in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Heritage | 0 | |
| Reuters | 2012 Watch: Mitt Romney’s message from GOP: Step it up |
0 |
| Fox News | Hmm: Obama to give 10 states a pass on No Child Left Behind deadline |
0 |
| CBS LA | Wha? LA County OKs $1,000 Fine For Throwing Football, Frisbee On Beaches |
0 |
| Ballot Box | AZ: Aide injured in Giffords shooting will run to replace her in House |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Teddy bear teacher pardoned
Note the AP bias not only in the headline, but in the article as well:
Briton pardoned in Sudan Islam insult
The correct headline would have been “Briton pardoned in alleged Sudan Islam insult” or “Briton pardoned in perceived Sudan Islam insult” – that headline sounds like the insult was definitive, as in, it is widely agreed worldwide that it was an insult.
Continuing (emphasis added):
KHARTOUM, Sudan – A British teacher jailed for insulting Islam after allowing her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad was released Monday when Sudan’s president pardoned her, a British Embassy spokesman said.
The conviction of Gillian Gibbons under Sudan’s Islamic Sharia law shocked Britons and many Muslims worldwide. It also inflamed passions among many Sudanese, some of whom called for her execution.
“Shocked many Muslims worldwide”? I’d like to know the source for that assertion, because it sounds more like an opinion inserted into what is supposed to be straight reporting. Oh wait, this must have been the source of the assertion:
The case also sparked criticism from many Muslims in the West who said she should have never been arrested. On Monday, Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, welcomed the pardon.
“It will be wonderful to see her back in the U.K. I am sure she will be welcomed by both Muslims and non-Muslims after her quite terrible ordeal at the hands of the Sudanese authorities,” Bunglawala said.
Uh huh.
Robert Spencer has some harsh words for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s response to the news of Ms. Gibbons’ release (he said, “common sense has prevailed”):
I’m not so sure, Gordon. Even if she had meant harm, you and all Western leaders should have been standing up for her. The idea that one may legitimately be imprisoned, or lashed, or even killed for poking fun at someone still remains. Do you understand how this threatens the foundation of free society? Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination, once you declare that these people — whoever they may be — must at all costs not be offended, or if they are they’re perfectly within their rights to stone, or lash, or imprison, or kill the offender, then you have destroyed one of the foundations for free inquiry. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to kill one another if their neighbor’s opinions offend them. If offensive speech had been prohibited in the 1770s, there would be no United States of America, and that is one of the reasons for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Whenever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified. No less in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.
I wonder what the British government’s response would have been had she been punished the 6 months and 40 lashes that could have been her punishment, had the Sudanese government not decided to be “lenient” with Gibbons? I’m glad we didn’t have to find out, both for Gibbons’ sake as well as for the sake of the British government, who once again appeared weak on a national stage when it came to one of their own being taken into the custody of Islamofasict thugs, just as they did during the hostage crisis involving several of their troops being held by the Iranian thugocracy back in March.
This woman will be on her way home soon, if she isn’t already, which is good news, but I suspect her life is never going to be the same. Let’s keep in mind that the Sudanese government has not apologized for what Gibbons went through. In their eyes, she still committed a crime against Islam. And the so-called “fringe” Islamists demanding her death won’t give up easily. Whether it’s a cartoon depicting Mohammed in a way that offends Islamists, whether it’s secular Muslims denouncing radical Islam, whether you’re a non-Muslim critical of fanatical Islamists, or whether it’s something as simple as allowing your students to name a teddy bear after another student who happened to be named Mohammed, you’re an “infidel” by Islamofascist “standards” and according to them, you must be made to pay.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
8 Responses to “Teddy bear teacher pardoned”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
It is all petty politics set off by one person’s grudge.
The school secretary wanted to get rid of the teacher.
She was the one who complained. She succeeded in getting rid of the teacher.
The clerics got their 5 min of fame.
The judge was trying to appease both sides (which rather backfired). He is probably now on the hitlist for extremists.
The president is smart enough to know that this stupidity almost cost him 215 million dollars worth of aid from Britain for next year.
All this stupidity caused by one person and her selfish petty grudge.
BTW – the children and their parents were not aware there was anything illegal. The parents themselves had been issued a letter about the project – which had been ongoing for a number of months – and they had agreed with it.
It seems to be a law that even the vast majority of Sudanese are not aware of.
And they do sell teddy bears in Sudan.
How many children in Sudan are now renaming their teddies out of fear? Very sad indeed when you consider the impact of it on the children.
The president would not have pardoned her if she really had meant insult.
I don’t know why some papers are not reporting it, but there were demonstrations by Muslims in London UK saying “Not in My Name”, etc in support of the teacher and, more importantly, against the Sudan government. It is not assertion, it is true.
