Get PJ Media on your Apple

Revisiting the Neighborhood

Mosques are OK—on other people’s streets.

by
David Solway

Bio

February 9, 2014 - 12:39 am
Page 1 of 4  Next ->   View as Single Page

no_mosque_sign_big_1-31-14-1

On February 15, 2013, I posted an article at Front Page Magazine titled “Saving the Neighborhood” that dealt with an invitation the democratic advocacy organization Act! for Canada had extended to British lawyer Gavin Boby, a specialist in town planning law and director of the Law and Freedom Foundation. I referred in that article to Boby’s lecture at the Ottawa Public Library on the consequences of allowing mosques to be built in municipal neighborhoods without adequate public consultation and supervision, an event whose reverberations have not yet died away and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future as mosque construction continues unabated. (Of the approximately 1200 mosques operating the U.S., for example, nearly 80 percent were built after 9/11; there are no official data for Canada, but it is estimated that there are at least 1000 mosques in the country, a lowball figure.)

Also known as the “mosque buster” — a designation, be it said, not of his choosing — Boby has devoted his time and expertise pro bono to advising the residents of municipal boroughs on the legal recourse at their disposal to prevent local mosque construction. In cases that Boby researched, the presence of mosques had led to the blighting of the quality of life in such residential areas, usually beginning with what he calls the “parking jihad,” as Muslim congregants occupy parking spots and private driveways on Friday worship and holy days, seriously limiting residents’ mobility, freedom and private property rights. Such disruptions would invariably metastasize. Residents walking their dogs would find themselves molested. Eventually, various forms of vandalism would occur — broken windows, severed TV cables, and the like — to force down the already depressed market value of homes, which were then bought up by Muslim interlopers. Such cases have been meticulously documented by Boby and justify the pursuit of legal impediment against the domestic proliferation of mosques, often camouflaged in civic application forms as “Islamic cultural centers” and “inter-faith community centers” to deceive the unwary and the credulous.

As Boby explained in a talk delivered to the Q Society of Australia on September 12, 2012, in Melbourne, a mosque is not like a church, synagogue or temple; it is “a center of power used for political and military purposes.” Studies have shown that a large majority of mosques act as recruitment hubs for jihad, foster the imposition of Sharia law, and labor to drive a sanctified wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. For Islam, which makes no distinction between church and state, between the things which are God’s and the things which are Caesar’s, between synod and politburo, is not a religion like Christianity or Judaism; it is a political movement garbed in the trappings of a religion, or alternately, a religion whose primary agenda is the conquest of the world through political, cultural and military means.

What Boby is attempting to accomplish — to educate and empower beleaguered residents of generally poorer working districts to maintain the preferred character of their neighborhoods — is both legal and ethical, as well as humane and empathetic. There is nothing “racist” or “bigoted” or “fascist” about his endeavors — epithets that dubious Islamic organizations, clueless do-gooders and liberal charlatans readily lob in his direction.

Top Rated Comments   
Mistaking Islam for Islamism? Who would that be? Could it be the majority of people in Egypt, Turkey, and Algeria who voted for Islamist parties? Oh, what do Muslims know about Islam?
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
An extreme Muslim wants to kill us; a moderate Muslim wants an extreme Muslim to kill us.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm quite sure that a "moderate" Muslim exists, but I would have to name him "Smallfoot", because he leaves behind such a tiny footprint.

"Smallfoot" is a denizen of a deeply forested group of painfully shy creatures. They rarely come out of hiding when terrorists are canonized and the festival of candy passing fills the joyous ululating masses of their cousins who celebrate the corpses of schoolchildren and women innocents.

Smallfoot prays five times each day facing Mecca and brings the mountain of minarets to Muhammed, in good faith...if by good, we mean obedience to a way of life that transports ethnic cleansing through a good vaporization of Christians and Jews worldwide...and the occasional Hindu for good measure.

If a Catholic goes against the tenets of the Vatican, he faces the now very empty threat of ex-communication from his church. The doctrine has removed all the bullets from that chamber...and kept the choir in its chamber quite unceremoniously.

For a Jewish "adherent" to be at once contemptuous of Israel and Judaism's teachings and still call himself Jewish, is a bloodsport of leftism.

