|
|
| United Kingdom against Freedom of Speech |
|
Posted on July 6, 2009 at 15:14:13 EST
In early 2009, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the Baroness Cox of Queensbury, members of the House of Lords, invited Dutch politician Geert Wilders to a 12 February, 2009 screening of Fitna, a short film exposing Islamic terrorism. However, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom (UK), banned Geert Wilders from the UK almost immediately thereafter, calling him an "undesirable person" because of his personal opinions and views. Using the laws of what can be seen as the European successor of the Soviet Union, the European Union (EU), it was claimed that regulation 19 of the (European Economic Area) Immigration Regulations 2006, the banning of Geert Wilders is legal because the law allows individuals to be refused entry if they are regarded as constituting a threat to public policy, security or health. In other words, the personal opinions and views of a person have been argued to be "constituting a threat to public policy, security or health". In response, Geert Wilders called UK's prime minister, Gordon Brown, "the biggest coward in Europe". Theocratic fascists, ranging from Lord Ahmed (member of the House of Lords) to the Muslim Council of Britain and some others, expressed their support for the ban, accusing Geert Wilders of being a "preacher of hate", which is quite ironic. Let's us see how chapter 9 of the Quran (Islam's holy text) starts; "(This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement", 9:1. Allah is the god of Islam. " So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers". 9:2. "Unbelievers" are in Islamic terms the people who don't believe in Islam. You can't "believe" in anything according to Islam unless you believe in Islam. "And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve", 9:3. "Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement tot he end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)", 9:4. "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is forgiving, merciful", 9:5. Hate against non-Muslims goes on and on in Islam. "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people", 9:14, the Quran continues. "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people", 5:51; Islam goes even as far as stating "O you who believe! Do not take for guardians those who take your religion for a mockery and a joke, from among those who where given the Book before you and the unbelievers; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah if you are believers". This is the religion which former USA president George Walker Bush called the "religion of peace". And the followers of this theocratic fascist religion call Geert Wilders a preacher of "hate". This is what Geert Wilders wanted to point out in the movie Fitna. Page after page, throughout the Quran, Islam calls for murder, looting, abuse, discrimination, slavery, terrorism and whatnot. Not all religions are equal. Not all religions teach the same things. Christianity and Judaism, for example, don't teach such retardation. The Bible states " thou shalt not kill", Exodus 20:13. "Thou shalt not steal", Exodus 20:15. These verses are part of the Ten Commandments, a list of moral imperatives that, according to Judeo-Christian tradition, were authored by God and given to Moses. Religions in general teach against murder, terrorism, slavery, etc. But not Islam. Islam teaches the exact opposite. Islam hates atheists and Jews in particular. Atheists reject the belief in God, often choosing the theory of evolution over the belief in a religion. Atheism by no means implies anything negative. Islam is not only a religion, it is a political ideology first and a theocratic fascist one too. There is also a specific set of laws in Islam, called Sharia Law. With Sharia law, there is a specific set of offenses known as the Hadd offenses. These are "crimes" punishable by specific penalties, such as stoning (partially burying a person into the ground and throwing stones at him or her), lashes (whipping a person) or the cutting off of a hand. Some Hadd (technically "Hudud") offenses include drinking alcohol, having sex with a person you are not married with and the most serious offense is of course "apostasy" – leaving Islam. In the Netherlands, attempts to prosecute Geert Wilders under "anti-hate speech" laws in June 2008 failed. In less than a year, new attempts were made on 21 January, 2009. The judges states that in a democratic system, "hate speech" is considered so serious that it is in the "general interest to draw a clear line"; the judges went on to state that the court considers "appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshipers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders". The Netherlands is a country where people are quite often murdered right on the streets in broad daylight because of their opinions. The best examples include politician and Islam critic Pim Fortuyn (murdered in 2002) and film director, producer and Islam critic Theo van Gogh (murdered in 2004). Even if the comparison between Nazism and Islam (the followers of each ideologies teamed up in the Second