Eid Mubarak indeed.

We leave Iraq without finishing the job, you can expect a massive upswing in violence.  These people bombed a mosque on a holy feast day.  Their own people.

It may come as a surprise to those who do not follow maritime affairs, but piracy is alive and well in the world.  While the notion of piracy has a certain anachronistic connotation in our modern minds, the reality of the practice is anything but out-dated.  Modern pirates utilize speedboats, automatic weapons, rocket propelled grenades, and even complex infiltration plots.  They have "mother ships" which carry their attack boats and launch them at vulnerable cargo ships, fishing boats and personal yachts.  Kidnapping, ransom and theft of stores are common.

There is a site I happened upon one day, the International Chamber of Commerce Commercial Crime Services Piracy Reporting Centre.  They provide a weekly report on pirate activities, which highlights acts of nautical hijacking, theft and assault.

A certain profile emerges from the reports, one that has a measure of relevance for foreign policy nuts. 

There are several pirate danger zones.  The Straits of Malacca in Indonesia were notorious, but of late have been

Criminal

relatively calm.  India, Nigeria, Burma, Bangladesh...all see pirate activity.  One of the hottest spots for piracy is the Gulf of Aden, between Somalia and Yemen.  Pirates in this area are often Somali thugs and dispossessed killers forced off the shores of Africa.  They have access to hidden lairs on the mostly unpoliced Somali coast.  The central Somali government, unable to adequately fend off the encroaching Islamic Courts Union on land, cannot begin to curb these sea-going reprobates.  A little glimpse of the future should we abandon the current fight against radical Islam, as we abandoned Somalia?  I won't speculate, as I am not an authority on the religion of these pirates.

Current efforts to control the pirate problem involve a coalition force of warships and aircraft.  Many pirates are captured and many attacks are foiled, but as long as there is turmoil on land desperate men will take to the sea and criminality.

At any rate, the weekly piracy report makes for interesting reading.  Here are a few of the more salacious September entries, taken from the site. 

07.09.2008: 2345 LT: Lagos anchorage, Nigeria.
Four pirates boarded a container ship drifting from the poop deck. Pirates hit the duty watchman causing minor head injuries. Pirates escaped with ship’s stores. Port control informed via VHF. Later, the ship moved 30nm away from fairway buoy.

06.09.2008: 0950 UTC: Posn: 12:54.9N – 047:05.1E: Gulf of Aden.
A blue-hulled vessel was spotted at a range of 6 nm by a tanker underway. A small speed craft was released from the mother vessel and it started approaching the tanker. Alarm raised, speed increased, coalition warship contacted. Speedboat, with five persons armed with machine guns opened fire. When coalition warship and navy helicopter arrived, speedboat aborted attack and moved towards mother vessel. Tanker sustained damages. No injuries to crew. Tanker continued passage.

06.09.2008: 0707 UTC: Posn: 12:57.8N - 047:01.6E, Gulf of Aden.
About six pirates armed with RPG in a white speedboat approached a LPG tanker underway. Alarm raised, foghorn sounded, crew mustered and chief officer directed fire hose towards the boat. The pirates signalled to reduce speed and pointed RPG at the chief officer, who dropped the fire hose and entered the accommodation. Master increased ship speed to maximum and took evasive manoeuvres by giving large helm orders. This resulted in the speedboat rolling heavily, causing four pirates to fall overboard. The speedboat recovered the pirates and resumed chasing the tanker again. Mayday broadcast made and SSAS activated. UKMTO Dubai and IMB Piracy Reporting Centre informed. The Centre immediately informed the coalition forces. The speedboat came close to the tanker, but later gave up the chase and met up with a pirate mother vessel that was a raft with an orange cover. A passing ship informed that coalition warships were proceeding for assistance and were calling the tanker on VHF.

03.09.2008: 0930 LT: Posn: 14:27N - 049:40E, Off Al Mukalla, Yemeni coast, Gulf of Aden.
12 pirates, armed with automatic guns and RPG in a small high-speed craft attacked, boarded and hijacked a ship along with her 25 crewmembers. They stole crew personal belongings and all cash onboard. Further details are awaited.