However, for Smallfoot, openly defying his brethren, cavorting with infidels and protesting in Rushdie-like vocalized defiance, will get one ex-communicated from his cervical vertebrae.

No, for Smallfoot, that most certainly wouldn't do. Shy creatures remain the most shy about criticizing mass murder in their name.

The radical Islamist has free rein then, to wander about the globe inciting mischief without much concern that his co-religionists would turn on him, or turn him in, much less to boldly coalesce to turn him around.

Not surprising is the cozy toe touching footsie that radical leftists diddle with radical Islamists. They have each other's backs...until they day when they will attempt to have each other's heads.

Much like an old sitcom, The Patty Duke Show...they are identical cousins. The laugh alike, they walk alike at times they even talk alike...forget for a moment that the DNA probabilities for incest is the sole manner in which cousins can be identical...it is worthy of note that they combine forces to legislate out appropriate dissent from their conspiratorial madness.

Smallfoot and the Virgin Prostitute have married. WE are all witnesses to the wedding. From my seat in the vestibule, alas, it looks much like a funeral. Ours.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (26)
All Comments   (26)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
How about sending them back to their homeland. You should know these jews are the ones who promote this multiculturalism and interracial nonsense.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Islam is at war with America and has been since the 18th century. Islam is in perpetual war with the world of non-Muslims. They are building their strength in America. The number of mosques is an example of the enemy's growth here. "The mosques are our barracks, the minarets are our swords & the faithful is our army." quoted by the Turkish PM. The imams preach terror and revolution from the mosques on Fridays. Better get ready for war Americans. Our leaders are preparing America for war but not to save Americans
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
I read this article with very mixed feelings.
It's true that too many mosques have gone in and the results have been as described. Some Muslims, perhaps most, have a sense of entitlement and arrogance that offends me. BUT -- you knew there was one --
But I'm ready to defend the rights of Muslims to build and use their houses of worship as I'd defend Presbyterians and Jehovah's Witnesses. There ought to be a way to enforce existing law to curtail the abuses that sometimes come from Muslims who are arrogant.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
MT, mosques are where the enemy prepares for war against us. Study Islam and slough off your ignorance.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Howdy WW
I've read about Islam and I know there are far too many Islamists among Moslems.
I'd defend the right of the Communist Party to rent a room and have speeches if it had been necessary. Heck, I'd defend the right of Al Sharpton to advocate for DemBamaCare if it were necessary.
Sacrificing anyone's rights is a dangerous thing, a truly slippery slope. In my lifetime, Roman Catholic churches were sometimes viewed as you are viewing mosques. And Saudi Arabia views churches as you view mosques.
If I want sauce for my Methodist goose, I have to allow sauce for the Moslem gander. Doesn't mean I support Islam.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
To Mr. Burton - your comments are reliably apologetic about the nature of Islam. Yes, it is true that the Muslim world is not monolithic. Yes, it is true that Egypt differs from most Muslim societies in that is one of the few with a true national identity, though this too was substantially altered by the arrival of Islam (conquest) in Egypt. Yet when it comes to Islamic 'outreach', no matter the fact that some Islamic societies possess strains of sanity (and, believe me, countries like Israel and the US have little jolts of insanity running through as well), the pattern is clear.

The pattern is as Greenfield wrote, and Solway quoted. We could bring many examples; the term 'Hindu Kush' is probably the best, and most succinct, piece of symbolism. While they stared with the Jews and Christians, some of the worst crimes were committed against the Buddhist and Hindu cultures of the subcontinent.

Regarding the Hispanic encroachments into the US and the appeasement urges towards same, I agree. And so what? This in no way reduces what should be grave anxiety about Islamic encroachments throughout the West.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
In your first paragraph you agree with what I wrote and call that being apologetic, which I guess makes you apologetic. My point isn't that there is nothing to criticize, my point is to criticize correctly or credibility goes out the door. Furthermore, just as bigots hide in anti-oppression narratives on the Left, don't be so sure they don't do the same on the Right. When someone talks about Islam as if it is all one person, and the worst person at that, that is a problem. One must learn to differentiate a terrorist Muslim from Muslims, a greedy Jew from Jews, a criminal black from blacks. This is called a "principle." Either apply it to all or just abandon it and choose a side, an identity. "My country right or wrong?" Fine, but then just say that instead of pretending there is logic and reason and fair play in force.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
To me, the correct way to argue such things would be to take, for example, the Palestine Arabs, around which so much of this revolves, and call out their endemic identity hypocrisy. For example, there were Jews living in the West Bank before 1947. Where were they 1948-67? The PA claims Arabs never voluntarily left their homes but Jews obviously did. It's just as obvious that the reason is that they would've fared much more poorly in an Arab majority than Arabs do in a Jewish majority. To whatever extent people were expelled, it is obvious that happened on both sides.