World War with the goal of exterminating Serbs and Jews) was wrong (which it is not by any means, as both ideologies are fascist ideologies), it still wouldn't be justified to prosecute the person who made the comparison as that is what freedom of speech guarantees a person to do. Free speech doesn't mean that one cannot "insult", it means that one has the freedom of speech. As conservative radio talk show host Dr. Michael Savage has pointed out, polite speech doesn't need protection. Islam is not a race. It is therefore not racism to speak out against Islam. Islam is a religion (technically a cult, though) and a political ideology, founded by the terrorist and pedophile Mohammad, who married a preteen girl when he was in his fifties. In fact, terrorists like Osama Bin Ladin are merely following Mohammad's words and his "religion", just like a Nazi who followed Hitler's orders. If Islam may not be criticized (note that Geert Wilders has never criticized Muslims, only Islam) because it is a religion, then Geert Wilders and the rest of the people who are critical of Islam should perhaps create their own religion and view the Muslims as their religion views non-Muslims. It makes no sense. Islam, like any other religion, is based on unproven beliefs. Dutch Muslim Council chairperson, Abdelmajid Khairoun, expressed support for the UK ban of Geert Wilders, stating that "Muslim youngsters who make anti-Semitic remarks are prosecuted but Geert Wilders' anti-Islamic remarks go unpunished". Antisemitism shouldn't be prosecuted either. Judaism is a religion, thus also nothing more than unproven beliefs. No religion or political ideology should be put above the freedom of speech. There is a difference between attacking someone physically and attacking someone verbally, especially indirectly and especially just someone's religion. Jacqui Smith, however, didn't stop with the banning of Geert Wilders. The government official also said she decided to publicize the list of 16 people banned since October to show the type of behavior Britain will not tolerate. It turns out, Michael Savage is also on the list, alongside known terrorists, Neo-Nazis and other fringe individuals, including Jewish nationalist Mike Guzovsky, imprisoned Russian skinhead leaders Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky, Hamas leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black, neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe, radical American pastor Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper. Michael Savage is the host of the Savage Nation (the third or fourth most widely heard talk radio show broadcast in the USA, with approximately 8.25 million listeners). Yet, theocratic fascist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, who calls for the destruction of Israel, is not on the list. Robert Mugabe, who preaches racism against whites (in particular the British) is also not on the list. Even Osama bin Laden is not on the list! "How can a nation put me on a list and leave hate preachers in England who say that we're going to kill all of you? We're going to convert all of you to Islam. How is it possible that those hate preachers can't be deported from Britain, but I can be banned from Britain? People who advocate actual murder cannot be deported from Britain", Michael Savage said. "Shame on you. Shame that you've fallen to such a low level", Michael Savage said in a message to Jacqui Smith. "Thank God we broke away from that cowardly country", Rusty Humphries of Talk Radio Network said, referring to the United States of America (USA) securing its independence from the UK. "So today I declare, I am Michael Savage. Do you stand with us for freedom of speech, or is this the end of the free world as we know it?", said Joyce Kaufman, a fellow radio talk show host. "It is also fascinating that the promoters of violence in the name of radical Islam, who make up much of the list of banned individuals and presumably many of those who remain 'unnamed,' are only identified as promoting a 'particular belief' rather than identifying the common 'particular belief' – radical Islam. The only reference to Islam comes in reference to Michael Savage – who has vocally denounced radical Islam" said Steve Gill, another radio talk show host. "Considering the historical position of past liberal British administrations, radio personality Michael Savage finds himself in the best of historical company with Winston Churchill, based on the position that the Gordon Brown government has taken towards Savage today," said a spokesman for Talk Radio Network. "Winston Churchill claimed that in the years leading up to World War II, he was banned from the BBC for a period of up to eight years. He was put into political exile where he was labeled 'an extremist' at a time his voice and free speech was needed most. This attempt at marginalizing Savage and Savage's free speech is no less egregious than what Churchill experienced in the hands of [Arthur Neville] Chamberlain's government. It simply validates how history does repeat itself when history's lessons are not learned by leaders of the modern age". Chamberlain – the British version of USA president