There is an article out there about some lawyer, representing the terrorists in Guantanamo, who dropped his pants at a press conference in Yemen to demonstrate how humiliated and tormented the poor dears must feel. 

Color me unimpressed.  While I certainly understand the point he was trying to make to a Yemeni audience ("for a Muslim man that is a thousand times more cutting than a Westerner can imagine."), I can't help feeling like he's missing the point.

His statement about "corn-fed" American soldiers doesn't help me feel any better about granting those terrorist sons-of-bitches access to our slow, ineffective courts.  Prosecution didn't work in the 1990s, it won't work now.

A number of years ago, we had the case of Yaser Hamdi, born in the US and caught in Afghanistan aiding the Taliban.  Denied counsel, he was one of the first cases that probed the status of "enemy combatants" in our legal system.  The Norfolk District Court Judge, one Robert Doumar, decided that because Hamdi was still a US citizen de iure (and because of many other considerations that I am not qualified to speak on) the US government's detention of him without due process was incorrect.  Illegal, even.  I saw Judge Doumar speak on the subject while in school, and respect his position and reasoning.  Hamdi, for your reference, is now living in Saudi Arabia having renounced his US citizenship.

But the men in Guantanamo are not entitled to representation in our civilian courts, and they are not worthy of their lawyer's sympathy.  They do in fact deserve a lawyer stupid enough to "drop trou" in front of a live audience.  The thing to keep in mind is that these men were taken in combat against the US, or supporting terrorist efforts against the US, serving no recognized state and wearing no military uniform.

One of the responses to the article was hilariously apt:

You know what is really “a thousand times more cutting?”

Being beheaded.

Now that’s cutting.

Comment by R18 - July 16, 2008 at 10:40 am

I found this interesting article on National Review, and thought I'd share it.  I enjoy the fact that Islam is still being preserved from criticism, even much deserved criticism.  It seems that no progress has been made since the riots following the pope's call to reason at Regensburg. 
Threaten enough people and I guess you get your way.  Perhaps when Christians begin to cut off the heads of their detractors they will be afforded the same deference.  I doubt that very much, for it often seems that anti-Christian sentiment is the last acceptable bigotry.  Is it because we are "the Establishment" religion?  Perhaps so.  Europeans are increasingly godless and it has ever been the fashion of the American societal elite to ape Europe.   Give him enough time, and the common man begins to ape the ape in a bid for the appearance of sophistication. 
The other week I had the occasion to attempt a dialogue with another Voxer who had made it very clear that she didn't like my particular religion.  She trotted out the usual litany of abuses committed by my Church over the years, but focused primarily on the sexual abuse scandal among the clergy.  When I offered a counterpoint to her views, I was unfortunately met with "The Wall."  That is, the "this is my personal view and I don't want to be criticized for it" wall.  Now, I would hope that anyone who reads my piddling excuse for a blog would understand my frustration.  Anything I post in public I understand to be open to criticism.  Especially if I post something critical to another person's beliefs.  Sometimes, I border on the insulting.  I'd hate to be labeled a troll, but there is a point at which letting an accusation or a misconception stand is tantamount to agreement.  So it seems I am constantly stepping on the toes of liberals, atheists, global warming nuts and even Protestants.
It's all quite frustrating, because at the end of the day the Internet just isn't real.  The victories I might win are easily ignored.  The points I make are suspect because the conversation begins with me as an intruder on a particular person's public space (which makes no sense to me...the Internet is hardly private).  So what is the point of it all?
Well, I still believe that we can carry our principles with us even when we are completely anonymous.  I feel that the anonymity allows us to engage in debate devoid of the usual obfuscations of personal pride and ego.  Rhetorical tactics can still be used to great effect, but the debate can be essentially neutral without lacking substance.
What we say on the Internet actually is real and it matters.  I still believe that relativism is the thing that will doom us to half-witted expressions of banal tolerance for even the worst sorts of offenses.   And so I suppose I am going to continue feeling awkward and unpopular amongst my many anonymous Internet acquaintances.
Whose commentary, as always, I welcome.

