SIOE – Stop Islamisation of Europe

1 Comment

Statement from Anders Gravers about Breivik


Breivik’s sickening and unforgivable act of terrorism must not be allowed to stop the entirely legitimate and important Islam-critics and their condemnation of the Islamisation of our countries. It is precisely because Islam has affected our community so ostentatiously and corrosively combined with the persistent attempts at ridiculing Islam’s critics that forced this murderous act upon the people of Norway and Europe.

We must continue to keep shouting about Islam’s abomination and raising awareness that Islam stands for coercion, violence, lack of freedom and discrimination against both men and women. The more we yell and get people to wake up to reality, the more we will help to avoid people like Breivik becoming so desperate about politicians, and their wilful ignorance towards the crystal-clear facts about Islam, that they go out and exercise the kind of terror we have just seen.

We must constantly and consistently keep throwing out facts about Islam to instil them in the minds of politicians and continue to engage politically in order to reverse this suicidal decline of our countries. We refuse to be boxed in by mad fools who make crazy comparisons and contrive false links between Breivik and peaceful organisations who abhor his actions. This terrible act of terrorism must actually inspire us to become even more persistent in our peaceful methods for an ever more free, democratic, secure community that our children and grandchildren can safely grow up in.

We must reverse the insane social disintegration where our daughters and sisters are now afraid to go out alone at night. They must once again be confident to walk as carefree people in our society on an equal footing with everyone else without the fear of being assaulted and raped by subhuman monsters with their completely warped view of the female gender that has been handed down generation after generation. Europe has fought for women’s and men’s equality over the last 100 years and we must remember that women achieved universal suffrage only in the 1920s and Denmark had the first woman government minister in 1924.

We should not be afraid of “the tone of the debate”. While we still have our freedom we must use fully use it and, lest we forget, we still have our law courts where one can be punished for libellous and defamatory statements. This system still works fine. Therefore, we must continue to call a spade a spade and the so-called prophet a paedophile highwayman, for that was what he was, if one bothers to read the various Islamic texts about the so-called prophet’s life and adventures.

It is not “tone of the debate” that is dangerous. That’s the point; there is no “tone of the debate” because all debate is stifled by the abuse hurled at Islam-critics. It is the lack of debate that triggered the madman Breivik to perpetrate his act of terrorism. It is the politically correct mantra with its repeated verbal head-kicking of Islam-critics, while ignoring the facts about Islam, that is dangerous. It is the attempt to silence criticism of Islam together with the attempt to ridicule or to brand as extreme the people who fight for their country and for their children and grandchildren’s future that is dangerous. It is this kind of suppression that can help to get people like Breivik to lose their temper and go berserk. This must not happen again.

Let us together continue our work for Europe and let’s make it even more tenacious. Open the eyes of people in your vicinity and get them to understand what Islam is and what fatal influence it has on our country. Shout at your politicians and continue shouting even if you feel that they have decided not to listen. At some point it will succeed.

We must not give up for fear of being boxed in, because we know what we’re talking about and those who defend Islam either know not what they are talking about or they are prepared to convert. Neither can we take seriously. We have our countries to fight for and we have an obligation to leave our countries to our children and grandchildren in the condition we received it, namely secure, free and with equality.

We promise that we will never surrender Europe to Islam’s followers – never!


1 Comment

Marxist antisemitic “antijihadist” from One Law For All responds feebly to Spencer’s rebuttal of their false charges

From Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch

The Leftist dhimmi blog Harry’s Place, which dabbles dilettanishly in counter-jihad poses while seldom missing an opportunity to denigrate and defame genuine counter-jihadists, has not surprisingly signed on to the Marxist antisemite Maryam Namazie’s One Law For All hit piece on me, Pamela Geller, SIOA and SIOE. Now they have published a response from one of Namazie’s accomplices, Adam Barnett, responding to my initial rebuttal to their attack piece, which Barnett cowrote. My initial response is here.

The beginning of this “response,” “Adam Barnett’s response to Robert Spencer,” from Harry’s Place, August 16, is simply bizarre, suggesting that Barnett read in my rebuttal what he wanted to see there, rather than what I actually wrote:

Following the publication of ‘Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right’, our new report which investigates his and similar organisations, Stop Islamization of America director Robert Spencer has invited One Law for All to ‘substantiate [our] charges, or withdraw them and issue a public apology.’ One could simply recommend that Mr. Spencer read our report.