Barack Hussein Obama, so to speak – tried to make peace with the greatest fascist threat of his time – Adolf Hitler and the Nazis -, much like today the UK and Obama are trying to do with the greatest fascist threat of our time – the followers of Islam. Chamberlain forced Europe to join him in his appeasement of the Nazis. How did Chamberlain's appeasement and peace efforts work out? Actually, it did work out in the benefit of the UK's collectivists, despite the fact that the result of appeasement policies lead to the Second World War. The end result of the Second World War was the establishment of the first step towards a one world government, the United Nations (UN), a move which had previously failed with the introduction of a similar organization, the League of Nations. The UK became one of the five permanent members of the UN's Security Council, alongside France, the USA, China and Russia. These members of the Security Council have veto powers, and are thus able to block resolutions. All other countries do not have these rights in this organization, which is supposed to "unite" nations. Obviously, it is meant to "unite" nations under the terms of the permanent members. Attempts to establish continental and global organizations with whatever stated political purpose, were not popular among the people of Europe (or any other people for that matter). Back before the Second World War and especially before the First World War, people in general were nationalists, patriots and loved their nations. They didn't want to lose their sovereignty to a foreign power. That is exactly what has made the USA so successful, in combination with being the first country in the history of the world to be established on the principles of individualism. That is also why the League of Nations failed. The First and Second World Wars turned that around, with the values of rightism and individualism under assault by Germanic countries in particular. Fascism became associated with extreme rightism; the Netherlands was the first to introduce big business and together with other countries, such as the UK, under control of the people the Nazis deemed to be Germanic "brothers", it was also one of the first countries to legalize prostitution, homosexual marriages, drugs, bestiality porn and opened the door to mass theocratic fascist immigration from North Africa, the Middle East and Turkey to Western Europe. Cultural values came under assault by multiculturalism, which has never worked in the history of humanity. While putting people of different races together has never directly brought about the downfall of nations, putting people of different cultures together has, as everybody shares different cultural values. Individualism came under assault by waves of collectivist ideologies, ranging from fascism to hippieism to modern liberalism – all rooted in (or otherwise related to) Marxism and Marxist-Leninism. As a result, the Sexual Revolution came about, which tried to equalize sexual perversity with heterosexuality. In the UK, for example, the new generation growing up after the Second World War were led to the believe that the Victorian values of their elders were "old fashioned" and intertwined with the "rightism" that "caused" the Second World War. Thus the 1960s became a time in the UK (and the rest of the West) of rebellion against the fashions, values and social mores of the previous generation, bringing about the Sexual Revolution in the UK. Nationalism was quickly looked down on in favor of globalism, which brought about globalist capitalism. The hippie movements and the communist movements around the world, at the time, supported globalism, just like any other collectivist ideology. The idea of globalism being used to prevent another world war (even though the Second World War was all about collectivists seeking to expand their borders) was finally bought by the people and as a result, the UN was established. With the UN established, the collectivists and plutocrats created a range of continental organizations in Europe and combined with the constant demoralization of the West and the further strengthening of globalism, these European organizations were merged to form the European Union (EU) under the excuse that countries had to give up "some" (then more and more) of their authority to the EU to "strengthen" economic ties and cooperation in Europe. The world and Europe in particular have since the League of Nations and the UN been forced to give up their territorial integrity, nationality, culture, freedoms, etc, all for the benefit of the "greater good", which is allegedly peace and prosperity. Tyrannical regimes – ranging from the Romans to the Nazis to the Soviets – have always tried to expand their empires across the world. No one has thus far succeeded in doing so, but the British Empire came the closest, having at its height conquered more land than anybody else has ever managed to conquer, including the Russian Empire and the Mongol Empire. By 1922, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world's population, and covered more than 33,670,000 km2, approximately a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy became widespread. The UK, which administrated the British Empire, thus has more experience in colonization and conquest than any other country in the world. They have been doing it for hundreds of years and they were more successful at it than anybody else. The only thing the British Empire didn't succeed to do is conquer the entire world. Force didn't work. As the British Empire was nearing its end, the UK began doing the opposite of using force, namely, using appeasement and liberalism. Liberals and other leftists have successfully convinced the mainstream media, mainstream academia and many others that fascism equals extreme rightism. There is no single agreed upon definition of rightism (or leftism). The terms "right" and "left" originated during the French Revolution and indicated where the people sat in the parliament, relative to the king. The people on the right supported the monarchy, the aristocracy and clergy. The people on the left opposed the traditional hierarchies and supported radical reform. Later on (especially in the latter half of the twentieth century), the term "right" came to refer to those in support of nationalism, institutionalism, traditions, morality, etc. The term "left" came to refer to those in support of socialism and thus, communism. The left came to favor collectivism above all, while the right came to favor the opposite: individualism. Today, all forms of rightism (such as conservatism and libertarianism) are forms of individualism; while all forms of leftism (such as communism and liberalism) are forms of collectivism. Leftism is collectivism. Rightism is individualism. The left supports socialism (or a variation therefore), which is of course collectivism. The right supports capitalism (or a variation therefore), which is of course individualism. Fascism is an authoritarian, totalitarian, imperialist, corporatist (which is a variety of socialism) and above all, a collectivist ideology. Thus, it has next to nothing in common with conservatism or rightism at all. It is, in fact, a collectivist ideology, just like liberalism, communism, Islam, Showa Nationalism, Italian Fascism, tribalism, gangsterism, communitarianism and so on. Therefore it is in opposition to individualism and rightism. A big government can't exist without collectivism. There are no freedoms in a (fully developed) collectivist society. A big government is one that controls its people (hence the term "big"), so for people to accept such a government, they have to accept that the collective (i.e government) is above the individual. That's why the UK, USA (which has been on the march to collectivism since the early 1900s), Islam, liberalism and everything else collectivist is waging a war on individualism. Only leftists embrace immorality (with some exceptions), such as sexual perversity. Homosexuality, when it comes to sexual perversity, is key to the demoralization of a people. Schools in the West teach children that it is okay for same sex couples to marry because it is about "love"; that the slave history of the West brought about unequal opportunities for the successors of the slaves, therefore "reparations" and "affirmative action" (racial discrimination against the majority for the benefit of a minority) are justified; that Muslims are victims of the same repressions as the blacks have (and are still – allegedly – suffering from); and so on. Thus, the solution is to put the collective above the individual, in the form of socialism, which is educated by the mainstream media and the education system as the solution to prevent "inequality", bending the purpose of equal rights to justify that everybody is equal in every possible way (such as that transgenders are equal in every aspect to the gender they are trying to be). This is what liberalism stands for. Conservatives and other individualists are focused on the individual, they want the individual to succeed by him or herself. Not everybody is equal. If you give people equal opportunities, the outcome will naturally become unequal. Some will succeed, some will fail. In liberalism, that's a major issue as liberals (and communists) don't want unequal outcome, they want the opposite. They want to equalize the losers with the winners. Unfortunately, capitalism (the opposite of socialism) has its own flaws and needless to say, that is being exploited by the collectivists. Western capitalism doesn't prevent monopolism and big business, for example. Furthermore, capitalists often work in the same way as monarchs, through nepotism, allowing their (often) untalented children to inherit dangerous amounts of money. Research has shown that untalented children of the rich rarely fare well in life. They become spoiled, greedy and unappreciative of anything they are being given. In other words, they become liberals, hating winners and desperate to put the collective above themselves because they are too weak themselves to stand for anything. They want to be spoon-fed, just like other liberal. Often, these are the types of people that are seen in the entertainment industry. A very good example is British singer Lily Allen, the daughter of comedian and actor Keith Allen and film producer