Borders Goes Dhimmi

[Annie]

Links at site, especially regarding the magazine with the 'dreaded cartoons.' Borders has a history though, of playing politics with placement of books. (Swiftboat brouhaha). This time though are speaking of 'concern for employees and customers.' That my friends, is dhimmitude.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19845_Borders_Appeases_Radical_Islam&only

Borders Appeases Radical Islam

Following up on last night’s post about Borders Books and Waldenbooks refusing to carry a magazine with a cover showing the dreaded cartoons of blasphemy, an LGF reader who works at Borders emailed the following story:

I work for Borders Books and after reading the article you posted on Wed. 3/29 about our company not carrying the magazine due to it showing the dreaded cartoons of blasphemy, I thought I should write with another tidbit of information I learned about my company the other week.

I was shifting rows of books in our religion section and it happened to be that all of our Koran books (a section on its own) ended up on the bottom shelf. The next day I was informed by my General Manager that it is Borders policy as a whole (not my particular store) that due to complaints in the past from Muslim customers, we are not allowed to put our copies of the Koran on any shelf other than the top.

When I heard of this I became so infuriated that the company I work for (and I do love working for it) has caved in to Islamic pressure and is still continuing to do so. I love my job and my company but it does deeply disturb me to see what is happening to it.​

This has nothing to do with sensitivity; it’s all about pure, simple fear. If a Christian group complained to Borders about Bibles being placed on a bottom shelf, they would be laughed out of the room. But when Muslims do the same thing, Borders institutes a store-wide policy. The difference? The implicit or explicit threats of violence that accompany the latter.

In yesterday’s statement about their craven refusal to support free speech, a Borders spokesperson admitted it:

“For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority,” Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.​

7:58 AM PST
email this article


Show 142 comments for this entry

Others though, stood up to the threats:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=7430

Danish Muslims Sue Newspaper Over Drawings
Associated Press


March 30, 2006

A group of 27 Danish Muslim organizations have filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper that first published the carricatures of Islam's Prophet Muhammad, their lawyer said Thursday.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday, two weeks after Denmark's top prosecutor declined to press criminal charges, saying the drawings that sparked a firestorm in the Muslim world did not violate laws against racism or blasphemy.

Michael Christiani Havemann, a lawyer representing the Muslim groups, said lawsuit sought $16,100 in damages from Jyllands-Posten Editor in Chief Carsten Juste and Culture Editor Flemming Rose, who supervised the cartoon project.

'We're seeking judgment for both the text and the drawings which were gratuitously defamatory and injurious,' Havemann said.

The lawsuit was filed in the western city of Aarhus, where Jyllands-Posten is based...

Lots of links:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2006/03/western_standar.html

Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Western Standard sued for publishing cartoons

Earlier this month, the Western Standard was sued in human rights court for publishing the Danish cartoons. It's been ten years since I've graduated from law school, and I've never seen a more frivolous, vexatious, infantile suit than this.

But that's the point -- this complaint is not about beating us in the law. Freedom of speech is still in our constitution; we'll win in the end. It's a nuisance suit, designed to grind us down, cost us money, and serve as a warning to other, more timid media.

The hand-written scrawl and the spelling errors were what first disgusted me with the suit; but the arguments were what really got me. The complainant, Imam Syed Soharwardy, a former professor at an anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, doesn't just argue that we shouldn't have published the cartoons. He argues that we shouldn't be able to defend our right to publish the cartoons. The bulk of his complaint was that we dared to try to justify it.

He argues that advocating a free press should be a thought crime.

Here is a letter I sent out to our e-mail list, explaining our legal situation.

Here is the formal response I shall file with the human rights commission tomorrow.

And here is where you can chip in to our legal defence fund if you want to support us. Our lawyers tell me we'll likely win, but it could cost us up to $75,000 to do so -- and the case against us is being prosecuted by government employees using tax dollars.

We're a small, independent magazine and we don't have deep pockets to fight off nuisance suits, so please chip in if you can.