A cheap rhetorical gambit. Anyone can play that game. I could easily, and, indeed, with more justice, charge Barnett with not actually reading my rebuttal — as you will see as you read on.

Indeed, in his ‘rebuttal’, he writes as if he has answered all of these charges before.

I have no idea what this means. If I wrote as if I had answered all of those charges before, why did I bother to answer them in this context? But obviously, I did.

It’s therefore strange that he felt the need to reply to them at ‘11:53pm’ on a Sunday night,

This is the most bizarre portion of Barnett’s piece. There is something wrong with replying on a Sunday night? 11:53PM PDT Sunday night is Monday morning in London, 7:53AM, just in time for Maryam Namazie and Adam Barnett and the Harry’s Place gang to be tucking in to their fried bread with baked beans and black pudding and catching up on the morning news. What could be more convenient? Or is it that as a Marxist, Barnett has no work ethic and objects to my working so late on a Sunday night?

The prosaic reason why I answered so late on a Sunday night is that I had a late meeting that evening, as I actually happen to have noted here, and after it was over I saw several emails that had come in that afternoon and evening notifying me about Namazie’s hit piece. So I answered it. Is Barnett implying that I was trying to bury my rebuttal by publishing it on a Sunday night? Then why did I have it published at FrontPage today?

I really have no idea why Barnett registered this weird complaint, or why it is echoed by a commenter at Harry’s. Perhaps the Marxists-Have-No-Work-Ethic explanation is indeed the most cogent.

and to attempt to smear his critics as ‘racist anti-Semites’ and ‘supporters of Jihad’.

Note the sleight of hand and dishonesty: The phrase “racist anti-Semites,” although it is in quotation marks, does not appear in my piece. I do call Namazie antisemitic, with good reason, and not a “supporter of Jihad” in general but a supporter of the jihad against Israel, but Barnett by placing these phrases in quotes is being either sloppy or dishonest.

Namazie has echoed Palestinian jihadist propaganda designed to demonize and ultimately destroy Israel. As has been documented here and elsewhere on numerous occasions, the Israeli Army actually scrupulously avoids targeting civilians, while the Palestinian jihadists launch attacks from civilian areas in order to try to draw retaliatory fire that will kill civilians and that they can then use for propaganda purposes. Namazie, in echoing these Palestinian lies, is aiding and abetting the Palestinian jihad, which is inherently antisemitic, rooted in Islamic antisemitism.

Notice that Barnett doesn’t rebut the charges that Namazie is antisemitic and a supporter of the jihad against Israel. He just calls them “smears,” as if that suffices for rebuttal.

One could be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Spencer hoped to prevent people from reading the report for themselves.

No, one could not be forgiven for that, given the fact that I have now published a link to that report at Jihad Watch and at FrontPage.

Barnett then spends a considerable amount of time smearing SIOE; it’s indicative of how weak his position is that he spends a third of a piece billed as a “response to Robert Spencer” retailing charges against an organization that I have absolutely nothing to do with. I have no role in running SIOE and no hand in formulating its positions. I have never called for or supported the mass deportation of Muslims or the banning of the Qur’an, or called all Muslims liars — not that I accept Barnett’s version of SIOE’s positions. Stephen Gash of SIOE responds to Barnett and Namazie here and in the comments field at Harry’s Place.

– SIOA’s leaders have surpassed SIOE’s defence of war criminal Radovan Karadzic, (which included offering justifications for his actions), by defending Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, denying Serbian atrocities including the Srebrenica genocide, publishing the work of professional apologists for the Milosevic project, and in Spencer’s case working on an institutional level with such people to oppose an independent Kosovo.

Actually, Pamela Geller posted a piece that said quite clearly: “I am not defending Radovan Karadzic…” And also, Geller has never defended Milosevic at all; she has only expressed skepticism about some of the claims made about Serbian concentration camps – a skepticism that many journalists and historians share. It’s the same thing with my “working on an institutional level with such people to oppose an independent Kosovo” — I have written that an independent Kosovo would be a jihad base in Europe, and that is what it is already proving to be. Given that Namazie so credulously accepts Palestinian jihad propaganda, it isn’t surprising that her associate Barnett would decry those who don’t accept Balkan jihad propaganda; but to equate skepticism with support for Serbian war crimes is the tactic of a smear artist, not an honest analyst.

