Hodjanernes Blog

29 april 2007

Messerschmidt sagen

Læs en glimrende kommentar her på Jarls blog.


Medierne og de politiske modstandere har meget travlt for tiden med ad hominem’ angreb på politikere fra Dansk Folkeparti.

Ingen forholder sig til substansen i udtalelserne fra Krarup, Camre og Messerschmidt. Det er jo ganske tankevækkende.

Lad os for eksempel tage udtalelserne om at islamiske lande er ‘tabersamfund’. Alle har fordømt dem, men hvad er realiteterne?

Det naturvidenskabelige tidsskrift Nature havde sidste år et temanummer om islam og forskning og udvikling. Temanummeret konklusioner var følgende:

“Spending on research and development in the Islamic world is well below the global average, and continues to fall behind that of developed countries in the West.”

“Nader Fergany, lead author of the Arab Human Development Reports (AHDR), argues that building a knowledge-based society in the Arab world means respecting key freedoms of expression and association. He discusses the AHDR reports, which identify deficits in the acquisition and production of knowledge, the levels of empowerment of women, and individual and national freedom as major barriers to Arab development.”

“Herwig Schopper, former director-general of CERN and president of the SESAME Council, argues that a big jump in developing science and technology in Muslim nations is needed and makes several recommendations for how progress might be achieved. He lists the many initiatives that have so far failed to lead to concrete action.”

“Past secular regimes have invested poorly in science and research, with the oil-rich Gulf states being the worst offenders.”

“Too few Muslim governments collect data on the actual status of science and innovation, so the problems facing scientists are not even on their agenda. Without true measures of quality and performance, weaknesses in higher education and research institutions will never be properly addressed. Declan Butler tackles the lack of statistics available on investment and performance, and analyses the best of what is available.”

Hvis det, Nature omtaler, ikke er betegnende for tabersamfund? Hvad er så? Eller er Nature racistisk? Hvad har den muslimske verden bidraget med igennem historien?


Fundet hos Maltesen.


Nej malte. Du får ikke et link.

De har fået lov af muslimerne!

WOMEN in Italy should not wear veils that cover their face, according to new government guidelines for immigrants that were drawn up in consultation with representatives of the main faiths, including Muslims.

The document, presented by Interior Minister Giuliano Amato, is Rome’s response to a growing debate in Europe over integration standards for Muslim minorities.

“Types of clothing that cover the face are not acceptable because they prevent the identification of the person and are an obstacle to the interaction with others,” it said.

Italy’s Charter of Values, Citizenship and Immigration also states that poligamy is contrary to the rights of women and that marriages that are forced or between children are banned.

While the charter is not legally binding, it is meant to set common rules for immigrants, particularly Muslims, living in the predominantly Roman Catholic country.

The document, issued by Romano Prodi’s centre-left government, was given a green light from the country’s top Islamic association, Ucoii.

“This is not a discriminating Charter, it’s a Charter for equality,” said Ucoi leader Mohamed Nour Dachan.

However he added: “The veil is never humiliating for the woman who wears it.

“We recognise the culture and the religion of this country, but Islam too has given a lot to Europe and maybe this could have been mentioned.”

The Charter also sets guidance for immigrants requesting Italian citizenship, saying they should speak Italian and know “the essential elements of the national history and culture”.

Mere på Daily Telegraph

Fyyyhada. Tørklædeforbud og kendskab til italienske værdier! Måske skal de også have en kanon 😀

Muslimske skolebørn i Holland ødelægger klasseværeslet når landbrugsundervisning omtaler svin.

A school in Amsterdam has halted lessons on rural life because the Islamic children refused to talk about pigs.

Reporting this, Alderman Lodewijk Asscher said he wants to take “tough measures.” Subsidies for all kinds of dubious groups must stop and parents of unruly children penalised financially.

Asscher told newspaper De Volkskrant: “A primary school in Amsterdam-Noord has decided no longer to teach about living on a farm. Various pupils began to demolish the classroom when the pig came up for discussion. Apparently it has gone that far. These children, 9, 10 years old, have not been given even the most elementary rules at home about why they must go to school.”

Asscher, who is also the Labour (PvdA) leader in Amsterdam, wants to subject the parents to an ‘upbringing requirement,’ enforced with negative financial spurs. He is thinking of cuts in the children’s allowance or lower welfare payments. In the Lower House, Youth and Family Minister Rouvoet recently rejected a plea for this from Party for Freedom (PVV).

Asscher also wants to prune the forest of subsidies for all kinds of foundations and organisations that say they work for multicultural goals. They receive 160 million euros annually from Amsterdam. Asscher wants to work out for each of these organisations in the “welfare industry” whether they do useful work and if not, halt the subsidy.

