Ryan Dally on X - "#BREAKING Australian imam Mohammad Tawhidi: "When I was a fundamentalist Islamic extremist, I only voted left. Because I saw them as very stupid. I would fear conservatives more, because they have principles. The left has neither values nor principles!""
Report on “religious extremism” focuses on Catholicism, ignores Islam - "A recent document by a European think tank decries the “accelerating financial expansion of movements working to dismantle decades of hard-won sexual and reproductive rights across Europe.” The report, published by the Brussels-based European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual & Reproductive Rights (EPF), highlights the “anti-rights and religious extremist actors in Europe,” but focuses mostly on just one religion: Christianity. Through this inherent bias, the organization admits the one institution that its members and their allies fear—the Catholic Church—as the organizing force behind the “religious ideologues [who] are executing meticulous, long-term strategies for power.” EPF’s executive committee consists of one member of the European Parliament, along with members of parliament from several constituent states of the EU, with two additional politicians from outside the Union. All of the committee members come from socially left-wing political parties—from a party of the French “center,” Renaissance (founded by French President Emmanuel Macron) to the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party... The term “Catholic” appears 277 times in the June 2025 document. “Russia”/”Russian” might be the only term that turns up more often (395 times), but this is often in a geopolitical context instead of a religious one (“Orthodox” appears 93 times, a third of the mentions of “Catholic”). Islam is mentioned just once (outside of footnotes) in a study purportedly about religious extremism, and that single reference wasn’t even in the context of internal European politics. Datta noted that Family Watch International, an American “anti-gender” group,” has been active in engaging with the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) … having served as the catalyst for the 2023 homophobic legislation adopted in Uganda.”... The accusation is particularly exaggerated in light of recent moves to curb free speech in Germany and religious freedom in Spain, with the former arresting dozens in June over their online insults of politicians, and the latter fast-tracking legislation that would criminalize “conversion therapy.” Despite vocal opposition to the proposed law in Spain, mainly from evangelicals, it would also criminalize Catholic apostolates... One can take away two overarching messages from Datta’s study and all of his activist sources: All of the roads traveled by “anti-gender actors” lead to Rome, and after 225 years of accruing vast power in Europe, secularists are still intimidated by the Catholic Church and see the Catholic Faith as the main obstacle to their ideological goals."
fatwaislam1.Com : The ruling about offering prayers on the roads - "Yes, the middle part of the road where the people walk is included in the seven places that are prohibited for offering prayer, as has been reported from the prophet. Ibn Majah recorded in his Sunan from Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him that the prophet said: "It is not permissible to offer the prayer in seven places: the top of the house of Allah (the Ka'bah), the graveyards, the dung heaps(i.e.,waste areas), the slaughter houses, the restroom, the resting places of camels and the middle of the road." (At-Tirmithi no.346 and Ibn Majah no.747 Even though the chain of narration of this hadith is weak, there are other Hadiths that have been reported that explain the places where it is prohibited to offer prayer. These hadiths are combined with the Hadith of Jabir bin Abdullah, may Allah be pleased with them both"
Quebec passes law banning street prayers
Libs of TikTok on X - "INBOX. Muslim students at @DePaulU in Chicago, chose to occupy the Campus library to conduct their prayer, despite the University designating multiple prayer rooms and a Mosque next door. Students were reportedly very bothered and concerned. We reached out to the university for comment and they refused to respond."