Also, Stephen Gash has sent me this:

I take exception to this piece of wilful misinterpretation and flagrant hypocrisy:-Quote: “SIOA’s leaders have surpassed SIOE’s defence of war criminal Radovan Karadzic, (which included offering justifications for his actions), by defending Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, denying Serbian atrocities including the Srebrenica genocide, publishing the work of professional apologists for the Milosevic project, and in Spencer’s case working on an institutional level with such people to oppose an independent Kosovo.”

Firstly, SIOE’s ironically entitled article “The extraordinary rendition of Radovan Karadzic” complained that Karadzic would not get a fair trial and had indeed already been condemned by both Western and Muslim media before his trial had even started. One Law for All’s claim about “justifying Karadzic’s actions” clearly confirms SIOE’s complaint. Justifying the need for a fair trial is justifying his actions?

Secondly, it’s a bit rich to criticise SIOE for its “justifications” for Karadzic’s actions (800 years of Serbian history would not be allowed in Karadzic’s defence) then to mention an “independent Kosovo” as if this had nothing to do with Serbian history.

If this is One Law for All’s notion of justice, it begs the question what  “One Law” are they campaigning for exactly?

It is certain that many of One Law for All’s supporters consider the Iraq War to have been started on a false premise (by saying this One Law for All will no doubt assert that SIOE claims the war was started on a true premise such is the way communists manipulate other’s statements). They may be interested to know that some Germans, at least, consider that the bombing of Serbia began with a lie.  Documentary in 5 parts

Back to Barnett:

Ms. Geller has gone so far as to say that Bosnian Muslims killed themselves in order to ‘manipulate media coverage’, and refers to the 1995 genocide as a ‘propaganda lie’ which was ‘manufactured [by] the international community’ as part of ‘the ongoing blood libel against the Christian Serbs’. (p.42-43, 53-54 and here)

This sounds absurd, and Barnett wants it to: he had to lie about Pamela Geller’s statements in order to create the absurdity. Did she actually say that “Bosnian Muslims killed themselves in order to ‘manipulate media coverage’”? Of course not. If you look at the actual post to which Barnett is referring, you will see that Geller is not saying that Bosnian Muslims committed suicide in order to manipulate media coverage, but killed their own in order to create the illusion of Serb attacks on civilians and thereby manipulate media coverage. The Palestinians do that, so why wouldn’t jihadists in the Balkans? But of course, Namazie retails that Palestinian propaganda, so it is not surprising that her colleague would be a stooge for the jihad in the Balkans as well.

This is presumably what Mr. Spencer means when he writes of SIOA’s ‘opposition to the jihad in the Balkans and skepticism (sic) about some of the charges made of Serbian war crimes.’

“Sic”? Apparently Adam Barnett is so parochial and ignorant that he doesn’t know that skepticism is the correct American spelling of the word. He is even more of a dim bulb that I thought.

– SIOA’s leadership has supported, defended and praised the English Defence League, (without equivocation until recently), and has promoted their events, published their statements and attacked their critics. (p.55-59)

Regarding the EDL we have always been consistent: we support them insofar as they reject racism, neofascism, antisemitism, etc., and root out such people from their ranks. When Barnett says “without equivocation until recently,” he is simply lying, as our support has always come with that caveat, as it does for all groups and all individuals anywhere and everywhere.

Co-director Pamela Geller’s web log has featured conspiratorial articles regarding the President of America’s religion, his family, his sexual history, and the circumstances of his birth, and has likened his ‘stealth jihad on the White House’ to ‘an SS officer getting elected president during WW II’. (p.52-53)

Pamela Geller’s criticisms of Obama are well documented in the book The Post-American Presidency — substantiated with over 400 footnotes. Pointing out Obama’s failures and nefarious alliances is not racism; her criticisms are accurate. Everything she wrote in that book has come to pass: Obama is busy earning his place in American history as our worst president. Pamela Geller never wrote about Obama’s sexual history, but made an offhand statement in response to an oft-repeated rumor after Sarah Palin had been abused and lied about by the media for the umpteenth time. Here again, Barnett is lying in order to paint a dishonest picture of Geller’s work.

In 2010, Robert Spencer defended his and Geller’s ‘colleague’ Joseph John Jay, who had recommended the ‘wholesale slaughter’ of Muslim civilians, including children, on the grounds that he had been ‘misinterpreted’. Spencer maintains this still, and Ms. Geller has recommended Jay’s writings as recently as July 2011. (p.51-51)

Here is where I wonder if Barnett, while charging me with not reading his smear piece, did not read my rebuttal. In it, I reported that “John Jay does not actually have any role in or position with SIOA, but be that as it may, the report is lying about him. In reality, he has written, in his inimitable fashion, ‘i do not advocate carte blanche killing one’s liberal relative, nor all muslims. to assert differently is a lie.'”