The Evolution of Religious Bigotry

Courage without consequence.

By Jonah Goldberg

I just watched Fitna, a 17-minute film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. 

Released on the Internet last week, Fitna juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as “apes and pigs,” protesters holding up signs reading “God Bless Hitler” and “Freedom go to Hell” — these are among the powerful images from Fitna, Arabic for “strife” or “ordeal.”

Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt’s grand imam threatened “severe” consequences if the Dutch didn’t ban the film.

Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual theatrical hand-wringing, heaping anger on Wilders for sowing “hatred.”

Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.

During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant, drinking, dancing, and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke little English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.

At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liqueur, one of the men gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he’d scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.

It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXΘΥΣ, which means fish and also is an acronym for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren’t alone.

In America, these fish appear mostly on cars. Recently, however, it seems Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you’ve seen these, too. The fish is “updated” with little feet on the bottom, and “IXΘΥΣ” or “Jesus” is replaced with either “Darwin” or “Evolve.”

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that “hate is not a family value.” But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. “Namely: It’s acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with ‘Shalom’ written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with ‘Usury’ written inside the same symbol would be an outrage.”

But it’s the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence.

Whatever the faults of Fitna, it ain’t no Darwin fish.

Wilders’ film could easily get him killed. It picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.

Fitna is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry, and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

It’s fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren’t part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer — in film, book or cartoon — is dubbed “intolerant,” while calls for violence, censorship, and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of anger.

It’s not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, it’s that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent.

The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

So, once more we find that our European friends exist in a world of delusion and self-absorption.  Here's hoping that this woman never wins another Oscar, ever.  But even aside from that, let's hope that Europe scrapes up the resolve to save its own culture from radical Islam.  It's a special kind of intellect that can observe the work of terrorists and then without irony assert that the destruction was all an inside job.  Astoundingly special.

You may be aware that Mohammed is quickly becoming the most popular boy's name in Britain and France.  And anyone who has followed the news in Denmark may be aware that things are getting hairy.  I'd like to believe that people like Mark Steyn are wrong.  I'd like to believe that a culture will, when faced with things like the Sept. 11th attacks, rally its disparate parts and commit to preserving its way of life.

But it seems that as the threat from militant Islam increases, European nations only bury their head in the sand with yet more vigor.  They attack those critical to Islam as bigots, blithely refusing to do anything about the imams who preach violence and conquest to impressionable, disenfranchised young immigrants.  They acquiesce to Muslim demands that demean women.  A recent example?  Giving tax breaks to men with multiple wives.  The Archbishop of Canterbury proposes that some form of shari'a law in Britain might be a good thing.  When some commentary is made, it is generally not productive.  Comes to mind the Danish Cartoons -- worldwide riots erupt and still the Europeans blame themselves.  They are committing cultural suicide.  If only we could let them. 
But in their place would rise a threat to America that is unprecedented in this age of unbelief.  A militant religion that would fill the void in Europe made by the excoriation of Christianity, that would within a few generations be poised to seriously impede American influence.
Because if you think the French don't like America now, wait until the French take their cues from the imams who are preaching today.

'9/11 attacks made up, ' says French best actress Oscar-winner

By PETER ALLEN - More by this author » Last updated at 01:08am on 2nd March 2008

Comments (11)

Oscar-winner Marion Cotillard has accused America of fabricating the 9/11 attacks

Actress Marion Cotillard sparked a political row yesterday after accusing America of fabricating the 9/11 attacks.

The 32-year-old French actress, who received an Oscar last month for her performance as singer Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose, openly questioned the truth behind the terrorist atrocity in an interview broadcast on a French website.

"I think we're lied to about a number of things," Cotillard said, singling out the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center as an example of the US making up horror stories for political ends.

Referring to the two passenger jets being flown into the Twin Towers, Cotillard said:

"We see other towers of the same kind being hit by planes. Are they burned? They [sic] was a tower, I believe it was in Spain, which burnt for 24 hours. It never collapsed. None of these towers collapsed. And there [in New York], in a few minutes, the whole thing collapsed."

