Saturday, February 05, 2011

Psychological projection: Islamists Accuse Egypt's Christians Of ... Radical Islam

The persecution of Egypt's Coptic minority is taking an ironic, and dangerous, turn: Islamist leaders are now projecting the worst traits of radical Islam onto Egypt's Christians. A psychological phenomenon first described by Sigmund Freud, "projection," is defined[1] as "the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people." As such, consider the following excerpt from this recent report:[2]
In the last month various fundamentalist groups held ten demonstrations [in Egypt], each after coming out of mosques following Friday prayers, against the 86-year-old ailing Coptic Pontiff, in which he was accused of being a US agent, an abductor and torturer of female Muslim converts from Christianity, of stockpiling weapons in monasteries and churches to carry out war against Muslims, and of plans to divide Egypt to create a Coptic State.

All of these accusations are as inapplicable to the Coptic Church as they are applicable to Islamists. Let us first examine the context of these charges: "Abducting and torturing female Muslim converts from Christianity."

Context: The wife of a Coptic priest, Camelia Shehata,[3] was reportedly kidnapped by Islamists, but then returned to her family. In response, Islamist leaders began saying that she had willingly run away and converted to Islam, and, in fact, has been "re-kidnapped" by the Coptic Church, which has trapped her in a monastery where she is being "tortured" and "re-indoctrinated" to Christianity.

In fact, the opposite scenario - kidnapping Christian women and forcing them to convert to Islam - is a well documented[4] and a notorious phenomenon[5] in Egypt. So now the Coptic Church is being accused of behaving identically - not just kidnapping, but torturing, brainwashing, and forcing women to convert. Moreover, the fact that Camelia has appeared on video[6] fervently affirming her Christian faith and denying that she ever converted to Islam has been ignored, no doubt because Islam's ingrained notion of taqiyya,[7] or dissimulation, is also being projected onto the Copts. Finally, Muslims' own sharia law mandates that Muslim women who try to leave the faith must be incarcerated and tormented until they return to Islam, such as in the recent case of Nagla Imam.[8]

"Stockpiling weapons in monasteries and churches to carry out war against Muslims."

Context: On September 15, leading Islamic figure Dr. Muhammad Salim al-Awwa appeared on Al Jazeera,[9] and, in a wild tirade, accused[10] the Copts of "stocking arms and ammunition in their churches and monasteries" - imported from Israel, no less, as "Israel is in the heart of the Coptic Cause" - and "preparing to wage war against Muslims." He warned that if nothing is done, the "country will burn," inciting Muslims to "counteract the strength of the [Coptic] Church." Awwa further charged that Egypt's security forces cannot enter the monasteries to investigate for weapons (an amazing assertion, considering that Coptic monasteries are not only at the mercy of the state, but easy prey to Islamist attacks,[11] with monks tortured and crucifixes spat on).

Needless to say, such charges are unjustified: in a nation and society where Islam is supreme; where sharia law (which mandates subjugation for non-Muslims via Koran 9:29)[12] is part of the Constitution; where Copts have been conditioned over centuries to be happy just being left alone - is it reasonable to believe that these selfsame, downtrodden Christians, who make up 12%-15% of the population, are planning a violent takeover of Egypt? It is easy to see, however, why such charges resonate with Muslims; after all, Islamists are constantly arming[13] and stockpiling weapons[14] - a Koranic charge[15] - including in mosques, as they prepare to violently seize power across the nations, with Egypt being an especially coveted target. Ironically, Awwa himself ceded that "Muslims are arrested every day [in Egypt] for extremism and the possession of arms."

"Planning to divide Egypt to create a Coptic State."

Context: In a closed conference, Coptic Bishop Bishoy had the temerity to acknowledge history:[16] "Muslims are guests in this country, Christians are the original residents. Prior to the Arab invasion of Egypt, which took place in the seventh century, the majority of Egypt's population was Christian." As usual,[17] this otherwise historically accurate observation has enraged Muslims, been denounced by Al Azhar, and cited as "proof" that the Copts seek to divide Egypt and establish their own state.

