For this Film was Theo Van Gogh Executed

( if the Title link doesn’t work try clicking here.)


The title above is linked to the iFilm website. Specifically it links to the page showing the first 3 minutes of the film made by Theo Van Gogh from a script by Ayan Hirsi Ali. Ali is the Somali-born immigrant who rose to become an elected member of the Dutch Parliament. Her film script depicts the brutality Islamic culture imposes on women in marriage, even in the supposedly civilized and placid Netherlands.

Because of this film, many fundamentalist Islamic immigrants were enraged. One of them approached Theo Van Gogh on an Amsterdam street and shot him dead, then stabbed a knife into his chest to pin a death threat against Ayan Hirsi Ali for her rebellion against Islam.

The Government of the Netherlands, which has otherwise begun to see it must resist Islamic militants and clerics, has caved in to pressure and evicted Ayan Hirsi Ali from her apartment building, and rescinded her passport for misrepresenting the facts of her original immigration request, which she had years earlier publicly detailed.

The problem of Islamic customs in the abuse of women may be inextricably linked to specific cultures which have given rise to Islam.

Islam has become the predominant faith for approximately a sixth or more of the world's population, including substantial communities in China, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bengladesh, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Iran (which is Persian not ARAB) and of course, all the Arab countries of the eastern Mediterranean Sea and North Africa. That is scores of very different populations, each with their own distinct histories and customs, which persist along with the overlay of Islamic Sharia law and traditions.

But throughout the Islamic world, more in some places than in others, brothers and fathers murder women of their own families who have been raped, whether the rape was by a total stranger or a family member. This is called an “Honor Killing.” The culture reckons any sexual activity whatsoever outside the narrow bounds allowed by Islamic law and custom have rendered the woman permanently and irretrievably soiled, defiled and ruined.

In many areas where Islamic fanatics rule, young men patrol the streets as enforcers, ready to thrash women with canes for allowing so much as an ankle or arm to show from their clothing, or throw acid in the face of any woman brazen enough to show it in public.

Since the Islamic Revolutionary Government has taken over management of Iran, many thousands of women have been hung from convenient construction cranes for the crimes of adultery, fornication, and insufficient modesty. Back in the early 1960’s the film “Zorba the Greek” was widely criticized for depicting an isolated Greek village stoning a widow after she had an affair with a visiting British tourist. Greek celebrities and diplomats of the day assured the rest of the world that such customs were a thing of the distant past. But they are alive and well in Islamic culture, just as slavery and amputation of the hand of a thief are still practiced in some Islamic countries.

So when someone tells you that Islam translates as “Peace” just remind yourself that’s not true.

Islam means “Submission.”

Think of that when you hear reports that Muslim clerics in Canada are demanding that the government give them authority to mediate any disputes between Islamic husbands and their wives.

Think of Theo Van Gogh and Ayan Hirsi Ali the next time some propagandist tries to feed you the lie that Islam means Peace.

On the day of the Great Rallies

Cualquier persona — y cada inmigrante de Mexico o de los otros países del sur — debe ver si el gobernar de su hogar en su país de origen no se puede comparar con Los Estados Unidos. Su propia cultura no le sostendrá si su alcalde, consejo de ciudad, y policía son ladrones, gamberros, y asesinos. Como resultado de muchos factores - en especial la avaricia que motivó la conquista española original - el legado de la regla española entorpece grandemente la maduración del gobierno indígena. Por supuesto hay dificultades y problemas con la cultura norteamericana, pero el sistema de leyes protege las derechas de los ciudadanos bien. En otros lugares, la ley sucumbe al capricho humano y bandolerismo.

En otros partes del mundo, el soborno es la norma. Aquí es aberración, no la práctica común i obligatorio como el baksheesh de que hemos oído en el mundo árabe o el Imperio Otomano. La gran ironía de la discusión sobre la definición de la ciudadanía con respecto a inmigrantes es que nadie dondequiera desafía la derecha de cualquier otro país de proteger y de asegurar sus fronteras. Solamente Los Estados Unidos.

Si debemos ser justos a todos, ¿cómo es justo para requerir a un inmigrante filipino seguir las reglas que no serán aplicadas a un inmigrante de Tegucigalpa, o a un inmigrante de Ciudad Juarez? ¿Cómo puede cualquier persona demandar que un mexicano tiene una derecha de moverse sin la restricción en los Estados Unidos, pero que un ciudadano de ninguna otra nación no tiene la misma derecha?

Después, ¿cómo podemos entonces decir que un ciudadano de la Irán, o del Paquistán, o del Sudán no tiene la misma derecha de entrar en los Estados Unidos sin ninguna restricción? ¿Cuales derechas especiales tienen los residentes de México que los residentes de otras partes del mundo también no tienen? ¿Por qué debe cualquier país tener la derecha de restringir cualquier persona de entrar libremente?

Mientras que William Jefferson Clinton era Presidente, él decidió en repatriación forzada para los refugiados de Haití encontrado en el mar muy lejos de los Estados Unidos. En aquel tiempo nadie desafía que él tenía autoridad de hacer tantas acciónes. Ahora nos parece partidista y sesgado para decir que el presidente subsecuente no tiene idénticamente la misma autoridad para deportar alguien que se pase ilegalmente a través de nuestras fronteras. O quien intenta pasarse así.