ADDENDUM: In response to various commenters, unfortunately, even if we are successful in the human rights commission, we will not be compensated for our legal fees. It's not like a real court, where an unsuccessful plaintiff would be ordered to pay a successful defendant's costs. So even if we win, we lose -- the process is the penalty. Worse than that, the radical imam who is suing us doesn't have to put up a dime -- the commission uses tax dollars to pay lawyers and other inquisitors to go at us directly. Human rights tribunals themselves are illiberal institutions. Read my larger brief, linked above.

UPDATE 1: Here is a scan of the imam's complaint.

UPDATE 2: We are currently working to change our legal defence fund web page to accept donations from outside Canada. In the meantime, please e-mail Rita at [email protected] or phone us at 403-216-2270 and we can help you that way -- thanks!

Posted by Ezra Levant on March 29, 2006

 

[Annie]

Via: http://www.bgimediacenter.com/cgi-bin/browse.pl?action=news&path=5&item=595

News Releases

News Releases/
International/

Borders® and Al Maya Group Sign Memorandum of Understanding for Borders Franchise in United Arab Emirates and other Gulf Cooperation Council Countries

02/06/2006

News Release

Contact
Borders Group
Anne Roman
(734) 477-1392
[email protected]

Al Maya Group
Usha Bahirwani
(+97150) 7649000
[email protected]

ANN ARBOR, Mich., Feb. 6, 2006--Borders Inc., a subsidiary of global book, music and movie retailer Borders Group, Inc. (NYSE:BGP), announced today that it has signed a memorandum of understanding with Al Maya Group, a diversified corporation headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, to establish a franchise arrangement under which Al Maya will operate Borders stores in the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

The first of what is expected to be multiple Borders stores in the United Arab Emirates will be located in Dubai at Deira City Centre, the premier shopping center in the GCC. The Borders stores will offer a vast array of book titles in English and Arabic. Borders will provide training and marketing support to Al Maya. The store will be operated by Al Maya consistent with the Borders brand experience. Terms and conditions of the anticipated agreement will not be disclosed.

"We look forward to expansion into United Arab Emirates as an extension of the successful franchise experience we have with Berjaya Group in Malaysia,” said Rick Vanzura, president of Borders Group international and Paperchase worldwide. "Borders Group's international expansion is a key part of our company's overall growth strategy and franchising will accelerate this process," he continued. "We're pleased to be working with Al Maya, a company that is respected for its retail expertise, wholesale operations, and excellent in-store execution of American and European brands such as Steve Madden, British Home Stores, and Mothercare (Warsaw). Based on its successful track record, we believe Al Maya is an excellent choice to operate Borders superstores in select GCC countries."

"We are privileged to be a Borders franchisee and we look forward to a mutually rewarding relationship with Borders in the coming years," said Deepak Pagarani, chief executive officer of Al Maya. "The marketplace is ready for expanded choice in book retailers. With the vast assortment Borders stores offer within a welcoming shopping environment, we are confident customers will embrace the Borders brand in the United Arab Emirates."

About Borders Group
Borders Group, Inc. (NYSE: BGP) is a leading global retailer of books, music and movies with 2004 revenues of $3.9 billion. Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Mich., the company employs approximately 34,000 people worldwide. Borders Group operates more than 475 Borders superstores and approximately 600 Waldenbooks stores throughout the U.S. In addition, the company operates over 50 Borders superstores outside the U.S., as well as 33 Books etc. stores located throughout Great Britain. Borders Group has also acquired Paperchase Products Limited, a leading stationery retailer based in London, England with more than 80 locations in the U.K. Teamed with Amazon.com, online shopping is available through www.borders.com and www.waldenbooks.com. More detailed information on the company is available at www.bordersgroupinc.com. Information regarding Borders store locations, in-store events and title reservation is available through www.bordersstores.com.