It is actually Muslim minorities who habitually try to secede from non-Muslim countries, whether by creating their own nations (Pakistan), or creating enclaves in the West.[18] The notion of separating from the infidel is commanded in the Koran (e.g., 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22), codified in the doctrine of wala wa bara,[19] and imprinted on the Muslim psyche. Unsurprisingly, then, Muslims have come to project this divisive impulse onto the Copts as well.

There is perhaps no clearer example of Muslim projection than when Bishop Bishoy, in response to the recent upsurge in Coptic persecutions, declared that the Copts are reaching the point of martyrdom: amazingly, this, too, has been thoroughly "Islamicized" as a declaration of war-to-the-death, including by Awwa, who, during his Al Jazeera declaration, asserted that "Father Bishoy declared that they would reach the point of martyrdom, which can only mean war. He said, 'If you talk about our churches, we will reach the point of martyrdom.' This means war."

Of course, the notion that a martyr is someone who wages and dies in jihad [holy war] is intrinsic to Islam (e.g., Koran 9:111).[20] Even the authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary translates shahid ("martyr") as "one killed in battle with infidels." On the other hand, Christian martyrdom has always meant being persecuted and killed for refusing to recant Christianity - and this is precisely the definition that has for centuries applied to Egypt's Copts, and the definition that Bishop Bishoy clearly intended. (See this article[21] for the pivotal differences between Christian and Muslim martyrdom.)

Islamists regularly abduct, abuse, brainwash, and compel Coptic girls to convert - and now Copts are accused of doing the exact same thing; Islamists regularly smuggle and stockpile weapons, including in their holy places - and now Copts are accused of doing the exact same thing; Islamists are constantly either trying to break away or conquer infidel nations - and now Copts are accused of doing the exact same thing; Islamic martyrdom means participating and dying in jihad - and now Christian martyrdom is defined as the exact same thing.

While anti-Copt sentiment is as old as the Muslim conquest of Egypt, this recent batch of false accusations is making Muslims more irate and paranoid, and foretells greater harm for Egypt's beleaguered Christians. According to sharia's dhimmi pact,[22] the necessary condition for Copts to be tolerated is that they live as subordinate, second-class "citizens." The Islamist psyche - and Egypt is increasingly Islamicizing - expects this.

Yet these recent charges portray the Copts as violent antagonists bent on war and conquest. If the Muslim popular mind accepts this new interpretation, far from subjugated dhimmis, or even co-equals, the Copts will be perceived as little better than infidel terrorists, and treated accordingly: that is, barbarously.

Much more HERE

The false rape claims start young in Britain

For the past few years, she has been an ­enthusiastic member of a church youth group. The club meets at her local ­chapel every Sunday where they say prayers and light candles before taking part in ­social activities and ­discussions on topical moral or religious issues.

So it was on the Sunday evening before the August Bank Holiday last year when this deeply disturbing but still unfolding story begins. The girl we shall call Lucy was 15 then; she is 16 now. Her true ­identity is protected by the law, for reasons that will become apparent.

At the weekends, her social life, like that of many of the teenagers in this Gloucestershire village, revolved around the youth group where ‘respect others’ is the most ­important rule. The words are printed on ­laminated cards which are given to youngsters when they join.

Lucy — pretty, bright and articulate — epitomised these ideals. Or so it seemed to those in charge; back in the summer she even attended a Christian summer camp. How bitterly ironic these details seem with hindsight.

One of Lucy’s friends at the club was David, 15 (again, for legal ­reasons, not his real name). He went to the same school as Lucy, but was in the year below her. David lived in a detached house at the ‘posh’ end of the village, about half a mile from Lucy.

The two regularly exchanged text messages. Some time on the night of August 29 last year, Lucy received one inviting her to come round to David’s home the following morning. By the time she arrived, David’s mother had left for work and his elder sister had gone out. David and Lucy were joined by two of their peer group; a boy and girl both aged 14. All four went upstairs to David’s bedroom.

