A reminder we should not take our freedom to worship (or not) as we choose lightly. 

From FOXNEWS

Facing Execution for the 'Crime' of Being a Christian In Iran

By Ben Cohen

Published September 28, 2011 | FoxNews.com

advertisement

In 2010, the Iranian regime carried out 546 executions, more than at any other time during the preceding decade, and representing an increase of around 25 per cent on the previous year. Increasingly, execution is becoming Tehran's favored method for dealing with anyone it deems an opponent -- like Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, an Iranian pastor who has refused to recant his Christian faith.

Pastor Nadarkhani's case is another grim illustration of the volatile situation faced by religious minorities living under Iran's Islamist clerics. Even though the state formally recognizes the existence of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, these minorities are under no illusions about their subordinate status.

Since 2009, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole Iran's election to claim a further term as the country's president, the crime of "moharebeh" -- waging war against God -- has frequently been invoked against those who question the Islamic legal codes which underpin the state. 

Pastor Nadarkhani's embrace of Christianity, is a prime example of "moharebeh," and carries the penalty of death. This is despite the fact that Nadarkhani maintains he has never been a Muslim as an adult. But an Islamic court has determined that he has Islamic ancestry and therefore must recant his faith.

It's important to note that the persecution of religious minorities in Iran did not begin with Ahmadinejad. 

Ayatollah Khomeini, who led Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979, was clear that abandoning Islam amounts to apostasy. 

In 1990, Hossein Soodmand, a Muslim who converted to Christianity in 1960 -- nearly two decades before Khomeini came to power -- was executed. Soodmand's fate proved that the Islamic Republic has no hesitation about acting retroactively in the face of such "crimes."

The only way to escape the death sentence, as Pastor Nadarkhani knows, is to publicly renounce his conversion to Christianity. That he has not done so is a humbling display of his courage, for in Iran, the death sentence is the climax of a long punishment that begins in the jails of the regime.

Recent Congressional testimony by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom detailed the torture and abuse faced by inmates whose offense is simply to adhere to a different faith, or to ascribe to an alternative set of political beliefs. 

At a human rights summit in New York last week, Ahmad Batebi, a former Iranian political prisoner, gave a chilling account of his own experiences, which included having his head forced into drain filled with excrement, and being compelled to watch his friends beaten senseless in order to secure his confession.

Thousands of Iranians can offer similar testimony, among them many Christians. A recent shocking case involved Vahik Abrahamian, an Armenian Pastor carrying a Dutch passport who served a year in prison, including 44 days in solitary confinement. Abrahamian's family's spoke of the "severe mental and psychological torture" which he'd faced while in jail.
Arguably, the circumstances of those religious minorities who are not defined as "People of the Book" -- a term denoting those faiths which came before Islam's advent -- is even worse.

The 300,000 members of the Baha'i faith, whose religious beliefs crystallized in 19th century Persia, are regarded by Iran's rulers as virtually subhuman. Under Iranian law, the blood of a Baha'i is "mobah," which means that Bahai's can be killed with impunity.
When they are not being killed, Bahai's face discrimination with few parallels elsewhere in the world. In May, for example, the regime's security forces arrested and imprisoned hundreds of Bahai's who were involved in a clandestine university that had been launched only because members of their faith are legally proscribed from attending Iranian universities.

Against this bloodstained background, Ahmadinejad again flew to New York last week to address the U.N. General Assembly. His visit sparked fervent demonstrations outside the U.N. building, with many of those present demanding his arrest; as a head of state, however, Ahmadinejad is free to come and go as he pleases.

Ahmadinejad's annual jaunt to the U.N. General Assembly highlights a painful truth: as public awareness of his regime's depravity has reached unprecedented levels, the outside world has remained utterly powerless to rein him in.

"We have very little leverage in Iran," Rev. Keith Roderick, a leading advocate for the civil rights of religious minorities, told me. "Ahmadinejad is at war with the Christian church there, but our influence has diminished."

Rev. Roderick explained that on the cases of individual prisoners, intervention by Vatican or Swiss Embassy representatives in Iran can be helpful. However, the occasional act of mercy by the Iranian authorities does not change the legal or political fundamentals.