Asscher gave an example of abuse: “A Moroccan man took 50 youths off the streets, who were really an enormous nuisance. Now they collect wheelchairs for the handicapped in Surinam, Morocco and Turkey. Suddenly, a welfare body was set up alongside him, which is now trying to take the boys over from him, because they would then receive subsidies of 4,000 to 6,000 euros per kid. They are too timid to take these lads of the street themselves and now want them in their card-index because of the subsidy. Our Moroccan volunteer does not want to do it any more. I understand him.”

Asscher is also shocked by the powerlessness of welfare bodies who try to talk criminal youngsters back onto the right track. In Slotervaart district, a mother of 10 children, of whom half have a criminal record, is guided by 35 different social workers, the alderman discovered. They have little or no idea of what each other is doing, according to Asscher.

Fra NIS News Bulletin. Tip: Limewoody.

Indoktrineringen begynder tidligt: Hvis du hører om noget, du ikke bryder dig om, så smadr, smadr, smadr til du får din vilje. Hvor har 9-årige det fra?


Jeg tror nu nok, danskerne gerne vil have sig det frabedt

Filed under: Feminisme, Politik, Politisk korrekte, SF, Venstrefløjen — Hodja @ 16:45

Villy Søvndahl vil i regering med maksimal indflydelse.

Det er derfor – og kun derfor – at SF skal i regering! For at få gennemført vores politik! Ikke for SF’s skyld, men for velfærden, miljøet og frem for alt for danskernes skyld, sagde Søvndal i sin tale.

Mere på Nyhedsavisen

Tropisk sommermakeup

Gå sommeren i møde med glødende varme kinder, glimtende læber og intense og forførende øjne med The Body Shop.

The Body Shop sætter denne sommer fokus på tropiske, forførende skønheder, der kan lokke vildfarende mænd med sig med deres skønhed.


Skriver Østrogen.

Her er hvad grundlæggeren af ‘The Body Shop’ skrev om Israel-hetZZbollah konflikten sidste år:

“Join me in signing Stop The War Coalition’s urgent letter to Tony Blair calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Lebanon, to stop Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and Gaza and to end Tony Blair’s support for Bush’s wars.

You can sign the letter online — on Stop The War Coalition’s website, so you don’t even have to get out of your chair — you can be a ‘sittist’ as I call an activist that gets informed, outraged and active sitting down. This letter will be handed to Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street on Saturday 5th August during Stop The War Coalition’s Emergency National Demonstration, which commences at midday at Speakers Corner, Hyde Park, London and will end in Parliament Square with a rally. More details on the demonstration, should you want to take part, can be found on Stop The War Coalition’s website.

Do also check out the very moving 6 minutes video ‘More Time To Bomb’.”

Fra ThinkIsrael

(PS: The Bodyshops tekstforfatter burde lære at stave).

How the Media Partnered With Hezbollah: Harvard’s Cautionary Report

While the war between Israel and Hezbollah raged in Lebanon and Israel last summer, it became clear that media coverage had itself started to play an important role in determining the ultimate outcome of that war.

It seemed clear that news coverage would affect the course of the conflict. And it quickly transpired that Hezbollah would become the beneficiary of the media’s manipulation.

A close examination of the media’s role during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon comes now from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, in an analysis of the war published in a paper whose subtitle should give pause to journalists covering international conflict: “The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict.”

Marvin Kalb, of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, methodically traces the transformation of the media “from objective observer to fiery advocate.”

Kalb painstakingly details how Hezbollah exercised absolute control over how journalists portrayed its side of the conflict, while Israel became “victimized by its own openness.”

Journalists did Hezbollah’s work, offering little resistance to the Islamic militia’s effort to portray itself as an idealistic and heroic army of the people, facing an aggressive and ruthless enemy.

With Hezbollah’s unchallenged control of journalists’ access within its territory, it managed to almost completely eliminate from the narrative crucial facts, such as the fact that it deliberately fired its weapons from deep within civilian population centers, counting on Israeli forces to have no choice but defend themselves by targeting rocket launchers where they stood.


Hezbollah’s strong support from Syria and Iran — including the provision of deadly weapons — faded in the coverage, as the conflict increasingly became portrayed as pitting one powerful army against a band of heroic defenders of a civilian population.

Gradually lost in the coverage was the fact that the war began when Hezbollah infiltrated Israel, kidnapping two of its soldiers (still held to this day) and killing eight Israelis. Despite the undisputed fact that Hezbollah triggered the war, Israel was painted as the aggressor, as images of the war overtook the context.