They started to play a game of ‘dare’ with each other; a sexual version of the game. ‘I dare you to lift up your tops and show me your bra,’ was the gist of the first challenge. The ‘game’ culminated with Lucy and David disappearing under the duvet on the bed. They remained there for ten minutes. During that time they had full sex while their friends sat at a ­PlayStation in the corner.

Could there be a more graphic ­example of the sexualisation — and promiscuity — of too many children today?

Yet this is not the end of the story. The repercussions of what happened that morning five months ago in a ­village in the heart of so-called Middle England have been devastating, and are enough to shock any parent of a teenage child.

One week on from the game of ‘dare’, Lucy was at the club as usual. ­Sitting next to her in church was the same girl who had been with her in David’s room. Lucy began tapping a message into her mobile phone before passing the phone to her friend. Her friend read the ­message. It said: ‘I think I might be pregnant.’

That bombshell was followed by an astonishing accusation. David, she told her friend, had raped her that morning under the duvet. Lucy repeated the claim to her mother, who took her to the police station. David was arrested. In the ­harrowing days that followed, David was called a ­‘rapist’ — among other things — in the street by other youngsters who ­presumed he must be guilty. He wasn’t.

Lucy, it transpired, was lying. She was charged with making a false rape claim. And last week, she was ­convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice when she appeared before a youth court in Cheltenham; one of the youngest people in the country, it is believed, ever to be successfully ­prosecuted for such an offence. She will be sentenced later this month.

Why were detectives so sure Lucy was not telling the truth? Well, for one thing, it was not the first time she had falsely accused a boy of rape, of which more later. There were also two other ­youngsters in the ­bedroom, remember, when Lucy and David had sex. Neither of them ­corroborated her account.

One of those teenagers, a slip of a lad, is now sitting in his lounge next to his mother and stepfather ­recalling what really happened on that Bank Holiday morning. Did he know what rape was? ‘Yes,’ he replied. Was Lucy raped? ‘No.’ What did he think they were doing? Answer: ‘I thought they were just doing it.’

When they were ‘finished’, he said, David told him what he and Lucy had done under the duvet; it is ­inappropriate to quote that ­conversation in a family newspaper.

Nevertheless, no boy should have to go through what David has gone through. Or be forced to give ­evidence in rape proceedings as the boy now speaking to me did; a video of his ­testimony, which was played to the court, helped clear David, but ­condemned Lucy.

Lucy and many of her peer group, after all, were members of a church youth group. She describes herself on social networking sites as a ­Christian. Yet the well-behaved, ­crucifix-­wearing Lucy has a very ­different side, it seems. This is the heavily made-up, ­cigarette-smoking Lucy who was often to be seen around the village in sometimes thigh-skimming dresses with a variety of different boys in tow.

Some families had stopped their own children from associating with Lucy and say she has been sexually active since the age of at least 13.


British PM: It's time to stop tolerating the Islamic extremists and get immigrants to respect British 'core values'

David Cameron will today pledge to make Britain ‘a lot less’ tolerant towards Islamic extremists who whip up hatred against the West.

In a major speech on terrorism, the Prime Minister will argue that Britain has been too ‘passive’ towards organisations and preachers who poison the minds of young Muslims.

Mr Cameron will say Britain needs to be less tolerant and more judgemental when faced with ideologies that threaten the country’s basic values.

Signalling a major departure from Labour’s softly-softly approach, he will suggest that to ‘belong’ in Britain, individuals must sign up to core values such as freedom of speech, the rule of law and democracy. In a barely-concealed attack on the opposition, he will say: ‘It’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.’

The Prime Minister will pledge to end all public funding for groups which give succour to extremist views. And he will call for action to ban extremists from radicalising young people in universities, prisons and internet chat rooms.

At a security conference in Munich today, Mr Cameron will say: ‘Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.’

His warning comes just days after Britain’s independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, Lord Carlile, said that human rights rulings had made Britain a ‘safe haven’ for suspected foreign terrorists.

