NYC Mosque Gets the go!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Okay, then I'll get to basics.

1) How do you propose we limit freedom of speech in order to save it?

I already asnwered that, amongst others by referring to the German constitution. Here is the explicit detail
Consider this:

Originally Posted by German Basic Law

Article 4 [Freedom of faith, conscience, and creed]

(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable.
(2) The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed.
(3) No person shall be compelled against his conscience to render military service involving the use of arms. Details shall be regulated by a federal law.
Article 5 [Freedom of expression]

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.
(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

and limit it by this:

Originally Posted by German Basic Law

Article 18 [Forfeiture of basic rights]

Whoever abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press (paragraph (1) of Article 5), the freedom of teaching (paragraph (3) of Article 5), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association (Article 9), the privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications (Article 10), the rights of property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16a) in order to combat the free democratic basic order shall forfeit these basic rights. This forfeiture and its extent shall be declared by the Federal Constitutional Court.

Article 20 [Basic institutional principles; defense of the constitutional order]

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.

That is in principla the same what I have said over and over again now.

( I do not wish to say by that reference that things are being handled like these basic articles express. Much deformation and distortion to existing laws and even the basic law is existing and is being tolerated in Germany. We have too many laws, the one getting quoted to nullify the other, because the contradictions between existing laws are legions and can no longer be overwatched. And often it is rightout simple resignation not to follow a law (the police refusing to follow it's duties in certain parts of major cities, for example, quoting its unability to protect itself when not going in by the hundreds and officers are too initmidated and scared - and right they are - of the chnace to get bullied or beaten up by whole family clans and residents of all the street), or ignoring of such laws because it is en vogue in the current cultural climate. From the surrounding of the constitutional high court it is to be heared that some judges refuse to accept that article 20 section 4 indeed means "resistence" when it claims the right of resistence. so, refering to these articles is how things could and very much should be - but they are no matching the practical reality in their implementing, which is much more miserable. It gets worse by massive infringement by the EU. I tend to think of the legal landscape to be a total chaos where bureaucrats, predators and opportunists of all colours have the say. I have no faith and no trust in it - not only in context with battling Islam, but in almost every other as well. Relying on the law these days is nothing else but playing roulette. You may be lucky - or not. And on another day it could have been the other way around. what kind of respectable law should that be...?)

And also consider a chnage to the constitution like I suggested: that idoelogy that refuse to strictly differ between poltics and relgion, that do not fully submit to the principle of strict secularism, shall loose the constitutional portection for free religious practicing so that this freedom can no longer be abused to push politics that are against the constitution, but claim relgious untouchability. This point is not just cosmetics, but i cosnider it to be one of the most important steps to protect the constitution and the German law against Islam. The very confused sentences we have gotten in germany in masses on Islamic issues in the past years show the dramatic urgency to strengthen the constitution and the law against Islam and Shariah.

You want the protection of the secular society? than you need to be secular yourself, too. give and take. Benefit and duty. Reciprocity. That's the deal.

2) What exactly do you suggest we to to stop these people from destroying our freedoms?

Stopping Islamic migration. making their active integration legally binding and mandatory, not leaving them the freedom to refuse integration, like the overhwelming majority of Turks for example do. Learning the nation's language is mandatory. Compliance with local rites and nhabits, values and cultural rules must be mandatory (no more girls banned from school sports, biologx classes, etc). Prohibition of the burqua, and headscarf, both are politivcal combat symbols of Islam. Banning of very many islamic organisation that belong to the terror-supporting spectrum, to foeign nationalistic branches (Milli Görus), the muslim brotherhood, and other orthodox organisations. Full stop to further mosque building. no islamic party formation in politics allowed, since islam is not secular and does not differ between politics and religion, In germany: banning Turkey'S influence via the turkish ministry of religion, which has a tremendous and practically uncontrolled influence in German inner poltics. Full stop to mosque building. First they have to buiold as man culture centres and chruches and synagoes in Muslim ****ries like we have allowed them to build Muslim houses in europe and america. Get independent from oil - and then kick ass to the Saudis and several others, expropriation of their shares they hold in western corporations. No further support to the EU policy of pro-islamisation, and the UN.

The deal is clear: our house - our rules. Like it, or leave.

3) Do you say this mosque should not be built? How do you propose we do that (within the law)?

Don't care for the laws that much anymore since European courts foudn so amny highly hilaroious rulings to please islam, and since the Islamic group we battled in court told us afterwards into the face (after they lost): "of course we lied to you - else you would not have sold the property to us." (they lost because of fraud and betraying over the identity of theirs, in later weeks and months they harassed the initiave's president's wife on open street and threateend his family until the finally left the city. That was the time when I received the first set of death threats, too. Two other people got beaten up). For Islam, our laws mean not so much, they are inferior to Shariah law. My priority is not necessarily legality, because the law already has been tailored by the EU to support islam and make opposition to Islamisation a crime, my priority is to stop islam, make Islamic communities in Europe change themselves so that they are no longer Islamic (I do not believe in this insane idea of a tamed "euro-islam" that suddenly is compatible with western values), or in the long run give them strong motivations and incentives to voluntarily leave again (like the vast majority of former German guestworkers already did all by themselves: the spnaish, the itlaians, the Greek, The yugoslavs - most of them went back after some time, and those who stayed, stayed for love of Germany, and for the very, very most integrated them perfectly. Just turks and Albanians, Afghans and Lebanese do not do that). If all that is possible legally - okay. If legality must be breached to stop it - I'm all for it. Stopping islam is more imprtant than our laws, becaseu if we fail in stopping Islam. islam will make our laws system obsolete and sooner or later enforce shariah.

I indeed reject any further mosques being built, at GZ, and elsewhere. And as i also said earlier, the courts decision was found in a climate where our courts already bow to the favour of Islamic interests, in order to not disturb the "consensus" and not to disturb poltival correctness. I even would say that the court under no circumstances would have had the courage to stop that mosque at GZ. the political pressure was immense, too.