Detroit's Iron Curtain

Detroit News editorial page editor Nolan Finley sounds off again today in his Sunday column over the self-destructive racism of Detroit’s leaders. (“Hey Martha! Ich bin ein Detroiter!”).

Hard to believe that anyone could steal Monica Conyers' thunder as the separatist provocateur of the Detroit City Council, but danged if Martha Reeves isn't trying.

The councilwoman who in her diva days helped put Motown on the map now wants to narrowly define Detroit's borders and enforce a strict copyright on the word "Detroiter."

Reeves let comedian Jay Leno know that if you aren't south of Eight Mile, you aren't in the D.

This is the third week in a row Finley has used his column to gnaw this bone of Detroit's separatist, segregationist leadership. That kind of focus is unusual, as columnists hate returning to the same topic so soon. And it especially shows guts, because Finley won't stop talking about race from the wrong side of the PC line. This Cobo Hall business must really be getting to him. I appreciate him for writing about it, because it’s been getting to me, too.

Some people are unhappy with Finley because he lets Imam Mohammad Ali Elahi, an Iranian agent whose cover is leader of a local mosque, spout off on the News op-ed page. Considering what a poor job U.S. law enforcement does infiltrating mosques so we can find out what goes on in there, I’m personally happy to have an imam of Elahi’s pedigree sounding off in one of our dailies: that way we can read for ourselves how his mind works.

For instance, here’s some vintage Elahi from March 3rd:

U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., with the International Free Press Society and the Center for Security Policy, brought the Dutch politician Geert Wilders to Washington to defame Islam and Muslims by showing his 15-minute anti-Quran film in the U.S. Senate building.

This man was banned from entering England in mid-February because British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Wilders is guilty of "extreme anti-Muslim hate."

Yet Kyl invited Wilders to display his propaganda flick in front of Congress, disrespecting our new administration under the cover of freedom of speech.[!] ("Obama's outreach to Muslims improves U.S. image").

But I digress. I only meant to give Finley kudos for dragging into the disinfecting daylight the rotten open secret of Detroit’s racist political leadership--an exposure that is long overdue.

For those of you who wonder why I care about this subject at all, I've discussed in the past, for instance, here and here, why it is I believe

that if we can’t talk about race, we can’t talk about jihad. Not because jihad and race are the same thing, (they are not the same thing!) but because the same self-censoring tricks that were deployed by race hustlers, (and then gay-rights activists) to prevent Americans from being able to speak, or even think critically about racial matters (or homosexuality), have been taken up and perfected by jihadist spokesmen and defenders.

Whether you like Finley or dislike him, his dogged persistence on this subject makes him the equivalent of those West Berliners who started in on the Berlin Wall with sledgehammers.

Imam Elahi Says Obama's Video Greeting Is 'Wise'

Before the Ayatollah had a chance to make his response to it, local Iranian agent Imam Mohammad Ali Elahi said of President Obama’s video greeting to “the Islamic Republic of Iran”: “It is so wise.” (“Muslims heartened by Obama greeting”).



Dawud Walid, head of Michigan CAIR, declared Obama’s greeting “unprecedented.”

And then,

“The past eight years created a huge roadblock,” said Imad Hamad, regional chairman of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

“I see the president on the right track, stepping up with an initiative as the primary way of addressing issues head on.”

I’m sure Gregg Krupa collected these helpful quotations and had them in print before the response of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hit the news, basically shooting Obama down with a firm “not so fast, infidel.”(“Iran's supreme leader dismisses Obama overtures”) :

“Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged,” Khamenei said.

Khamenei,wearing a black turban and dark robes, said America was hated around the world for its arrogance, as the crowd chanted “Death to America.”

We’ll see how the president addresses the “issues head on” of the Iranian demand for our betrayal of Israel, or our backing down of criticism of Iran’s funding for Hamas and Hezbollah, and exporting terrorism around the globe, and their efforts to get nukes and missiles to launch them on.

It may turn out that the "huge roadblock" of the past eight years was the best thing for the world after all.

'The Gathering Storm'--The Sequel

Speaking of the Sharia Express, the UK is off to a roaring start on its Rush Hour Commute to Hell, “with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.” (“Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts”).

According to the London TimesOnline,

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

This is justified by using the UK’s Arbitration Act, which gives the rulings of arbitration tribunals the power of law, provided both parties in a dispute agree to be bound by the agreement. This is the brainchild of Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the new sharia courts.

But arbitration, which has been around for years, has only ever been used to resolve civil matters, like private lawsuits, business disputes, contract disputes, and the like, and not criminal matters. Arbitration has not been used to resolve criminal issues, because one party is the government, and consequently has the police power to enforce the most fundamental civil rights recognized by the nation.

But the new sharia courts in the UK, naturallement, are the exception.

. . .Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

We know from looking at “BRIDGE” programs what Muslims “working with the police” means. It means the police only act with Muslim leaders' permission. And now that the sharia courts have the enforcement power of British law, it means the cops have to enforce sharia decisions. Or, at least until the British get acclimated, at least drop criminal investigations after sharia courts have spoken.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Domestic violence case are criminal matters. Since they have to do with violence, they can range anywhere from simple assault to murder. How’s that working out so far in the UK?

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Or, abusive husbands are given a second chance, while their wives are pressured by the larger community--or by naked fear-- to drop the matter.

I know, I know: why would any battered wife ever withdraw her domestic complaint against her husband--unless it was a completely free, voluntary decision, free of duress or fear?

But it's not only in criminal matters that the sharia courts are reaching disturbing decisions. They also apply a starkly different standard in civil matters.

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In other words, the sharia courts do no apply British laws on inheritance, or provide what we over here call “equal protection under the law,” a principle we got originally from Great Britain. (Not to mention that these sharia rulings are discriminatory based on sex). No government agency, private employer, or any other private contract in the UK could discriminate this way without breaking discrimination laws.

The thing of it is, just because parties agree to arbitration doesn’t mean they get to make up their own laws. Wherever in the West arbitration is used it’s spelled out clearly which jurisdiction's civil laws--whether of the state, province, principality, or nation--will be applied in resolving the dispute. If the civil law forbids usurious interest on a contract, the arbitrator can’t legally award a usurious interest. If the civil law forbids applying an unlawful discriminatory standard, the arbitrator cannot legally apply a discriminatory standard. It's illegal everywhere in the UK.

But once again, Islam has carved out an exception for itself.

The UK sharia courts have already accomplished a true parallel system, official recognition of a separate system of law based on the Koran that does not afford the protections of the British Constitution--nor even respect them. And that is exactly what the Muslim leaders had in mind when they gouged out this chink for Islam.

That parallel system means if you’re a woman and you have the misfortune to be born into a segment of the British Muslim community controlled by such sharia courts, you can’t expect the same civil rights against violence, disinheritance, or any other discrimination that a British nonMuslim woman enjoys.

It also means that one legal system is mortally cracked, like a failing dam, and against it presses a sharia system with the force of an ocean.

A Belated Auld Lang Syne

The less said about my recent absence, the better. But I would like to thank every one of you who left messages of encouragement--they were most welcome--and immediately made me regret signing off with so much finality. Most encouraging were those of you who wrote that our blog was doing some good.

After not very long, and with the presidential election and the recent brouhaha with Kwame (Kingpin) Kilpatrick, upon whom we've commented before, I find the need to start posting again, at least once in a while. Then there is that whole jihad thing that's still facing all of us.

And if you can't change your mind during an election year, when can you ever?