Also, where are the pre-1947 Jews in Arab nations? Many left voluntarily but tens of thousands were expelled. Why no calls from the global community for financial remuneration? Has anyone compiled a list of towns in Islamic nations that used to have Jews and don't today? It must be in the hundreds. Why expel your own citizens because of Israel? Those Jews were not Israelis. That is how to argue actual and factual events that cross borders and are supported by a single ideology. That is because one doesn't have to actually argue, but simply compile a list.

Islam has its problems, and it is essential to get those problems correct rather than argue moronic nonsense like "taqiyyah" or that there are no moderate Muslims. Great problems emerge from great institutions like armies, religion and law, not individuals. One must correctly match individuals to institutions, not paint all with the same brush.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'd recommend "The Brotherhood: America's Next Great Enemy", by Erick Stakelbeck, and "The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury", by Danny Lockwood. These illustrate in detail many of the points David Solway makes here.

I think David Solway misses one point, which applies in the UK and, I'm pretty sure, in the US: that one major party expects, if only in the short term, to benefit from an influx of muslims. The sudden arrival of a huge mosque and lots of muslims (usually in that order) in an area with, hitherto, a very small muslim presence, is a pretty good way of skewing electoral figures. I know that Eric Holder's DoJ has been taking an active role in stamping on objections to cuckoo-mosques in the United States.

As for Nick Cohen, Mr Solway probably wastes too much virtual ink on him. Cohen is a man of the left who can't bring himself to admit that some of his views are conventionally considered "right-wing", so he is always desperately trying to square the circle, to appease the comrades. Inconsistency (or plain, old hypocrisy) is his trademark.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
IEDs are okay on other peoples streets too. So are subversives looking to make a fast buck from other people's blood and tragedy. Would be nice to hear all about that during and/all city council meetings across our country as our wounded warriors stand as our nation's color guard during the Pledge of Allegiance.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
I believe most thinking Americans realize that beach heads have been established in every capital and small town America for the past 20 years. Those like Debbie Schlussel and Pam Geller have been fighting the islamization of our Republic for some time. Unfortunately, our political system has been infested with traitors and liberal activists under the guise of harmonious outreach groups .CAIR and its vile tentacles have burrowed deep within our societal fabric as well as other Muslim splinter groups bent on destroying our Western culture. Destroying America from within is a silent Jihad where the uuma touts breeding as a weapon to ensure a continued political ideology unchallenged by our own American cultural identity. Political correctness ,willful blindness to the creeping menace of radical Islam, will be the harbinger of destruction for our society as we know it.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Liberals’ kneejerk reaction to criticisms of the often incompatible ‘other’ never changes and doesn’t need to be dignified here through repetition.

Lib-dems may know about the true nature of Islam, but they don’t care as long as they get Muslim votes. They probably also know that Muslim numbers will one day embolden their spokesholes to make demands of a kind that will directly infringe on the civil and even legal rights of other Americans. They may even know that there will likely be a reckoning over this, but they don’t care because the can always gets kicked down the road.

Put Democrats out of the misrule business this November and end the immigration of often incompatible people into this country.

The Founding Fathers were wise beyond measure.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Keep voting Liberals and get used to hearing the call to prayers. I have no sympathy for those who kill their parents and then ask for mercy for a poor orphan. Learn the lesson: Liberalism is not good for your neighborhood. In the 70's it was "the projects" now is "the mosque". Learn to live with the consequences of your political actions. When the West is gone you can gnash your teeth all you want.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Mistaking Islam for Islamism? Who would that be? Could it be the majority of people in Egypt, Turkey, and Algeria who voted for Islamist parties? Oh, what do Muslims know about Islam?
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All