About Al Maya Group
Al Maya Group, a household name within the U.A.E., owns a leading supermarket chain & other businesses such as franchising of BHS (U.A.E & Poland), Steve Madden & Champion. In addition, the group also owns one of the largest Foodstuff Wholesale Distribution Divisions within the U.A.E. and other GCC countries. With 2005 revenues of over $250 million (U.S.), the group employs approximately 2,000 people globally. For more information please visit our website at www.almayagroup.com.

Safe Harbor Statement
This release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation and Reform Act of 1995. One can identify these forward-looking statements by use of words such as "may," "will," "anticipates," "plans," "look forward," "expects," and other words of similar meaning. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and plans to differ materially from those included in the company's forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements include plans for international expansion and potential franchise agreements and the impact on future sales and profits and other future benefits that may result from such expansion and agreements. More information about factors that potentially could affect Borders Group's results is included in Borders Group's filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended Oct. 22, 2005.

 

[dilloduck]

Via: http://www.bgimediacenter.com/cgi-bin/browse.pl?action=news&path=5&item=595

So now we can smuggle dirty bombs to the mid-east in books?

 

[Annie]

So now we can smuggle dirty bombs to the mid-east in books?

:chillpill You really need to get over the ports deal.

 

[dilloduck]

:chillpill You really need to get over the ports deal.

Way in the back of my mind. Is there something bad about Borders opening a franchise in the UAE ?

 

[theim]

“For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority,” Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.

Well at least they're not bullshitting about their reason. It's not respect for Muslims so much as their respect for Muslims' ability to firebomb their stores.

 

[Annie]

Well at least they're not bullshitting about their reason. It's not respect for Muslims so much as their respect for Muslims' ability to firebomb their stores.

And they would give up all, to avoid confrontations and the $$$, which they will
lose when dhimmi is completed.

BTW, Dillo you getting over it is so obvious.

 

[dilloduck]

And they would give up all, to avoid confrontations and the $$$, which they will
lose when dhimmi is completed.

BTW, Dillo you getting over it is so obvious.

Sorry---there was just an article posted there. I just assumed it was put there for comments.You know--muslims--UAE--.

 

[Annie]

Sorry---there was just an article posted there. I just assumed it was put there for comments.You know--muslims--UAE--.

Nope first an article, then a press release from Borders. Reverse time frame. Think dhimmi attitude resulting in article could maybe, possibly be related to the press release earlier?

 

[dilloduck]

Nope first an article, then a press release from Borders. Reverse time frame. Think dhimmi attitude resulting in article could maybe, possibly be related to the press release earlier?

Ya--I got that part. I know--Muslims are going to take over the world and kill us all.

 

[Annie]

Links at site
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004879.htm

THE HECKLER'S VETO
By Allahpundit · March 30, 2006 04:24 PM

Much talk in the blogosphere today about the refusal of Borders and Waldenbooks to carry this month's issue of Free Inquiry because it reprints Jyllands-Posten's cartoons of Mohammed. Not much talk, though, about another magazine's brave decision not only to publish the cartoons, but to put the most provocative one right on its cover.

Submitted for your approval, courtesy of fearless editor Robert Bidinotto, the Winter 2006 issue of The New Individualist:

I'd tell you all to ask for it at your local newsstand, but ... c'mon.

Robert Bidinotto's got a blog of his own and he discusses the new cover here. He's also penned an open letter to Borders. For more on Borders, don't miss LGF's latest post, which demonstrates just how incidental the cartoons are to the real agenda at work here. Meanwhile, Jeff Goldstein reports that the Western Standard and Jyllands-Posten are being sued for re-printing the images:

One thing is clear here: in their haste to show their intolerance of the supposedly “intolerant” dissemination of information, the [Alberta Human Rights] Commission has provided interest groups with the incentive to file suits as a way to prevent other criticisms; because the financial burden of having to pay for the right of free speech necessarily acts as a material check on such speech.

In other words, free speech isn't free. Which is why the Western Standard has to resort to this.