Stolen land? Tell that to the Berbers | The Spectator Australia - "Greens Senator Dr Mehreen Faruqi spoke some of the most misguided and divisive words heard in parliament in recent times. She said: ‘We are subject to rules that white people never are’ and claimed that a ‘culture of online harassment, bullying and toxicity now targets everyone who is not a straight white man’. As Carl Sagan put it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Following his inaugural speech only days before hers, Senator Fraser Anning copped disproportionate amounts of flak from the media and from Liberal and Labor MPs with lengthy condemnation speeches in both houses of parliament followed by censure motions. Being a ‘straight white man’ clearly didn’t help him. If anything, it worked against him. By contrast, Dr Faruqi, a self-proclaimed ‘brown, Muslim, migrant’ has copped nothing of the sort for her own divisive words. And that, of itself, is the proof that her portrayal of ‘white privilege’ is dubious at best. Her speech begins with: ‘We are gathered here today on stolen land’. Wrong. Australia was lawfully conquered and settled by the British Empire in accordance with the international norms of the old world order. That was a ‘might makes right’ world. Whoever could raise an army and conquer land did so. Muslim Arabs and Turks have had their fair share of conquests, as have Christian Europeans. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 sowed the seeds for the modern concept of territorial sovereignty within demarcated borders. Though it wasn’t until 1928 under the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy that territorial acquisition by force was first attempted to be outlawed through consensus among international signatories. Otherwise known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact (after its authors US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand), this 1928 pact of course didn’t succeed in immediately putting an end to all war. In fact, World War II, the most destructive of all conflicts still managed to occur only a decade later. Yet the importance of the pact came in its aftermath. Shortly after the emergence of the United Nations, its Charter went on to guaranteeing ‘territorial integrity’ to member states. In the process, any territory acquired before the 1928 pact was deemed lawfully conquered under a ‘right of conquest’. Borders essentially became frozen in place and future conquests were made unlawful. This prohibition was not applied retroactively. Doing so would have thrown the entire world into turmoil since virtually every piece of land has, at some point, been conquered by outside forces – or to use Dr Faruqi’s rhetoric, ‘stolen’. Since Australia was settled in 1788 – a century and four decades prior to the cut-off point for lawful conquests in 1928 – its territorial legitimacy has never been in doubt. Hence, there are no legal or historical grounds to think of Australia’s founding as land ‘theft’. As someone who identifies as a Muslim, Dr Faruqi should know of Islamic civilisation’s own territorial conquests far beyond the outskirts of Mecca in the 7th century stretching all the way to Spain in the west and China in the east. Does she believe the Arabic-speaking Islamic countries that today stretch across North Africa, having conquered and replaced the indigenous Egyptian, Carthaginian, Berber and Nubian civilisations are all ‘stolen lands’? Does she believe that Iran, once home to an indigenous Avestan-speaking Zoroastrian culture, is ‘stolen land’? There was once an indigenous Hindu civilisation in Dr Faruqi’s own country of origin, Pakistan. Islam was first introduced in the region by Umayyad conqueror Muhammad Bin Qasim in 711. Does she believe that Pakistan is built on ‘stolen land’? One wonders, was Dr Faruqi not aware of Australia’s colonial history prior to her arrival? If so, why bother choosing to migrate to a country whose historical foundations fill you with such moral dread? It is hypocritical to refer to something as ‘stolen’ while continuing to benefit from its use. It is literally the equivalent of driving around in a stolen Rolls Royce while simultaneously complaining that it is stolen. Since she has a problem with British colonialism, it defies logic why she would leave her country of origin, that was freed from British rule in 1947, to then end up in Australia which still carries the Union Jack on its flag and has Queen Elizabeth II as its Head of State. Worse yet, she goes on to declare: ‘I bring to this chamber my track record on shaking things up and shifting the agenda on issues as diverse as decriminalising abortion, drug law reform, LGBTQI rights, the right to die with dignity and protecting our environment.’ With the exception of protecting the environment, literally everything else on her list is at complete odds with Islam. There isn’t one credible scholar of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence from any one of the four Sunni (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali) and three Shi’ite (Ithna Ashari, Isma’ili and Zaidi) schools of thought that has ruled in favour of abortion, drugs, same-sex marriage, gender fluidity and euthanasia. What Dr Faruqi seems to be following isn’t exactly ‘Islam’. It’s her own ideological fusion tinged with cultural Marxism, third-wave feminism and post-colonialism which she thinks is Islam when she boasts in her speech of being ‘unapologetically… a brown, Muslim, migrant’. This alliance between secular Muslim activists and the far-Left isn’t one based on strict theological, jurisprudential or moral consistency. They’re not united by common values so much as they’re united against a common enemy; that is, Anglo-Celtic, Judeo-Christian Western civilisation. As long as secular Muslim activists are provided a platform by the far-Left to fight imaginary ‘racism’, ‘white privilege’ and ‘colonialism’, they will continue to appropriate the values of the far-Left into their political goals without shame even if that means deviating from established Islamic jurisprudence. The radicals are easy enough to identify. It’s their secular counterparts that are often more dangerous in the long run, because they’re the ones who end up being elected to parliament and then use the institution as a vehicle to advance their goals. By her own admission, Dr Faruqi’s speech was precisely that."