She added that the towers, planned in the early Sixties, were an outdated "money-sucker" that would have cost more to modernise than to rebuild altogether, which is why they were destroyed.

She said: "It was a money-sucker because they were finished, it seems to me, by 1973, and to re-cable all that, to bring up-to-date all the technology and everything, it was a lot more expensive, that work, than destroying them."

Cotillard's stardom and increased earning power looked assured following her Oscar win.

But after her outburst, in which she also queried the 1969 Moon landings, a successful future in Hollywood appears to be in jeopardy.

She said: "Did a man really walk on the Moon? I saw plenty of documentaries on it, and I really wondered. And in any case I don't believe all they tell me, that's for sure."

Cotillard, who was born and brought up in Paris, made the comments on Paris Première - Paris Dernière, a programme broadcast a year ago.

Scroll down for more

Stars in their eyes: Elton John and partner David Furnish cosy up to the hottest new actress in Hollywood

Celebration: Marion celebrated her win with Hollywood's A-listers - including Sharon Stone - at Elton John's party in Hollywood

At the time her remarks were largely ignored, but their appearance yesterday on the French magazine website Marianne2 comes at a time when Cotillard's profile is sky-high.

She is shortly due to fly to Chicago to star alongside Johnny Depp in Public Enemies, a gangster movie expected to be her first big money-spinner.

Cotillard's film career began in Luc Besson's 1998 film Taxi - a huge hit in France but less so around the world.

She is slowly becoming a household name in France, in a list most recently topped by her close friend Audrey Tautou and previously by women such as Catherine Deneuve and Brigitte Bardot.

Scroll down for more

'I think we're lied to about a number of things' Cotillard said, singling out the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center as an example of the US making up horror stories for political ends

But Cotillard, who lives with actor and director Guillaume Canet, frequently tells interviewers she has no interest in money or prestige.

Denying that she had any kind of "Anglo-Saxon ambition", she said she prefers to "choose roles which suit me".

Despite her low-key image, Cotillard is an environmental activist who once worked as a spokesman for Greenpeace.

News of her anti-Americanism comes as Franco-American relations appear to be thawing, following Paris's refusal to show support for the invasion of Iraq.

President Nicolas Sarkozy insists he is pro-American, even supporting so-called "Anglo-Saxon" economic reforms.

John McCain made a stop in Norfolk, VA today to discuss foreign policy issues and receive some glowing praise from a number of his colleagues.  Always keen to learn more about international relations and, well, see famous people, I managed to weasel my way in and was treated to a sensible, realistic acknowledgment of the threat of radical Islam.  This is from some of the most knowledgeable authorities on national security in Congress. 
Chief among these in my eyes was John Warner.  A Southern gentleman in the truest sense, Senator Warner has been a strong advocate for the military and if he believes that John McCain will do well as the President then I am prepared to believe him.
The major point today was that we absolutely must confront radical, militant Islam.  I agree with that sentiment 100%.  Senator Sam Brownback made some very excellent statements, bringing the focus onto Africa where a significant amount of Muslim extremism is fomented.  Brownback is also extremely prominent in the pro-life community.  His endorsement of McCain puts any doubts about McCain's pro-life credits to rest.
In addition to these two men, the endorsement of former Secretaries of the Navy William Ball and John Lehman spoke volumes about their beliefs in McCain's strong military stance.  Rebuilding the military is key, as the Clinton years saw too much military reduction.  Rumsfeld made an error before Iraq and Afghanistan by not focusing more effort on building up force levels to avoid long, repeated deployments.  But another point made today was that we must maintain the All Volunteer Force by increasing recruitment and increasing opportunities for soldiers.  As McCain said, there is a market out there and young people have to know their needs will be met should they choose military service.

It is well within the interests of my region of Virginia to elect a man like John McCain. 