We have already seen the the effects of
the “High Noon” mentality – it leads to bloodshed.
Answering with violence is not always the answer.
Patience is a virtue, especially when it saves lives.
It is a sign of strength, not weakness.
The UK government handled this the right way.
No one died in this incident – there is a lot to be said for that.
As a wise person once said “Keep your friends close,
Keep your enemies even closer”.
Keeping diplomacy alive means we still have some say in what happens. It is a foot in the door for humanity to enter and get the voices of moderates heard where they would otherwise be ignored.
The president heard those voices of moderation – and let the teacher go with a full pardon. Something must have sunk in as he now risks assassination from the extremists.
What the UK government did, C, was not a damn thing but sit on the sidelines and wring its hands. That’s the right thing? Patience may be a virtue, impotence is not.
And being happy that no one died? That was entirely in the hands of the Sudanese. If you want to get smug and congratulate them on their forebearance, they initiated this entire charade and would have dealt with it in any way they felt was most advantageous, up to and including the death penalty. I’m not buying it, your argument is akin to praising hostage takers because they “only” kill one or two hostages instead of the whole lot. An innocent, inoffensive woman was placed in jeopardy by ignorant, raving, power hungry totalitarians. However you slice it that isn’t a good thing, or a learning experience, or a shining triumph of diplomacy.
All the civilized world did was cringe and cower in the face of barbarism rampant. Your relief is as appropriate as Neville Chamberlain’s was on his return from Munich.
And incidentally, Ms. Gibbons is only the most recent in a line of innocent victims of this toxic ideology masquerading as a peaceful religion. Although fortunate to escape with her life, she won’t be the last caught up in the ferment of the Islamists’ fever dreams of universal sharia. She’s not an isolated data point, to be dismissed as an outlier – she’s a precurser, a harbinger.
I think Mike Wallace said it best, when he asked where these people(sudanese teddy bear protesters) were when Al Queda was blowing up Muslims in Iraq.
N(S)PR got this wrong this AM as well. They reported that the teacher “named a teddy bear after the prophet Mohammed”.
Nope. The class named it after one of their classmates.
There should have been a squadron of RAF Tornados and Avro Vulcans over Khartoum the split second after the teacher was arrested. No one would have died from that either, and it would have scared hell out of some people who desperately need the hell scared out of them.
As it is, Westminster Abbey must be about to wobble off its foundations – on account of all the British monarchs and prime ministers buried there, who are now spinning in their graves.
BrainGuy,
The Brits retired the Vulcans. In fact they had to rescue one from the scrapheap in order to bomb the Falklands. The Brits relied on the US to refuel that Vulcan to make the bombing run. Now, they have no Vulcans and rely on the US for any “heavy” bombers.
At best, the Brits could have shown up in a Month with some Harrier jump jets and one of their carriers.
I stole this link from KisP.
The recent events in Sudan regarding the British teacher and the teddy bear named Mohammed once again underscore the crisis that is engulfing the Islamic world and its relationship with Western Civilization (or Asian Civilization for that matter-witness events in the Philippines and southern Thailand.) To Western eyes, the sight of mobs in the street demanding the execution of a 54-year-old woman from Britain for defaming the Prophet Mohammed is nothing short of barbaric. Aside from that issue, we have also recently witnessed the prosecution in Saudi Arabia of a young female victim of gang rape. In Dubai recently, a 15 year old boy from France was gang-raped by three men. When he reported the incident to the police, he was accused of being a homosexual and is subject to prosecution since homosexuality is illegal in the UAE. Clearly, we have a culture clash here. It would be easy to shrug it all off and say that, if that’s the way they want to run their societies, let them. We’ll just not go there anymore. As simplistic as that is, we must also consider that many (not all) Muslim immigrants in the West want to establish that kind of society in their adopted countries.
Let’s look first at Europe. Most western European countries are socialistic and liberal in their policies, especially in regards to immigration and granting of asylum. Many European societies, like France and Germany for example, brought in workers from Islamic countries to do the manual work that the Europeans would not do. In the case of France, many came from former French colonies in North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa-predominately Muslim. Today, major riots have broken out among these immigrants twice in the last two years, sparked by police encounters where Muslim youths were killed. (It should be pointed out that much of this unrest stems from economic and social issues in France among immigrant youth.)
In the case of Germany, in the past two generations, waves of workers have been brought in from Turkey, which has had hereto a secular tradition. Of course, Muslims from other countries have come to Germany for study, including some of the 9-11 hijackers.
In Spain, the country basically capitulated to Muslim terrorism after the train bombings in Madrid. They elected a new Prime Minister and pulled thei troops from Iraq.