From 2018
Mehreen Faruqi v Pauline Hanson: Greens senator tells court attacks on white people not racist - "Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi has told the federal court that verbal attacks on white people in Australia are not racist because racism is “tied to power” and in this country, “the power.. is held by white people”... Through her lawyer, Sue Chrysanthou SC, Hanson has accused Faruqi of hypocrisy and political grandstanding in pursuing the legal action while excusing what she acknowledges were racist remarks inside her own party. Hanson accused Faruqi of making or endorsing comments condemning white people. Faruqi was the first witness on Monday in a case that could test the constitutional validity of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which Chrysanthou argued potentially undermined the constitutionally implied right to political communication. The case is also examining what constitutes racism and whether power imbalances play a role in defining it.
Of course, Hanson was found guilty
Liam Out Loud on X - "The Privilege Permission Slip: Whenever your parents reminded you that something you had was a privilege, what happened next? They threatened to take it away. This is what those who label you privileged for your skin colour, gender, ancestry, and whatever other identity marker they can find, are attempting to do. Deeming you "privileged" is laying the moral groundwork for taking what you have. They are not describing an advantage. They are creating a pre-authorization for extraction. The label does not describe a condition. It assigns a role: the one who owes. And those who owe can be collected on."
Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist on X - "James Talarico had his public middle school students write "Obama memoirs" after Election Night as if they were Barack Obama's children. Disqualifying. Democrats want him to be the next U.S. Senator from Texas."
Reed Cooley on X - "In Maoist struggle sessions, participants often had to write stories from the POV of a “revolutionary hero” or party figure, fabricating personal accounts to celebrate communist victories (i.e., narrating the Long March as if personally involved). Similarly, Talarico required his students to write from the Obama family’s perspective, narrating Obama’s election as a glorious, triumphant event. James Talarico borrowed Maoist indoctrination methods to brainwash his students. He then boasted on Facebook about propagandizing his students like this. When we call our enemies “communists” it’s not just empty sloganeering or hyperbole."
Opinion | James Talarico’s liberal Christianity is dying out. Here’s why. - The Washington Post - "However novel this may seem, it reflects one of the oldest habits of the liberal Protestant tradition to which Talarico belongs: championing progressive social causes just as they are losing favor with the public. Talarico is not a sign of where America is heading but where it has been. Nowhere is this clearer than in Talarico’s views on transgenderism... He stands by a record of statements that includes a 2021 claim that “there are many more than two biological sexes, in fact there are six.” This is a misreading of the great works of gender theory that stand behind progressive understandings of sexuality. Worse, it damages the Christian, specifically Presbyterian, religious tradition to which Talarico and I both belong. Christianity makes certain claims about what it means to be human. We are created in God’s image and made as man and woman, distinguished by the sexual characteristics and complementarity of our bodies. Our bodies are, in a deep sense, who we are. I am not a soul that dwells in a body as an astronaut exists in a spacesuit. I am a body-soul unity. From this perspective, it makes no sense to say that someone is a woman trapped inside a man’s body. Indeed, such a claim can be seen as reflecting a deep misogyny. It denies that a woman’s actual, physical body and all it entails — from menstruation to pregnancy to breastfeeding — has anything necessary to do with being female. As the feminist thinker Janice Raymond has written, transgenderism “not only erases our bodies but also our oppression.” Talarico is articulate and compassionate. But his compassion is limited by his political outlook. He describes Jesus as a “radical feminist,” but rejects the insistence on embodiment shared by historical Christianity and many feminists. Instead, he presents Christianity as perfectly in accord with the respectable therapeutic beliefs of a certain segment of the American elite. It’s all happened before. Over 30 years ago, the feminist critic Camille Paglia wrote “The Joy of Presbyterian Sex” — an unsparing critique of a report on human sexuality issued by Talarico’s denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA). Writing as a lapsed Catholic with pagan sympathies, she argued that Christians who use the Bible to support gay sex not only downplay the distinctiveness of Christianity, they deny the anarchic and transgressive potential of new sexualities. Given that the report’s liberal Presbyterian authors reject so much Christian morality, she pointedly asks them, “Why remain Christian at all?” The same question could be asked of James Talarico. Historical Presbyterianism, a product of the Reformation, could be disruptive. It rejected the papacy. But it did so not because it wanted to abandon Christian teaching in favor of popular tastes. It instead sought to adhere to biblical teaching, regardless of current fashion. Liberal Presbyterianism lost that vision long ago. Instead, liberal Protestants like Talarico have ended up affirming as good and true whatever polite tastes require and abandoning any aspect of Christian teaching that appears to stand in the way of progress. What Paglia called the joy of Presbyterian sex was bad enough. But the joy of Presbyterian transgenderism is even worse, with its confusion about what it means to be a woman. As Paglia perceived, this liberal Protestant attitude ultimately results in an unsatisfying compromise. It requires downplaying the radical potential of Christianity and of sexual liberation. This is one reason why more liberal churches have declined, as more conservative forms of Christianity and less religious forms of progressivism have enjoyed relative strength. James Talarico is right to insist that Christianity doesn’t necessarily align with the views of the GOP. But that is no less true when it comes to the Democratic Party. Indeed, his candidacy raises a question that can’t be escaped by Christians on the right or the left. Does their faith exist merely to support what their party already believes? Or does it call them to oppose any threat to what it means to be human, no matter where it comes from? A faith that is captive to either political party will eventually seem superfluous."
