
in that country.”

“Nigerian Muslims stand apart as
the only Muslim public surveyed
where views of al Qaeda and
Bin Laden are,
on balance, positive.

About half of Muslims in Nigeria
express favorable views of the extremist group(49%)
and say they have at least some confidence in its leader
(48%), while just 34% offer
negative opinions of al Qaeda
and 40% express little or
no confidence in bin Laden.”

one can assume that countries
that go
“fundamentalist”
(a bullshit word I admit)
go fundamentalist
in more then one way.

it is very
obvious from Nigeria:
that the women there
are just as rhetorical as
their Islamic hardline men.

The real solutions
to these wars
will not be resolved
until the
“Leftist Progressives”
realize that they
are part of the problem.

Feminism and Socialism
can be just as dogmatic
as any other world view…
but I doubt you will
see Gloria Steinem
owe up to that

Explains a few things about feminism:

very odd:

“Among Nigerian Muslims, nearly the same percentage favor making segregation of men and women in the workplace the law in their country (49%) as oppose it (48%)”

via pewglobal.org


sadly the West has proposed the fight vs. Islam to be allied with feminism, but the truth is that feminism is a polarity of a fundamentalist patriarchy