In the spirit of, ahem, free inquiry, I went to NYU last night to attend the Objectivist Club's controversial panel discussion about the cartoons. (Michelle blogged about it here.) Pam at Atlas Shrugs was there and has a full report, as do The New York Sun and Washington Square News. NYU gave the Objectivist Club a choice: either it could show the cartoons, in which case the event would be limited to NYU faculty and students, or it could skip the cartoons and open the event to the general public. In light of the public demand, the Club chose the latter. And so it was that an event billed as a presentation of the Jyllands-Posten images featured a row of panelists seated before four blank easels.

FIRE, whose president, Greg Lukianoff, spoke at the event, minces no words in describing what happened. Neither does Eugene Volokh, who writes in a separate post, "We are all Danes now."

A group of Muslim students attended the discussion and held up a banner that read "FREEDOM OF SPEECH [does not equal] FREEDOM TO HATE" -- which, of course, it does, unless you're a college student or a character in an Orwell novel. Lukianoff, in particular, was exercised by the stupidity of the sign, pointing out several times throughout the evening how chilling it is that universities, "citadels of free speech" as he described them, seem to have such difficulty with the most basic aspects of the concept.

And as if to punctuate the point, one of the students in the audience reported during the question and answer session that he had been forced to remove the t-shirt he had worn to the event by NYU security. When one of the panelists asked him what was on the shirt, another student in the audience yelled "this," stood up and unbuttoned his jacket, and turned around so the audience could see.

And of course, it was this one.

On a night when many trenchant points were made, the most trenchant belonged to Peter Schwartz of the Ayn Rand Institute, who noted that the goal of Islamists isn't merely to intimidate the west into censoring itself. It's to have the west accept self-censorship by dressing up its fear as something principled, such as "tolerance" or "respect for religion." Which brings us right back to the Alberta Human Rights Commission and the Western Standard.

Give what you can.

UPDATE: An allegory from Iraq -- "We didn't find a mosque."

"We didn't find a mosque," says the Iraqi special forces commander,striking deep at the heart of the allegations against his men. "We only killed men who were armed and firing at us."... The young officer says his men didn't find prayer mats or books or any of the usual elements of an Islamic house of worship. Instead, he says, they found the instruments of torture; drills, electrical wires, and other "tools". "It is a place used by a political party," he says, having sustained intense, unrelenting fire from houses facing the building on three sides as his men entered. "Other rooms were offices." Based on the evidence his men retrieved — including weapons caches and bombmaking materials — it's clear the site was used by an armed militia, he maintains, with some of its members linked to security forces, and others to a notorious kidnapping ring.

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll: "Compare and contrast Ramapo College's art exhibition with NYU's panel discussion on those cartoons. Notice what's curiously missing from the latter: the actual artwork!"

Some animals are more equal than others.

 

[Annie]

Ya--I got that part. I know--Muslims are going to take over the world and kill us all.

Well Borders and you seem to think so. Some of us are for preemption.

 

[dilloduck]

Well Borders and you seem to think so. Some of us are for preemption.

Excuse me--I should have said the Muslims are trying to kill us all and take over the world. Any casual reader of this board would know that by know don't ya think ?

 

[Annie]

Excuse me--I should have said the Muslims are trying to kill us all and take over the world. Any casual reader of this board would know that by know don't ya think ?

You write what you write. What am I supposed to do about that?

 

[dilloduck]

You write what you write. What am I supposed to do about that?

I woulda left it the way it was but somehow you got the impression that Borders and I felt the same way about something. Why do you assume I am against pre-emption?

 

[Annie]

I woulda left it the way it was but somehow you got the impression that Borders and I felt the same way about something. Why do you assume I am against pre-emption?

Dillo, what is it you want?

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo, what is it you want?

For there to be peace on earth forever and people of all colors and creeds to love each other.

 

[Annie]

For there to be peace on earth forever and people of all colors and creeds to love each other.

 

[dilloduck]

no?----ok in that case I'll just settle for an honest representation of what I say and an answer to my question.

 

[Annie]

no?----ok in that case I'll just settle for an honest representation of what I say and an answer to my question.

What DO you want? I responded to what you posted. Now you want me to interpret what you post?