Joseph Fasano on X - "Even making children anywhere in the world *fear* that they might be suddenly destroyed is an atrocious crime against humanity."
Shared by Democratic Socialism Now. Of course, indoctrinating kids with climate change hysteria is a moral imperative
wanye on X - "It comes up over and over again that liberals think conservative types are creating special exceptions for their enemies whenever the conservative has blindly applied their conception of justice. That’s how you get liberals saying stuff like, “oh I’m sure you’d be jumping straight to execution if this were a white guy“ and then every single time a white guy commits a heinous crime the entire right in unison chants, “execute him.” Or, to take another example, consider the way in which liberals always think that conservatives want and expect immigrants to behave in a certain way just simply because they hate immigrants, when the conservative is merely applying the same standard to which they would hold themselves in a foreign country. In these cases and many others, liberals are confused by a straightforward and universal conception of justice."
Basically left wingers are hypocrites and sexist, racist etc, so they think right wingers are hypocrites and sexist, racist etc too
KLEIN: When did “Colonizer” become acceptable hate speech? - "It is directed at individuals based solely on perceived European ancestry. It is not used to describe a specific action. It is not tied to personal conduct. It is applied because of lineage. If we are serious about equality, we need to ask a simple question: how is that not a racial slur? Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin is prohibited. Manitoba’s Human Rights Code provides similar protections. The principle is straightforward. You cannot single someone out or demean them because of their ancestry. That standard does not contain an asterisk... The selective application of the term “colonizer” exposes the problem. It is not being used as a neutral descriptor of historical systems. It is used to diminish people in the present. It is shorthand for “you do not belong” or “your voice carries less weight.” That is the language of exclusion."
Lots of people cheer racism against white people, especially when white men are the ones being discriminated against, so
stricture on X - "I dont think I should comment on politics until I can understand why democrats think the things they do about crime and prison. Why would anyone just not think "i'd prefer to not get robbed or beaten up, people who do it randomly on the street should die or go to prison forever""
Seasonal Clickfarm Worker on X - "It’s actually super easy to mentally model progressive thought. Just imagine you really want to be seen as a good person and you lack the moral courage to consider 2nd and 3rd order consequences if doing so might make you look like a bad person."
Hunter Ash on X - "As a former progressive, this is absolutely accurate and caused me endless frustration with my co-partisans. They fundamentally don’t care if their ideas work. They hardly even have a concept of ideas working. Their entire evaluation function is based on social perception and emotionalism which is, in fact, profoundly selfish and unvirtuous. If you care more about feeling like/being seen as good than you do about results, you’re a selfish parasite. Hardly exclusive to the left, but it defines the leftist project in a way it doesn’t define any other political faction."
Steve Stewart-Williams on X - "A new paper reveals significant publication bias in field studies of racial discrimination in hiring. Studies that fail to find discrimination - or that find discrimination favoring disadvantaged groups - are less likely to be published. [Link below.]"
Trust the Science!
Yehuda Teitelbaum on X - "BREAKING: The United Nations just nominated the Islamic Republic of Iran to help shape policy on women’s rights, human rights, disarmament, and terrorism. Yes, you read that right. Why on earth are we funding this monstrosity?"