Should the Iranian regime should one day decide that it no longer needs to use its religious minorities for political window dressing, the consequences are too painful to imagine.

Ben Cohen is a political analyst and commentator based in New York. He writes frequently on Iranian and Middle Eastern issue. Follow him on Twitter @BenCohenOpinion.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/28/facing-execution-for-crime-being-christian-in-iran/print#ixzz1ZL1XHnyq

The Netherlands take a stand

Over the past two years a court room battle over the freedom to criticize one of the worlds largest ideological blocs was won. In this battle the sometimes controversial, and always flamboyant Geert Wilders was the central figure.

Mr Wilders is the leader of the 'Freedom Party' and has been the subject of a criminal investigation for several years. The reasons for his legals woes would make most North Americans take note: He SPOKE the wrong words. He was accused under the ultra modernist 'hate-crime' laws of the Netherlands that make it illegal to incite violence or target a particular group for derision.
The Hate law's main purpose, it seems, is to silence opponents to modern Dutch / EU social engineering programs. Eugenics and immigration seem to be the main reasons and protected ideas under this act; Abortion, euthanasia, and mass migration of low wage workers.
This time it imploded. This time, the speaker would not be silenced.
Mr Wilders has been acquitted on ALL counts!

What does this mean? ... and what did he say that was so bad it resulted in charges?
Well let's start with what he said!

Did he call for a Crusade against Muslims? Did he demand their deportation or killing?

No.

Wilders said that purist, unreformed Islam is not compatible with Western Democratic ideals. He said that Islamic teaching have inspired hatred and countless acts of terrorism across the western world. He said that this is because in the Muslim Holy Book, the Koran, there is justification for violence, misogyny, slavery, and worse. He compared the Koran to Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' which is banned in the Netherlands under the hate propaganda laws. He called for the ban to be extended to the Muslim Book as well, essentially making the point that if European works promoting the genocide of Jews were to be banned, as Hitler's book is in the Netherlands – then so should Arabic ones calling for a Genocide of ALL non-Muslims (starting with Jews).
Wilders did not make these claims 'out of the blue', standing on box in front of a mob of skinheads. The left-biased media gives that impression, but it is FAR from true. Such coverage is of the 'fellow traveller'.
Actually it is quite the opposite: He made them in Parliament as the head of the leading opposition party. He was backed by statistics, Historians, police, Koranic verses, scholars on Islam, and ex-Muslims, and even moderate Muslim migrants (notably MANY women). His ideas were amplified by the killing of Theo Van Gogh, a filmmaker critical of Islam who was butchered in broad daylight on an Amsterdam street, the terror attacks of the early 21^st century, the Paris Intifada, and the Mohammed Cartoon fiasco.
Also to back Mr Wilders argument there was a large catalogue of critical media on religions OTHER than Islam, that are completely accepted as a right of expression, even if not based on facts – as Mr Wilders work was. Calvinist works were cited, for example.

How can the Netherlands accept the elitist and violent edicts of the Koran, and not criticism of it was the main thrust. The logic of this argument was inescapable, even to the Uber-Liberal Dutch Bench.
Wilders popularity has GROWN, not decreased. The PEOPLE of the Netherlands LIKE Mr Wilders, and can relate to his position.
In short, the man was not worrying about being offensive to those he found an offence to his way of life. His position has been that he is defending that way of life from foreign ideas harmful to it.
For that perceived possible offence, he was taken to task and charged.
Wilders work, it was asserted by the prosecutors, was designed/intended to incite hatred and rage against Muslims in particular and immigrants in general. The truth/validity in his statements was only of secondary interest. Let me be clear here: The court was NOT really interested in whether Mr Wilders assertions were true, but rather in whether they were made to incite/direct public hatred at a specific group; to make a scape-goat. Very special attention was payed to a film, Fitna, the Mr Wilders had produced in which the Koranic verses calling for Jihad and the effects of the verses on real Muslims are explored. Lines or 'Surahs' of the Koran are posted beside images of real Muslims acting the edicts out, calling for war and genocide. It is truly a disturbing video, and just over 7 minutes long.
But who is showing hatred here? Was Mr Wilders spewing hatred or was he EXPOSING hatred.
The court decided, after YEARS of deliberation, appeal, and overturn – the case was dropped and re-prosecuted THREE times – that Mr Wilders was EXPOSING hatred. They finally found Mr Wilder's totally innocent. They have acquitted him. That is not a 'not guilty' verdict, that is an 'innocent' verdict. We are left to assume that after YEARS of prosecution and three trials, there was not ONE SINGLE aspect of Mr Wilder's film or speeches that the courts could disprove as libel, and thus a hate-crime. The facts DID matter, it seems. Perhaps not on paper, but in practice.
This is a good thing for those who cherish freedom of expression, and good on many levels!
That leads us to 'What does this mean'?