In Holland, probably the most liberal nation in Europe, that country is witnessing extreme problems with many of their Muslim immigrants. In many cases, Muslim communities are isolated within and around major cities like Rotterdam and attempting to establish their Islamic law within their communities even if it violates local law. More seriously, Dutch film producer Theo van Gogh was murdered for having produced a movie critical of Islamic treatment of women. A Somali immigrant, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was also involved in the film and a former Muslim, has had to live in hiding from extremeists who want to kill her.
In Scandinavia, it is the same thing. Police in Malmo, Sweden don’t dare enter the Muslim quarter of town. Denmark? Cartoonists now have to live in fear in their own country for having drawn cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammed. Danish embassies were attacked and burned over the cartoons as well.
Probably the worst situation exists in the UK, where certain mosques openly preach hatred toward their adopted country, protestors carry banners in the streets advocating the beheading of those who insult Islam, the killing of the Pope and another 9-11. On 7-7-05, words became action with the bombings of London subways and buses. While the British Government has done its duty in fighting radical Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has no clue as to what to do about extremists in their own country, many of whom are native born Brits themselves.
It is probably safe to say that most of the problems involve the younger generation of Muslims as opposed to their parents’ generation. They have become radicalized, perhaps feeling like 2nd class citizens and turning inward to religion. In the mosques, many Imams are fomenting that resentment toward the West. As a result, many Muslim immigrants and native-born immigrants are calling for an Islamic takeover of the West and imposition of Shariah law.
Sound ridiculous? How could a tiny minority in Western Europe take over a nation and impose their own religion, taking away freedoms that have been hard-won by Europeans? Consider this: If present immigration and birth rates continue, Western Europe will be majority Muslim within 2 generations.
Here in the US, we have long held the position that our Muslim population was distinct from that in Europe since Muslim immigrants to the US were better educated and, thus, their off-spring were more assimilated into our society. True, we have not seen the violent unrest among Muslim immigrants that Europe has experienced. Yet, especially among the younger generation, educated as they are, it is growing. If you spend any time on a college campus and pay attention to the fiery speakers that they bring onto campus (such as my school-UC Irvine), you would be alarmed. Many of these speakers call for the destruction of Israel, praise suicide bombers as heroes and call for the takeover of America by Islam.
In addition, we have seen the FBI and other law enforcement authorities make arrests of Muslims in the US for plotting to conduct terrorist operations, such as the plot to blow up Ft Dix, NJ. Is this representative of our Muslim population? No, I don’t think so. I feel that the older immigrants especially are mostly grateful for the opportunity to live in a free country and better their lives. Yet, it is a cause for concern. If there are, as estimated, 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, the majority of whom are peaceful, even 1/2 of 1% who are not means a lot of people we need to watch out for. I am concerned that many of our younger generation of American Muslims are feeling increasingly disaffected from America. If this should reach the level of say, Britain, then we would have a serious situation on our hands. Obviously, we want our Islamic population to be on our side in the War on Terror.
The situation in the Islamic world itself is obviously another cause for concern. Consider the worst-case scenario. First, we have a radical regime in Iran building a nuclear weapon capability and talkng about the destruction of Israel. Syria is another supporter of terrorism. Suppose we leave Iraq and that country becomes a satellite for Iran and base for terrorists. Suppose we are not successful in Afghanistan and the Taliban returns to power. Pakistan, with its growing militancy (and nuclear weapons) is in danger of falling apart and being taken over by radicals. Lebanon is still a mess, as it has been for a generation. The corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia is under threat from radical Islamists as well. What if they fall? It doesn’t take much imagination to visualize a Muslim world controlled by extremist elements.
That leads to the ultimate question: What would we (the rest of the world)do if we find the whole Muslim world aligned against us? Do we surrender? Do we convert to Islam? Do we give up the freedoms we have sacrificed so many millions of lives to enjoy? Do we allow customs like female circumcision, fatwas and “honor” killings to be conducted in our countries? There are voices in the US, Europe and the rest of the world who can only think of having peace. Are they willing to surrender everything for the sake of peace?
My answer is no-never. Muslims should understand that while we want to live in peace with them and allow them to worship as they please in our lands, that we stand for freedom of religion-and many other freedoms that some of them would take away. We will not give up those freedoms. They should also understand that the US, while trying to help bring peace to the Middle East, is committed to the survival of Israel. We also expect that immigrants to the US should assimilate into our society and accept our values as Americans-even while keeping their religion. A couple of years back, John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, publically told Muslim immigrants in that country that if they were not prepared to accept Australian values, they should leave and return to their countries of origin. The world needs more leaders like John Howard.
gary fouse
fousesquawk