Alison Owen. Her music speaks for itself. Almost all of her songs are about men she dated who have proved themselves to be "unworthy" of her. Her public persona is built around insulting colleagues. Lily Allen stated that making fun of other pop stars was a result of a lack of confidence, saying "I felt like 'Oh God, I'm short, fat, ugly and I hate all these people who flaunt their beauty'". Let's take a look at her song "F**k You": "Look inside, look inside your tiny mind. Then look a bit harder", the song starts. Why is this assumption made? "Cause we're so uninspired, so sick and tired. Of all the hatred you harbor". Yet Lily Allen has gotten inspired enough to co-write this song. Is the assumption made that hatred can only be harbored by a tiny mind? In that case, opposition to the KKK must make the KKK big minded. "So you say it's not okay to be gay". Yes, that's what conservatives and some other rightists and individualists are saying. "Well, I think you're just evil". Yes, according to Lilly Allen, you are evil if you oppose homosexuality. "You're just some racist who can't tie my laces". Homosexuality is not a race and neither do shoe laces have anything to do with homosexuality or races, much like the claim liberals often make that being against Islam is racism. Islam is not a race. "Your point of view is medieval". Support for homosexuality is liberal and liberalism supports big government, which is medieval. In fact, the first form of government was tribalism, which is collectivism, just as much as liberalism is collectivism. "F**k you, f**k you very, very much". No comment. "'Cause we hate what you do". Who is "we"? The Gay Mafia? Can't stand up for yourself? Need group support? Of course liberals do, it's all about the collective. "And we hate your whole crew". Rightists don't need a "crew". "'Cause your words don't translate". Into what? "Do you get, do you get a little kick. Out of being small minded?" Clearly this is something Lily Allen knows better. "You want to be like your father." What's wrong with a son wanting to be like his father? Assuming that, of course, Lily Allen is not talking about a daughter wanting to be like her father (physically) here, which would of course be fine with Lily Allen. "It's approval you're after". Artists depend on people to approve (and thus buy) their music and concert tickets to make money, like Lily Allen does. So why is this, yet another, assumption made and put in a negative wording? "Well, that's not how you find it". So how is it then found? Approving of as much as possible? Regardless of morality and principles? "Do you, do you really enjoy. Living a life that's so hateful?" Yes, a life filled with hatred against the KKK, Nazism, communism, Islam, etc, is surely one worth living. "'Cause there's a hole where your soul should be. You're losing control a bit". ?? "You say you think we need to go to war." Which war? "Well, you're already in one. 'Cause it's people like you that need to get slew." Apparently, in general, Lily Allen makes it clear that people in support of war needs to be slain. So the next time a new Hitler comes bombing Lily Allen's father land, the UK, it's rather likely that the new fuhrer will slay liberals faster than the people who will be for war against the new fuhrer. "No one wants your opinion." Who wants Lily Allen's opinion? What's with the "we" and "no one"? Need more support from the collective? In other words, Lily Allen is of the opinion that nobody wants your opinion – unless you are in support of homosexuality. This is music in the 2000s, from the UK and from a singer with the Islamic crescent and the communist hammer and sickle symbols tattooed on her right wrist (among other symbols). Many more examples could be given, many many more. This is what children are growing up with these days in the UK. Islamic preachers all over the UK are preaching for the extermination of non-Muslims, the overthrow of British laws in favor of Islamic laws and whatnot. The UK government doesn't have a problem with them. The UK hasn't banned Hugo Chavez from the UK. Dictator King Jong-il of North Korea, who is responsible for starving millions of his own people, is also not banned from entering the UK. Neither is Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who thinks it is normal to massacre homosexuals and other people, banned from entering the UK. NOT EVEN OSAMA BIN LADIN IS BANNED FROM ENTERING THE UK. But it is people like Michael Savage and Geert Wilders that are banned from entering the UK. Some neo-Nazis are surely banned as well, as they are considered "extreme right". In fact, liberals like to label anything right as "extreme right". The "right", however, has failed in general to defend Michael Savage and thus, freedom of speech. Unfortunately, while some have spoken in the defense of freedom of speech, others have failed to do so, not only failing to address, but to even mention the UK ban of Michael Savage – most notably Fox News. Rush Limbaugh, the most popular right wing radio host (with approximately 14.25 million listeners) did not say a word. Sean Hannity, the host of the Sean Hannity Show (the second most widely heard talk radio