McCain is strong on the social issues.  Period.  McCain is obviously strong on foreign policy (his strong language regarding Iran was particularly impressive), though conservatives still need more assurance about the illegal immigration issue.  When I informed my good friend W that I was in attendance, he cut to the heart of the matter quite succinctly:  "...if they serve lunch order the enchiladas.  I hear they taste really good with a side of amnesty."  No lunch, but it is important to keep from getting star-struck.  Thanks W!
On a side note, I just saw myself on TV.  Some guy blocked my handshake with McCain and the annoyance on my face is pretty obvious.  I wish I had a picture.  It's ok, because I did get to shake Sam Brownback's hand and let him know I appreciate his pro-life stance.  He said we've got to push harder on that issue.  Agreed.
I got a picture of McCain answering questions from the press, which I have provided.  Forgive the quality.  I didn't think I'd actually be allowed inside and neglected to bring a camera!  If I can locate a bit of that video with my handshake fiasco, I'll post that too.  UPDATE:  Here's that video...Note the disappointed looking young man at 56 seconds in.  That old guy in front of me was such a fanboy, he jostled me out of the way just to tell McCain something the man wouldn't remember in 10 seconds anyway.

McCain!

I was watching C-Span this morning, not ten minutes ago, getting ready to do a number on a peppermint pie leftover from Christmas.  I love peppermint pie with something approaching unnatural strength.  Some boring Senate thing was on the screen, but as I read the ticker I was shocked and appalled to read

Enjoy this article from National review, get pissed, and tell somebody.  I think that even if you disagree with Steyn, you have to wonder at the audacity these Muslim groups have...and the complicity of this Canadian organization in stifling debate on the subject.

Free Steyn

By the Editors

Our readers know Mark Steyn well. His witty and learned commentary appears in every issue of National Review, and in many other English publications across the world. What Steyn’s American readers may not know is that a Muslim advocacy group in his native Canada is doing its best to muzzle him.

On December 4, the Canadian Islamic Congress announced that it had filed a complaint with three of Canada’s “human rights commissions” over an October 2006 article that Steyn had published in Maclean’s, Canada’s leading news weekly. “This article completely misrepresents Canadian Muslims’ values, their community, and their religion,” said Faisal Joseph, an attorney representing the complainants, in a press release. “We feel that it is imperative to challenge Maclean’s biased portrayal of Muslims in order to protect Canadian multiculturalism and tolerance.”

The article in question was adapted from Steyn’s recent book America Alone, which argues that Western society may be irrevocably altered — and not for the better — by unassimilated Muslim immigration. It’s no surprise that this thesis is controversial, probably in part because Steyn makes his points so well. But the real threat to tolerance here is the CIC, which would have the state impose penalties on those whose writings it disagrees with.

In doing so it only provides evidence for Steyn’s thesis. Another group of Canadian Muslims — the Muslim Canadian Congress — has said as much, denouncing the CIC’s complaint for affirming “the stereotype that Muslims have little empathy for vigorous debate and democracy.” But at the moment, the CIC’s push for censorship advances. Of the three human-rights commissions to which it submitted its complaint, two have agreed to hear the case. (The third has yet to decide.)

Since their founding, Canada’s human-rights commissions have done less to protect the rights of minorities than to undermine the liberties of everyone. To get an idea of what they’re like, consider the recent case of Stephen Boissoin.

Boissoin, a Baptist minister, learned that the Alberta Human Rights Commission was funding an initiative that described homosexuality as “normal, necessary, acceptable and productive.” Boissoin objected to this and wanted to make his views known. As he put it to a Canadian Internet publication: “[I] felt that as a taxpayer, and indirect funder of this initiative through my tax dollars, I had a right to communicate my opinion which is reflective of my religious beliefs. In an attempt to do so, I decided to potentially share my opinion at large by submitting letters to the editor in newspapers.”

The publication of one such letter brought a complaint from a “social justice” advocate, and Boissoin was dragged before the very body he had complained about — the Alberta Human Rights Commission. That was 2002. It took five years of anxiety-filled and expensive legal proceedings for the commission to rule against Boissoin. They determined that he had violated Alberta’s laws because there was, as one commission member put it, a “circumstantial connection” between the publication of the letter and an incident of gay-bashing. “Circumstantial connection” is of course another way of saying that Boissoin had nothing to do with it. One wonders in passing whether the same can be said of the Koran, and which side the commission would take if Maclean’s published a few choice Koranic passages on homosexuality.