I could go on, but I ought to address Mr. Spencer’s direct challenge regarding a quote of his which we included. Here is the quote, published on his Jihad Watch site in 2005: ‘there is no distinction in the American Muslim community between peaceful Muslims and jihadists. While Americans prefer to imagine that the vast majority of American Muslims are civic-minded patriots who accept wholeheartedly the parameters of American pluralism, this proposition has actually never been proven.’Writing today, Spencer claims ‘what [he] meant was there is no institutional distinction, so jihadis move freely in Muslim circles among those who oppose them and claim to do so’. However, when asked by a commenter on the original article in 2005 ‘how distinctions can be made’, Spencer replied: ‘That’s simple. Let American Muslims renounce all attachment to violent Jihad and Sharia, refuse all aid from Sharia states (chiefly Saudi Arabia), and cooperate fully with anti-terror efforts aimed at rooting jihadists out of American mosques.’ (p.52) Having thus identified all Muslims as suspects who are guilty until proven innocent, Spencer does not specify how to treat Muslims who do not ‘cooperate fully’, or who fail to make the prescribed disassociations. But based on his record and the company he keeps, I’m glad we’ll never have to find out what it might entail.

This vicious little smear is, in fact, entirely baseless. There is nothing sinister about calling upon Muslims or anyone else to obey the laws of this country, and his insinuation that some terrible evil must be what I have in mind for those who do not comply is not substantiated and cannot be substantiated by a single scrap of evidence from anything I have ever written. In my first rebuttal piece, I noted two of many instances in which I affirmed that Muslim in the U.S. are innocent until proven guilty (contrary to the explicit claim of his report); Barnett doesn’t mention that. In the last chapter of my 2008 book Stealth Jihad I make a number of recommendations for what can be done about the problem of stealth jihad and Islamization — none of which involve anything but working through legal channels to enforce existing laws.

So Barnett’s vicious insinuation only masks the fact that he has absolutely nothing to go on. I knew Harry’s Place was full of clueless and complicit Leftist dhimmis, but even they should be ashamed of running a piece that contains a libel of that order.

I think this meets Mr. Spencer’s challenge, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to bring all of this to people’s attention. I’m not sure how one squares the above with the claim that SIOA ‘stand[s] for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for all people’. Perhaps Mr. Spencer will enlighten us.

Done. Now will Adam Barnett have the decency to retract and apologize, both for his report’s smears and his new ones? I doubt it. After all, Namazie yesterday responded to my request for a retraction by saying: “This is politics. Yours is far-Right; why not own up to it. Much more respectable!” In other words, “I don’t like your politics, so I feel free to lie about you.” And lie she does, as does Barnett.


One Law for All really wants one boot for all

Maryam Namazie of One Law for All

Here is another attack on SIOE by Maryam Namazie’s One Law for All Enemies-not-Allies-web-version1   .pdf

Our sister organisation SIOA was also attacked and soundly rebuffed by Robert Spencer on Frontpage Magazine When Marxist Anti-Semitic “Anti-Jihadists” Attack

What Maryam Namazie wants you to believe is that racism has nothing to do with race. For the record SIOE is very hardline against Islam and
Muslims, especially the so-called moderate Muslims. Evidence unfailingly exposes that so-called moderate Muslims voted the jihadist Recep Tayyip Erdogan into power in Turkey again this year, with an increased vote and majority, and that this kind of result is replicated across the Muslim world.

Moderate Muslims are the real enemies, in SIOE’s opinion, because they are the ones permittting and often encouraging the so-called radicals’ takeover. They are the smokescreen for Islamisation. Why else are so-called radicals gaining power in Muslim countries?

Maryam Namazie fails to address the points SIOE made, that she quoted in her piece, but merely hurls the pejorative epithet “racist”
around willy nilly. Both ex-Muslims and those who have fled persecution by Muslims are more often than not as hardline as SIOE . These people do not suddenly change race to combat Islamisation and condemn the self-asserted hubris of Muslims. Maryam Namazie’s accusations are both hollow and absurd.

One Law for All uses the usual communist tactic of guilt by association, using long past associations, if they even existed, to cast doubt
on what SIOE and SIOA are about.

Stephen Gash has been on demonstrations alongside, not with, Maryam Namazie, but this does not make him a communist, nor does it make her sensible and rational like Anders and Stephen. It does not even make her and Stephen associates.