broadcast in the USA, with approximately 13.25 million listeners) and the host of the Hannity show on Fox News did not say a word. Glenn Beck, the host of the Glenn Beck Program (the third most widely heard talk radio broadcast in the USA, with approximately 8.25 million listeners) and the host of his own show on Fox News did not say a word. Mark Levin, the radio host of the Mark Levin Show (the sixth most widely heard talk radio broadcast in the USA, with approximately 5.75 million listeners) did vaguely actually seem to have responded to the ban, saying "you know, at some point I have to take a vacation. I really do. Settle down a little bit. Maybe I will go to Britain. I love Britain – been to Britain many many times. Magnificent history there. Never had a problem, got right in. Easy to get around. London is cool. Lots of stuff to see and do. Eh you know, the home of Margaret Thatcher. United Kingdom. Dear allies, dear friends. Of course their government sucks but that's a whole other story. Maybe I will go to Britain. We'll see, I have got a lot of choices. I can go wherever I want to in the world as a matter of fact. Some places I just don't want to go to". That's right, Mark Levin, who has been nicknamed "the Great One" by Sean Hannity, prides himself for not being banned as well. That's much like if a racist (such as a Klansman) kills an African-American man who happened to walk by the racist's house and another African-American man starts priding himself for being otherwise able to walk by the racist's house without being killed. The "Great One" has proven himself to be nothing less than a disgrace to conservatism and rightism in general. In fact, all of Michael Savage's colleagues have proven themselves incompetent and caring more about money than anything else, in particular the "Great One", who should instead be nicknamed the "Great Phony One". "Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, what ya got to say about it? What ya got to say about it? What ya go to do about it?" said chief pastor James David Manning of the ATLAH World Missionary Church (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUTa7gSWp4s). "If we as Americans and especially radio talk show hosts and listeners and bloggers [..] if we let Great Britain, the United Kingdom or England or whatever they call themselves, get away with banning, blacklisting Michael Savage, if we let them get away with it, then they are coming for you next; and who are they anyway? England, United Kingdom, who are they?" said pastor Manning. Nobody should be banned from visiting a country (unless there is a criminal record involved that may suggest a danger to public safety); not conservatives, not liberals and not even neo-Nazis or Muslims or whatever people one may disagree with. It's not up to anyone (especially not the collectivists) to decide what one can say and cannot say. There are already laws to prevent and punish those who commit crimes such as hurting somebody physically. There is no need and never will there be a need to go as far as dictating what people can say and what people cannot say. Was it is racist to be against Hitler or Mussolini? Without freedom of speech, the Nazis couldn't be criticized. The KKK couldn't be criticized. Most importantly, in these times, the UK can't be criticized, which is now of critical importance for the existence of freedom of speech (which the UK now deems a threat). Surely, as the UK is a sovereign nation, it is ultimately their right and decision to decide who can and who cannot visit their country. Likewise, it is the decision of all people living outside of the UK to make the decision whether they want to visit the UK or not. If the British people are not going to accept this disgusting violation of human rights (freedom of speech is a human right), then they are surely living in an appropriate country. The UK has become a disgusting abomination. Hundreds and hundreds of years of colonizing and/or terrorizing other countries is clearly not enough for the UK. Human rights have to be further tramped on, according to the actions of the UK: more violations of human rights and more appeasement of the enemy. Jacqui Smith said that it is a privilege to come to the UK. It is in fact a privilege NOT to come to the UK. No freedom loving person should step foot in the UK after the actions of its government and the lack of protest by its people. Every sane person should boycott the UK. The UK doesn't even deserve tourists.
|
| Join the Anti-Terrorism Coalition! | Banner | Embed |
| Join us against terrorism! If your website is against Islamic terrorism, racism, communism/socialism/liberalism, fascism, imperialism, or any other kind of form of injustice, put our banner on your website and let us know! |  |
<a href="http://www.atcoalition.com/"><img border="0" src="http://www.atcoalition.com/atcb.jpg" alt="Click here to go to the Anti-Terrorism Coalition!" width="86" height="86"></a>
|
|
To report errors, click here. To report dead links, click here. |
|
The anti-terrorism symbol has been designed by Stalfos Conner for the ATC in early 2008. Copyright © 2003-2009 The Anti-Terrorism Coalition. All rights reserved. |