Israelis by the hundreds of thousands became the target of rocket fire aimed at civilian centers. Women and children, Jews and Arabs, young and old, spent more than a month living in underground shelters while nearly 4000 Hezbollah rockets rained on Israel. The coverage from Israel, however, quickly moved away from the anxiety-filled civilian areas, which were not terribly telegenic, and onto the front lines where armed, uniformed soldiers could be seen by television cameramen and reporters.

By contrast, armed Hezbollah fighters were all but invisible to the media. Also invisible were Hezbollah’s thousands of rockets and rocket launchers strategically positioned near schools, hospitals and apartment buildings.


Within Hezbollah territory, journalists were led through scenes of the destruction caused by Israel. Journalists rarely complained about Hezbollah’s restrictions, but they frequently complained about Israel’s efforts to limit coverage deemed useful to the enemy. Still, circumventing Israeli restrictions proved easy in a country like Israel, while in Hezbollah-controlled areas it proved all but impossible.

Cameras enjoyed full access to civilian victims of Israel’s actions, but never to the perpetrators of violence against Israel. And in Israel journalists could interview soldiers complaining about the weaknesses in Israeli tactics. On more than one occasion, Hezbollah choreographed theater for visiting journalists, with ambulances ordered to parade on command for journalists, who rarely challenged the inconsistencies in what they saw. Bloggers, for example, noticed a perfectly unharmed Lebanese man standing in a picture, not long after he had been seen being “rescued” from the crushing rubble of a building.

Before long, Hezbollah had achieved a definitive propaganda victory. The media had not only acquiesced to tell Hezbollah’s version of the war, they had started contributing to the creation of the narrative, with at least one Reuters photographer altering photographs to make Israeli attacks look more damaging.

And many reporters simply failed to offer much context. The study quotes the New York Times’ Stephen Erlanger commenting on a satellite picture published by his paper. The picture showed a southern suburb of Beirut, which was largely destroyed. Erlanger said it “bothered me a great deal,” because the image with no context failed to show that this was a small part of a Beirut, and the rest of the city was largely undamaged by the war.


According to the Harvard paper, Arab TV network Al Arabiya portrayed Arabs as the victims in 95 percent of its stories, while Al Jazeera did it in 70 percent of its reports. Arab journalists’ bias against Israel is hardly surprising, but consider this: Al Jazeera’s coverage portrayed Israel as the aggressor just as often as did the four main German television programs. And if you think American journalists held no bias against Israel, you may be surprised to know that “On the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, Israel was portrayed as the aggressor nearly twice as often in the headlines and exactly three times as often in the photos.”
The Harvard paper shows the need for journalists to brace themselves and remain vigilant when they cover conflicts between open societies on one side, and media-controlling militias on the other. These conflicts, which we will undoubtedly continue to see, demand that journalists make a greater effort to provide context and to keep from become willing collaborators with one side.

Islamic militant groups, such as al-Qaida and others, have openly described their strategy of manipulating the media and winning on the “information battlefield.” Hezbollah, too, had a well crafted, and ultimately successful media plan.
The challenge to keep from being used will be greatest for journalists in the field, but editors back in the newsroom also must look closely at what their organizations produce. They must be aware that their reporters on the ground are the target of media campaigns by those they cover, and that reporters can become emotionally allied with one side, as we saw last summer in Lebanon.

Frida Ghitis writes on world affairs.

Tip: Limewoody.

DR har en nyhed om Israel idag – men den har selvfølgelig en anden vinkel.

Dansk Folkeparti ødelægger Danmarks mulighed for at brande sig positivt.

Det er landsskadelig virksomhed.

Det ødelægger vores mulighed for at fastholde den økonomiske vækst. Vi kan f.eks. ikke tiltrække den nødvendige udenlandske arbejdskraft. For hvem vil til Danmark, når man kan læse i sin avis, at Danmark konstant er på kant med menneskerettigheder, og at et racistisk parti er regeringsbærende?

Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen i Jyllands-Posten

Kære Elsebeth. Vi er mange der ikke har det som dig, og som mener at landsskadelig virksomhed er noget helt andet. Hvis vi ikke kan tiltrække udenlandsk arbejdskraft, hvordan kan det  så være, at svenskerne stømmer over Øresund for at arbejde her? Østeuropæiske arbejdere? Indiske læger? Og hollandske landmænd er meget ivrige for at overtage danske landbrug – for blot at nævne nogle få eksempler. Fat det dog – de radikales tid er forbi! Og hvad ville den økonomiske vækst have været uden den masseindvandring, dit parti har være med til at skaffe os på halsen?

Og hvori består det racistiske i Dansk Folkeparti? Er islamisme en race?

‘Apartheid lever stadig’


Sherin Khankan i Jyllands-Posten 22. april 2007