TWITTER'S CORPORATE TYRANNY

Dear Earthlings,

I have joined twitter since September 2018 and my handle satishb@antijihadclass has the aim of eradicating Islamic terrorism by 2100.  This is because most mainstream journalists like to portray Islam as a religion of peace because the majority of Muslims are peaceful and have got nothing to to with terrorism.  This is the most specious argument because Islam is not decided by majority vote, but by what is in the Quran and the example of Mohammed which is used by Muslims to justify all their perverse choices.  This is a uniquely Islamic way of doing things and majority or minority has got nothing to do with it.  In fact, the minority of mullahs and terrorists hold great sway over the majority of peaceful Muslims who know very well not to antagonize this small but influential minority as Salman Taseer of Pakistan discovered to his own detriment.

LATEST VIDEO:  DEFINITION OF HUMAN

Laura Loomer was permanently banned from Twitter in November 2018 citing hateful conduct after a tweet criticizing Ilhan Omar and her faith.  In the tweet in question, Loomer called Omar "anti Jewish" and said she is a member of a religion in which "homosexuals are oppressed" and "women are abused" and "forced to wear the hijab."  Loomer insisted that she did not violate Twitter's terms. "Everything I said is 100 percent true and factual. It's not malicious, it's not mean, it's not hateful," she said.

I totally agree with Loomer.  This is legitimate criticism.  This cannot be the reason for banning people from social media.  Even the twitter account, Imam of Peace, had complained that he received a notice from Twitter for violating Pakistan's blasphemy laws for flagging a tweet that called on Australian police to investigate extremism in mosques following a deadly knife attack in Melbourne in November.  So now, will jihadi colonies like Pakistan have a veto on what is written regarding Muslims and Islam? 

Even Saudi Canadian activist, Ensaf Haider, received a similar notice for violating Pakistani laws.  Twitter wrote to her concerning a tweet which showed a woman wearing the Islamic full veil, with the caption: “Retweet if you’re against niqab.”  Haider said, “I’m very shocked by Twitter. They want to silence any voice telling the truth.”

Antony Furey, the Toronto Sun op-ed editor was startled to learn he stood accused of insulting the Prophet Mohammad on receiving legal notice from Twitter.  His perceived offence was to post cartoons of the Prophet years ago.   Furey, who detailed his experience in a column for his newspaper  said: “I’m somewhat alarmed that Twitter would even allow a country to make a complaint like this, as it almost validates their absurd blasphemy laws.”   But he added: “One troubling consequence to all of this is that even people in countries without these blasphemy laws may start to self-censor for fear of the reach foreign governments will have over them in the online world.”
Pakistan has previously threatened to block Twitter if the company did not remove content its government found offensive.  It banned Facebook for hosting allegedly blasphemous content for two weeks in 2010 while YouTube was unavailable from 2012 to 2016 over an amateur film about the Prophet Mohammad that led to global riots.  I received the following message from Twitter yesterday:

Hi satishb, Your account, @antijihadclass has been locked for violating the Twitter Rules. Specifically for: Violating our rules against hateful conduct. You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. satishb @antijihadclass @FrankBenSaor @Imamofpeace less muslims less trouble more muslims more trouble [...] RT Violating our rules against abusive behavior. You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice. satishb @antijihadclass @ashoktewari @MakrandParanspe @shahid_siddiqui they should be asked to give up sharia or lose their human status, closure of masjids and madrasas promoting sharia, if they resist, death Please note that repeated violations may lead to a permanent suspension of your account. Proceed to Twitter now to fix the issue with your account. Go to Twitter

In the first tweet, I have pointed out the relationship between the proportion of muslims and the likely trouble that they may cause as their population increases.  Now this is borne out by simple observation and common sense.  What hateful conduct does this imply?  Where is the harassment or threat?

In the second tweet, very succinctly, I have pointed out the role of sharia in Islamic terrorism.  Implementation of sharia is the prime demand of any Islamic terrorist organization.  Sharia is prejudicial to humanity and far from being of divine origin as is routinely preached to young, unsuspecting Muslim kids, it is totally jihadi in origin.  It has no respect for human life, intellect, women's dignity, and criminal in character.  No sensible anti-terror program can overlook the malevolence inherent in sharia.  I have therefore pitched for a ban on sharia and its malicious propaganda.  In the process, a ban on masjids and madrasas promoting sharia is inevitable.  We all know what happened in the Lal Masjid case in Pakistan.  If jihadis use these madrasas as headquarters for resisting humanity, then death penalty for them is the natural consequence.

Where is the abusive behavior?  Should we be glorifying sharia?  Is sharia so benevolent to women?  Is asking for a ban on sharia incitement?  Is calling for an end to preaching of sharia silencing 'someone's' voice?  does the voice of the mulla not need to be silenced? Does anybody think that those who used their belief to justify the violation of Yazidi women deserve equal human status?

Twitter is being guided by populist western principles to determine what constitutes Islamophobia and what doesn't.  Only facts can determine what is just and unjust, not some vague western concepts of human rights.   The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had clearly stated in 2003 that sharia law is incompatible with human rights, but in 2018, it flip flopped and opted to listen to a petition to have sharia law parallel to European laws.  However,  On 22 January 2019, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a Resolution entitled “Sharia, the Cairo Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights.” This Resolution - although non-binding - is of major political importance, as it reflects an awareness that Islamic law constitutes a competing legal-religious order to the law of Western modernity, both in Europe and at the universal level. The PACE is “greatly concerned about the fact that Sharia law – including provisions which are in clear contradiction with the Convention – is applied, either officially or unofficially, in several Council of Europe member States, or parts thereof.”  

Obviously, Twitter is not updated with respect to these latest reformations in the human rights paradigm of Europe, although the UN and American officials also seem to be napping at the moment, but we do not need to be told by the human rights inspectors of America and Europe what constitutes human values and what do not, because we go by the facts.

REMINDER:  You can save the planet by understanding, educating, sharing the post, and donating.  Do your bit.