Even if the human-rights commissions eventually rule for Steyn and Maclean’s, the proceedings will be costly, and will intimidate others who wish to express controversial views. To his great credit, one conservative Canadian cabinet minister, Jason Kenney, has spoken in defense of Steyn. Some of the Canadian press is coming to Steyn’s defense as well. We hope the chorus swells.

And we hope Americans raise their voices too. So far the U.S. media have paid little attention to the case, but it should matter to us. Steyn’s writings — even those in Canadian publications — have a large and influential American readership. We trust those readers prefer that Canada remain free.

Father killed daughter for not wearing hijab, her friends say

Dec 11 12:56 PM US/Eastern	259 Comments

View larger image Muslim Man Kills Daughter For Not Wearing Hijab

Friends and classmates of a 16-year-old girl who police say was murdered by her devout Muslim father in a Toronto suburb told local media Tuesday she was killed for not wearing a hijab. Police said in a statement they received an emergency call at 7:55 am local time Monday from "a man who indicated that he had just killed his daughter." The victim, Aqsa Parvez, was "rushed to hospital with life-threatening injuries, but tragically passed away late last night." Her father, Muhammad Parvez, 57, was arrested at the scene and will be formally charged with murder when he appears in court Wednesday, said police. The girl's friends, meanwhile, told local media she was having trouble at home because she did not conform to the family's religious beliefs and refused to wear a traditional Islamic head scarf, or hijab. "She wanted to go different ways than her family wanted to go, and she wanted to make her own path, but he (her father) wouldn't let her," one of her classmates told public broadcaster CBC. "She loved clothes," another of her friends, Dominiquia Holmes-Thompson, told the daily Toronto Star. "She just wanted to show her beauty ... She just wanted to dress like us, just like a normal person." According to her friends, Aqsa had worn the hijab at school last year, but rebelled in recent months. They said she would leave home wearing a hijab and loose-fitting clothes, but would take off her head scarf and change into tighter garments at school, then change back before going home at the end of the day. The victim's 26 year-old brother was also charged with obstructing police in the investigation.

Well, as anyone who has been paying attention for the better part of this decade knows, Muslims of a certain stripe don't take kindly to anyone who doesn't follow their customs and way of life.  Recently, a British woman living and teaching in Sudan was jailed for the reprehensible crime of naming a class teddy bear "Muhammed."  Wait, scratch that.  She didn't name it, she merely allowed her class to name it.  One boy named Muhammed actually suggested the name, after his own. 
What happened next, I'm not sure, but somehow this woman ended up in a Sudanese prison.  Better still, she faced a maximum sentence of prison time or forty lashes.  Forty lashes with a bamboo cane no wider than a finger has the potential to cause serious permanent damage. 
Now, as those who pay attention expected, come the calls for her death.  For her death!  Who, pray tell, put out these calls?  Osama bin Laden?  Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad?  No, nobody so grand.  Local imams preached on the subject today, and afterwards their followers massed for a protest, brandishing knives and clubs and demanding this British woman's execution.
This is clear evidence of the effect of just kernels of radical Islam on a population.  Where it is allowed to fester, the populace is soon consumed with a violent antipathy towards non-Muslims and a complete disregard for common sense. 
The article states that many British Muslim groups have come out against this action.  This is commendable!  I have often lamented that the very people in the best position to quash radical Islam - moderate, pro-democracy Muslims - are nearly always silent by choice or by cowardice or by coercion.  The more moderate Muslims speak out against things like this - like the Saudi rape case, like the honor killing which took place in London itself - the more progress will be made against our mutual enemy.

And why is Britain even tolerating this?  Was a time when the British commandos would have stormed that prison, relations with a pissant little country like Sudan be damned.  Shouldn't the lives of British subjects be protected from unjust persecution in foreign lands?  This woman committed no crime, and should be freed immediately.  She may not last the 15 days in that jail cell before a mob comes and carries her to her death.