Quite simply put this means that people in the Netherlands are now LEGALLY able to interpret the Koran and criticize Islam. Islam is now just like any other religion in that nation, and will no longer be afforded a special protected status. Modern 'moderate' Muslims will have more freedom, and the rest of the Dutch people can be critical of extremism.
These are concepts we take for granted in Canada and the USA, and much of the Western World. Take for granted, mind you! While the Dutch move away from these restrictions, our left moves toward them. Terms like 'Islamophobia' become more and more popular in the English speaking world. In the world of phobes and philes there can be no neutrality. One is attracted or repelled. Anyone who speaks against the HUGE Islamic influence on our culture, diets, laws, and even our cherished 'secularism' can be quickly branded as an 'Islamophobic bigot'. Perhaps not actually charged with a crime, but derided and sneered at by the likes of Bill Maher, MSNBC, the Huffington Post and all the other PC darlings of the leftist dogma.
But nobody ever calls those who appease Islam 'Islamophiles' in the media, do they?
Maybe it's time we do?

Congratulations, Mr Wilders!
A victory for comm sense, and common law!

Okay: Why the new format?
Why The North Signal?
It is about freedom to express, communicate, and understand.

We live in a world of self censorship.
A world governed by twisted notions of political speech in daily life. People of all walks of life, whether academics or professionals, military or civilian are constantly checked and controlled in what they say and even think. Even the most 'common sense' aspects of our lives are increasingly controlled in this way. 

This rapidly growing problem is infecting all facets of our lives.
An example?
Imagine being a student attending school at any western college and being asked what your opinion is on one modern hot-button issue, like say mass immigration.
Unless you actually hold the current 'politically correct' opinion on it, would you dare answer honestly?
Rhetorical question, really isn't it?
But think about it: Why not? 

Well, because if you did not posit your opinion 'correctly' you would invariably be labelled something nasty.
For open borders? TRAITOR!
Stemming the flow ? NAZI!
So what is the 'correct' answer? Don't worry, the 'instructor' will spoon feed it to you. The answer is no longer important. What is important is your ability to accept the correct opinion as required.
All sounds a little Orwellian, doesn't it?
But we, as free citizens of the west, have something that Winston (character from Orwell's 1984) did not have: The internet.
The world wide web and it's technological offspring. A potentially extremely powerful tool.
We can instantly communicate with people all around the world, almost completely uncensored. We can and we are using this technology to blast through the BS and gobbledygook. Right?
Or are we?
First let me state that the 'whole world' is not freely scouring the web, as much as the tech gurus would have you believe that. Their tablet PC's are neat, but the ideological stuff is a sales pitch.
Many countries have a severely restricted version of the web, and have the capacity monitor all of the local traffic within a region or nation. Examples would be China, Iran, and North Korea. Iran is taking further steps this week to create a 'Halal' (religiously pure-Islam) national internet that is isolated from the outside world entirely. While these nations and regions continue to keep abreast of hostile internet technologies (cyber attacks, hack etc) they do not provide the liberty of the web the Free Western nations do. This is not isolated or shrinking. More nations join the ranks of those that control web traffic all the time. It is a case of the draconian laws catching up with the tech.
Here in the civilized West, down under in Australasia and Polynesia, and in the Advanced (socially) Asian and African Nations we are afforded a virtual 'free run' online....sort of. In principal all these Dominions, Nations, States, and Provinces - whether they be Constitutional Monarchies, Republics, secular or religious; they all agree to that discuss, share, and interact is good.
Their dedication to the free flow of ideas is an ideal that unites them.
The reasons for the differences between the free nations and the other Bloc (and rogues) are almost countless and are well beyond the scope of this post. In these free nations, one would be hard pressed to find anyone but the most dedicated apologist defending the communist or Iranian position on this.
We love our 'free run', and the bodies that govern us provide, at least for the present and as long as you have the money.
This freer internet provides us, in turn, with the ability to break through all the political nonsense and get at the effects of our ideas. It allows us to hear more options. More solutions.
It allows us to share our opinions with the like minded and engage those opposed to our notions in debate and discussions. It is a tool we could use to protect our freedoms by exchanging ideas, while revealing truths that threaten those shared freedoms.
In many ways, it is like a massive international virtual commons or congress in which we are all are members and may say our piece, cast our vote, and state our minds. Within it's scope of powers the internet is a kind of MEGA forum!
While the internet provides a forum for most of us, many simply choose not to use it. At least they choose not to use it as such – a forum for interactions. Sure they may Blog, Tweet, and even make the occasional post on how they feel, or what they want for supper...but do they dare share what they really think?
Many do, surely. Many more do not.