SIOE declared on its (now hacked and unrestorable) website that it was separate from other anti-Islamist groups in the UK. It encouraged
people to join whatever organisation suited them best. So, SIOE does not regard other organisations either as competitors or compatriots. Rather we recognise that defeating Islamisation requires a broad front, including One Law for All. Fortunately, supporters of One Law for All also support SIOE, though may not be as hardline as its leadership. However, they recognise what is happening in Europe.

Maryam Namazie fails to grasp that people are far more sophisticated in opposing Islam than her notion of one boot for all. It is either her way or no way. Her opposition to SIOE is more to do with our banning communists from openly parading their communist symbols on our demonstrations than anything to do with what she accuses us of, in our opinion.

We have had gay communists and gay (what Maryam Namazie would call) far right people on our demos who, under other circumstances, would have some considerable degree of enmity between each other, but who bury their differences to defend gay rights against Muslim persecution. They have stood alongside people who do not support gay rights, when opposing sharia banking and Kuffarphobia, for example. This is a concept Maryam Namazie is just incapable of understanding let alone condoning.

We could give other examples of politically disparate people coming together to fight Islam on SIOE demos, but it would merely invoke a blank-look from Maryam and her communist cohorts; so why bother?.

We in SIOE have persistently spoken up for Copts, Hindus and Buddhists being genocidally persecuted in Muslim countries, which is indeed why we call ourselves a human rights group.

We are hardline against the actions (and inactions) of Muslims because we consider we are in a war and therefore we defend our culture
robustly. We make no apology for it.

Previous attack by One Law for All (racism has nothing to do with race – take care not to split your sides laughing)

1 Comment

Advisory to the government of Turkey

Leaders from SIO will deliver this advise to the government of Turkey to the Turkish embassies around the world this coming Friday.

Advisory to the government of Turkey

The organizations “Stop Islamisation of Europe” and “Stop the Islamization of Georgia,” report that they are going to hold a rally of humanitarian assistance in support of ethnic minorities living in Turkey.
Both organisations note the Turkish government permits flotillas sailing to Israel to embark from ports in Turkey with no interference., In this regard, we ask the Turkish government not to interfere in the promotion of the convoy.
SIOE pre-states that among the passengers and volunteers will be well-known personalities: journalists and members of legislative bodies of both Georgia and other European countries.
The column of cars and trucks is for peaceful purposes and called “Rights and Freedom.”
We are purely a humanitarian and an information group acting to expose to the world the status of national minorities living in Turkey and to provide assistance to such minorities.
The date for moving “Rights and Freedom” convoys will be stated later.

Here is a link to the pdf-file where you can print it out:


SIOE has no links with Breivik and will denounce anyone praising him

Anders Gravers and Stephen Gash say once again that the alleged (he hasn’t stood on trial yet and we do not want to attract a law suit) mass murderer Anders Breivik was refused entry onto Stop Islamisation Of Europe’s (SIOE’s) Facebook group and international group.

We can say beyond all reasonable doubt that he was never a member of SIOE under any pseudonym.

Neither Anders Gravers nor Stephen Gash received Breivik’s so-called manifesto and neither had any direct contact with Breivik.

SIOE is structured so that the various national groups have some degree of autonomy, but the founders have insisted that various groups stay within the rules and philosophy laid out at SIOE’s inception. We have been criticised as being too authoritarian, but our control has always been exercised to safeguard SIOE and its supporters from the actions of some who would bring discredit to the anti-Islamist movement.  It is true to say that we never even envisaged the kind of horror that happened in Norway. That was beyond our wildest imaginations.

So, we make no apology for our methods as we have been proven right. SIOE is in no way associated with Breivik or his actions.

SIOE does NOT warn or threaten with the notion that the authorities “must take notice of SIOE and other groups or similar actions will happen”. We honestly believe anti-Islamist groups will NOT carry out terrorist attacks. At the very most there might be an escalation in actions where mosques are invaded in the same way the Peter Tatchell’s gay rights group disrupted the Church of England Synod. Definitely no more than that.

Civil dissent by some groups may increase, but certainly no violence will be committed or encouraged by SIOE.

The only warning SIOE issues is that any supporter or leader condoning Breivik and Breivik-type actions, or claiming any contact with Breivik will be unceremoniously and permanently thrown out of SIOE and denounced. SIOE supporters are decent law-abiding people peacefully voicing their concerns about the undoubted and unwanted Islamisation of their continent.