Yehuda Teitelbaum on X - "The following countries backed Iran's nomination: United Kingdom ๐ฌ๐ง Spain ๐ช๐ธ Canada ๐จ๐ฆ France ๐ซ๐ท Germany ๐ฉ๐ช Norway ๐ฎ๐ธ Netherlands ๐ณ๐ฑ Australia ๐ฆ๐บ Switzerland ๐จ๐ญ Austria ๐ฆ๐น Finland ๐ซ๐ฎ"
French footballers suspended after refusing to play with LGBTQ+ logo : r/europe_sub - "As I thought, some of those players are muslim. How shocking! s/"
Greg Price on X - "๐จ WATCH: During a discussion hosted by the American Medical Association, a professor of bioethics declares that "every medical institution must demand" that we abolish and defund the police. This organization accredits medical schools and makes half a billion dollars with their CPT coding monopoly that insurers and providers can't get paid without. And they've been completely captured by the radical left."
The nonsense around human rights tribunals is even worse than you think - "When I became the Chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in 2014, I said some things I was not supposed to say. I made the observation that human rights tribunals had a bad reputation. This wasn’t received well. In my first Annual Report to Parliament, I asserted that “Discrimination is not widely accepted in Canada. It is not acceptable to most Canadians to even hear a suggestion of prohibited discrimination, let alone engage in it.” I still believe that remains true today... I warned that our preservation relied on us making credible decisions. “We have a duty to make decisions that reflect broad Canadian values so that our work continues to be respected and valued.” Human rights tribunals were set up to keep discrimination cases outside of the courts, probably reflecting the idea that these matters were not as serious as criminality. The way the tribunals were originally set up supported the idea that complaints could be heard by a panel of non-lawyers over a few hours, decided upon quickly, and a decision rendered days later. Remedies could include an order to cease prohibited discrimination, pay restitution and perhaps a small penalty for injury to dignity. Now it takes years to get a case through the system. Most provinces have lifted damage limits, and awards in the tens of thousands of dollars for injury to dignity are routinely made. These same administrative tribunals have now been used to put forward class-action style cases resulting in massive awards, including one which led to a settlement negotiated by the government for a total sum of $23.3 billion. There have also been absurd cases, like the transgender woman who filed a complaint after being denied a scrotum waxing at various beauty salons. However, much of the human rights nonsense seldom makes the news. Many frivolous cases are settled at mediation where respondents are faced with paying money to make the complaint go away, or paying much more in legal costs to defend themselves at a hearing. Even if they win their case, they will rarely be able to recover any costs from the complainant. I mediated about 300 cases for the Canadian and B.C. human rights tribunals. At times I felt like an agent of a state-controlled extortion ring, persuading respondents to pay money to settle claims I knew they would never lose at a hearing. I kept track in my 12 years of doing this work. In my opinion, more than half of the complaints had no merit. There are so many cases that have strayed from what I referred to as broad Canadian values. There was the Ontario father who was told that discrimination laws don’t apply to his son because he is white. There have been hate speech cases which have imposed unclear rules about what you can and cannot say. Businesses have been fined tens of thousands of dollars because of pronoun disputes amongst their employees... Far from being a minor administrative matter designed to stay out of the courts, decisions like Neufeld suggest financial ruin could await anyone offending the Human Rights Code, just for doing something like challenging the accepted narrative on transgender issues... It should not be surprising that recently in British Columbia, an opposition member of the legislature proposed a bill (entitled Human Rights Code Repeal Act) to entirely eliminate the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and the B.C. Human Rights Commission. The first reading of the bill was supported by the Conservative caucus, including one candidate for leadership for the party. Other leadership candidates have not dared to say out loud that they wish to shut down the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, but their criticism of the Neufeld decision and others is starting to send the message that major reform, if not outright repeal, is on the horizon. Human rights adjudicators have an obligation to be neutral decision-makers, giving as much of a fair hearing to the respondent as the complainant. Their role is not that of an activist who wishes to push the progressive envelope. It is important that ordinary Canadians buy into and value our work. If we push too far, the day will come when the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater and the whole system will get tossed."
British-Indian rail worker wins race discrimination claim after colleague left EDL leaflet in locker - "A British Indian Network Rail worker has won a race harassment case after his colleagues left an anti-Islam English Defence League (EDL) leaflet in his locker. Parmjit Bassi - who is not Muslim - was found to be the victim of racism when his co-worker stuffed an EDL leaflet in his locker which asked 'what individuals were doing to protect their children from Islam'... The tribunal ruled that even though Mr Bassi does not follow Islam they were 'clear slights' against his race and that Network Rail managers had a 'laissez-faire attitude' towards them."
The establishment thinks Islam is a race