The reasons? They are legion and mostly self imposed.
Part of it has to do with laziness. Idle minds. In a culture(s) where information is bought and sold as commodity, thinking is seen as a form of work. So why would anyone want to think on their time/day off? 'You think too much' is a popular expression these days. But do we? Spell check, iPhones, and laptops...does anyone even use a pen and paper anymore, let alone proof their own work?
Again I digress - another topic in it's own right. 

In my eyes, laziness and apathy are modern plagues: 'Affluenza'.
Another part of the silence is about the herd instinct: Belonging. It is easy to act stupid, and requires genuine intelligence to hold a meaningful / artful discussion. The majority of people can act stupid, only a minority may attempt any sort of display of smarts.So, for fear of seeming 'nerdy' or 'hurting' or 'gay' and being 'flamed' (bullied in text) a person who would otherwise state their minds will hold back, or worse still join the herd and tow the party line they know or feel to be wrong. For a 'real world' example of this consider the current fashion of purposely mispronouncing words to come off as 'thug' or 'urban'. Stupid is easy.
A great and growing part is self-censorship. 

'Politically Correctness' (or PC), that oxymoron that rules our lives.
Here's the core of the contradiction and madness: Obviously, politics are subjective – opinion based.
Opinions are just that - an opinion. 

So translated PC really means 'the correct opinion'. 

How does that sit? 

Not well with me.
There are many more factors contributing to the collective 'cyber-silence' of the masses, but these three are principal - very important. 

Of the first two, there is not much that can be done 'online'. This humble blog will not banish 'Affluenza' or conformity.
What we can hope to accomplish is to create a zone in which the third aspect, self censorship, is banished.
The North Signal strives to be a place where ideas and information are free to all.

How will we accomplish this?
By selecting the best authors and allowing them, as well as our guests, a profession anonymity should they choose it. They can write what they like without fear of a PC reprisal or being excluded socially online and offline. Flaming and personal attacks will be prohibited and controlled in the comments - while free and even crazy ideas will be given the opportunity to air themselves and be heard. Nor will the authors risk get fired/sacked or beat up at the school or pub. They will be as anonymous or open as they choose!

At The Signal there will be plenty of controversial, edgy, informative, and even fun topics covered.
The format will be all over the place – a real mixed bag.
Articles and review. Essays. Op Eds. Videos. Fiction and art.
Topics will include and exceed such issues as the headlines, trends, arts, sciences, music, sexuality, politics (and more sex?), gaming, humour, parenting, those crazy kids,  philosophy, military conflicts, terrorism, holy war, conspiracy theories, cults, strange phenomenon, and of course: CENSORSHIP.
ALL these topics will be open for discussion and interpretation; as well as your criticisms and arguments!
There are plenty who will shriek, sneer, ignore, mock, and deride the concepts shared above. More again there are those that are just too cowardly, thick or unlettered to get it at all... but for the rest of us who like to think and communicate with others that do:  tune in! 

From the True North Strong and Free to the world: The North Signal is now online!

Want to write for the Signal? Contact me at crusader.mxcix@gmail.com for details.