

The aims of SIOE, as stated on their site, are:
1° SIOE exists to legally combat the overt and covert expansion of Islam in Europe.
2° SIOE condemns racism as the lowest form of human stupidity, but considers Islamophobia to be the height of common sense.
3° SIOE states that Islam and democracy are incompatible due to teachings within the Koran itself and some of the hadiths which comprise sharia law.
4° SIOE sees that such incompatibility is self-evident when those tenuous democracies in countries where Islam is the dominant religion are scrutinized.
You can agree or disagree with these aims, and personally, with regards to 3°) and 4°) I am still waiting for the US-led effort to implant democracy in the ME to succeed. I still hope the resulting growth in wealth and prosperity, coupled with the Rule of Law, will allow afree enough intellectual climate to take root from which truly moderate religious scholars will step forward, proposing more benign teachings of islam. At the very least, greater material wealth in the ME will in itself stem the influx of muslims in Europe, who now flee their native countries because they live in squalor and under tyranny, and who seem not to comprehend that the very lifestyles they import here are exactly the reasons they lived in squalor and under tyranny.
But these are only minor differences. While the US's prodigious and bold undertaking in the ME can, and should, continue its way, the current ongoing Islamization of Europe does present a "clear and present danger", to be addressed immediately and simultaneously. This really is a clash between civilizations, and typically for our respective cultures, the West's move to finally bring the muslim world in line with the rest of humanity is highly visible and open, while their move to cast a whole continent back into the Middle Ages is mostly a treacherous and covert affair, planned and orchestrated from MB headquarters and Ministries of Religious Affairs.
Well then, as late as Tuesday 7 August, SIOE's Ulfkotte and co-organizers had a meeting with some fifteen Brussels police officials and according to Ulfkotte "there were no problems whatsoever". Two days later, on 9 August, the demonstration had been forbidden by Brussels' Mayor, Freddy Thielemans. According to press reports, he did so after conferring with police and "other services", and he "feared that there would be incidents between demonstrators and immigrants who live in the neighborhood." His spokesman Nicolas Dassonville added:
"The danger for public order is too great. There is an important immigrant community nearby which might react. Moreover, the organization uses islamophobic language."
As if to provoke, Thielemans and Dassonville hastened to declare that every year, they receive between five and six hundred requests for demonstrations, and that over the past five years they only forbade five or six. So there you have it. An apolitical organization asks for permission to stage a demonstration to highlight a very obvious and worrisome development, and is denied the right to protest. By contrast, last year muslim organizations staged a demonstration in Brussels against the headscarf ban, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ASKED PERMISSION, and... were given a free hand. The news of Thielemans' capitulation to islamic radicals, since that is what it is, caused quite some uproar in the Belgium. In response to this, Thielemans declared "that it was not so much violence from islamic immigrants he feared, but rather from rightwing extremists". Which is, of course, total bullshit. Ulfkotte's SIOE most emphatically distances itself from any political leanings or agenda, and has clearly demanded its demo be not abused by politicians of whatever stripe for their own purposes. Mr. Ulfkotte:

"We are no extreme rightwing stone-throwers but peaceful people who want to come up for our rights. Is this no longer possible in the Capital of Europe? This strenghtens us in our resolve. Has radical islam advanced so much that a scared mayor takes such decisions? We will possibly hire lawyers to fight this decision."
Dr. Udo Ulfkotte knows what he is talking about when the subject is islam. This professor and former journalist spent twelve to fifteen years in islamic countries, mostly as a correspondent for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and his experiences with this backward, mysogynic and utterly inhuman "religion" were so bad that back home in Europe he endeavoured on a personal quest to make westerners aware of the dangers of islam. Recently, during an interview with Muenchener Merkur, he remarked on his motives:
"I have seen executions in KSA and in Yemen, how hacked off hands were attached to the City Gate. I have seen stonings of women, how people are classified in different categories and experienced the antihuman world view of muslims."
Thielemans' decision to stifle freedom of speech becomes understandable when we learn about the person behind the name. He is a prominent member of the Parti Socialiste, the "Party of 1,000,000 scandals". This is not the time to elaborate on the subject, but it is safe to say that very likely no other party in the western hemisphere has such a dismal record of scandal, fraud, gross incompetence, political murder and silencing of political opponents. The Parti Socialiste has been governing Wallonia, Belgium's southern French-speaking half, for over sixty years. In so doing, they have so thoroughly ruined Wallonia morally, economically and financially that Wallonia cannot survive without important financial transfers from rich Flanders, Belgium's northern half. Yet further evidence of the bankruptcy of the Parti Socialiste way of governance was offered this week, when stats comparing cardiac arrests in Ghent, a typical Flemish city, with those in Charleroi, a typical Wallonian city, revealed that as a male citizen in Charleroi your chances on an acute cardiac arrest are twice as high as in Ghent.

This is not the first time that Freddy Thielemans - btw, not related to Toots - reveals himself to be a big friend of muslims, even though his buddies utterly despise his party's "progressive" ethics such as gay marriage, gay adoption, the facilitating of abortion etc etc. He is a notorious bon vivant - his rosy-red, fat appearance being so typical for a lot of Parti Socialiste bigshots - and last year, when he had to undergo a medical treatment on account of his lavish lifestyle, he appointed as Deputy Mayor the Algerian born Faouzia Hariche, who is, you guess it, a muslim. One explanation for Thielemans' love for the followers of the prophet is that they, like him, hate Christianity and Christians. A nice illustration thereof is the incident he had with his colleague of Angoulême, France. Angoulême and Brussels compete with each other for the title of European Cartoon Capital. Delegations from both rivals visit each other though, and in April 2005, when the Angoulême delegation led by Mayor Philippe Mottet, was visiting Brussels and having a drink with Thielemans, the latter received an SMS on his cell phone informing him of the death of Pope John Paul II. Instantly Thielemans, an atheist, exclaimed to those present: "Du champagne pour tout le monde et de l'eau pétillante pour M. Philippe Mottet!" [Champagne for everyone and sparkling water for Mr. Philippe Mottet! - MFBB]. The center-right Mr. Mottet (he is a member of Sarkozy's UMP as well as a catholic) and his delegation left the meeting in disgust prematurely, and were not present on an inauguration ceremony the following day. Apparently the brave Mr. Thielemans has no fear of offending adherents of certain other religious denominations.




EPILOGUE.
The following comment was left on a De Standaard poll page, put up to feel the pulse with regards to the rightness of Thielemans' decision. The comment is from a Flemish student living in Molenbeek.
As a Flemish student in Molenbeek I seem to discern a problematic, cultural islamic influence: during the day or at night I have, until now, never been harassed. Women on the other hand are inevitably addressed at night if they aren't accompanied by a man. Young muslims call the women then denigrating names and follow them on foot or with their cars. I am not talking here about threats or robberies. Still, this practice is daily bread and legally speaking difficult to penalize. As a consequence, women feel unsafe and dare no longer venture out alone at night. And even if there are more than two, they still prefer that a boy accompanies them. In this way muslim culture, in a subtle way, achieves its goal. Namely that the woman without headscarf has no business on the streets at night. And so the indigenous woman unwillingly accepts muslim culture. Like I already said, the deeds look futile, the consequences are not!!! Frederic.
If you love freedom, sign that petition:

MFBB