The Prime Minister will also hit out at Labour’s experiment with multiculturalism – calling it a failure. He says society has failed to provide a strong sense of what it means to be British, making it easier for extremists to prey on youngsters seeking something to identify with.

Mr Cameron pledges to end the state funding of groups that help foster extremist views, even if they are not directly linked to terrorism. He warns that there is a ‘spectrum’ of dangerous groups, ranging from those advocating suicide bomb attacks to those who ‘may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world view, including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values’.

He goes on: ‘As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called “non-violent extremists” and then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence.’

Downing Street last night declined to name the groups Mr Cameron is referring to. But controversial organisations which have received state funding in the past include Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Council of Britain.

Mr Cameron will warn fellow European leaders that they cannot tackle terrorism simply by tracking down extremists abroad in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan and must ‘wake up to what is happening in our own countries’.

But the Prime Minister will add that events in Egypt – where Muslim protesters are calling for democratic reforms – show that ‘Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible’.


More than one murder a week is committed by a thug on bail in Britain

More than one murder every week is committed by a criminal who could have been locked up, it emerged last night. Shocking figures show how 60 deaths could have been prevented if the criminal had been remanded in custody rather than released on bail after their first offence.

It will re-ignite the bitter row over Justice Secretary Ken Clarke’s proposals to slash the prison population by 3,000. A key part of the plan is to grant bail to even more suspects – both adults and juveniles – than is currently the case.

Critics fear this will lead to the number of murders by suspects on bail increasing further.

The Government does not routinely publish information about the criminal background of murder suspects. But Freedom of Information requests show suspects on bail represent one in 14 of all those who face the charge. Nationwide, that is the equivalent of 60 killings.

Campaigners say that, in many cases, they are violent partners arrested for an assault, who are then allowed back home – where they commit murder. In other startling cases, thugs picked up for yobbish behaviour are released back on to the streets to commit acts of lethal violence.

Rose Dixon, the chief executive of pressure group Support After Murder and Manslaughter, said: ‘Most of the families we deal with would say the criminal justice system isn’t robust enough. ‘People who are charged with domestic violence should be locked up for the protection of the women involved. ‘The statistics say that two women every week are killed by their partner or ex-partner – and in these type of cases we should look really carefully at how best to protect the victim.’

The survey of police in Britain found that, of those forces that kept the information, a total of 624 people were charged with murder. Of those, 43 were already on either police or court bail for a previous offence at the time of the killing.

When the missing forces are factored into the figures, it means that of the 870 people charged with murder last year around 60 would have been on bail for another offence.

The worst force was Lancashire – where six of the 31 people charged with murder last year were on bail at the time they allegedly committed the killing.

In South Yorkshire four out of the nine people charged with murder were on bail at the time while in West Yorkshire five of the 37 people charged were on bail.

Suspects are given bail as an alternative to custody while awaiting trial or sentencing. They are supposed to show good behaviour in return for not being locked up while the legal proceedings against them are put into place.

Yet there are a string of examples of violent and dangerous criminals who are granted bail. Two years ago Garry Weddell shot dead his mother-in-law while on bail on a charge of killing his wife. Other cases include Jonathan Vass, a 30-year-old ex-bouncer, who cut the throat of his former girlfriend Jane Clough, 26, while on bail for raping her. Last year he was jailed for life for the killing. Vass was originally put in prison to await the rape trial but was then released and went on to murder the nurse in the grounds of Blackpool Hospital.

Yesterday, Mr Clarke remained defiant, saying he had not once in his career produced a policy that was ‘instantly popular’. Writing in the Spectator magazine, Mr Clarke said: ‘My goal is a Conservative one: to find effective ways of punishing criminals while reducing public spending. ‘Prisons cost £4billion a year –over a billion more than they did in 1997. An adult prison place costs the taxpayer on average £45,000 a year; a young offender costs £60,000. ‘This would be money well spent if it stopped people from committing crime. But it does not.’

A Ministry of Justice spokesman added: ‘It is for Parliament to ensure that the framework used by the courts strikes the right balance between the rights of the individual and the need to protect the public.’



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: