Hong Kong - A "lonely and disturbed" Hong Kong man had to call police to try and free him after his peni$ got stuck in a bench he had apparently tried to have sex with, reports said.

Emergency workers took four hours trying to free Le Xing after he attempted to use a hole in the exercise bench to masturbate in a deserted park after dark, the Apple Daily and other papers reported.

Eventually they had to take him to hospital with the bench's 2.5m-long metal base still attached to him after attempts to free him by draining blood from his peni$ failed.

Doctors said the 42-year-old was lucky to still have a peni$ after the embarrassing incident, reported in lurid detail by several Chinese-language papers.

ALITALIA UNION ANNOUNCES ONE-MINUTE STRIKE

The anti-Islamic organisation SIAD will demonstrate in Århus' Gellerup Park against Muslims' treatment of Greenlanders.

Anti-Islamic organisation Stop Islamisation of Denmark (SIAD) will hold a demonstration 23 August in protest of the harassment Greenlanders in Århus' Gellerup Park council estate have received from young Muslims there.

'We won't stand for Greenlanders are being forced out of Gellerup Park,' wrote SIAD's Michael Mikkelsen. 'I'm an ethnic Dane who grew up in a Greenlandic neighbourhood in Aalborg and know many Greenlanders.'

SIAD has called on other anti-racist groups to join in the demonstration against what they call 'ethnic cleansing' of the council estate.

Greenlanders living at Gellerup Park have been both verbally and physically assaulted by some young Muslim residents of the complex. Århus city council has offered to move the Greenlanders, an offer some have taken.

The demonstration will take place at noon at Århus city hall square.

Registrars in the major cities, in particular, record dozens of bigamous or polygamous marriages per year. These marriages are prohibited and an offence in the Netherlands. However, polygamous marriages that take place in countries where more than one wife is permitted, such as Morocco, are accepted, newspaper NRC Handelsblad reports.

If immigrants with several wives settle in the Netherlands, the local authorities register all the marriages. However, the Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS), where all marriages are registered nationally, removes these bigamous or polygamous marriages from its files, on the assumption that administrative errors have occurred. As a result, it is not known how common the phenomenon is in the Netherlands.

Amsterdam city council has informed the CBS that the marriages are not a mistake. "We will now investigate whether this can be regarded as a trend that was previously not recognised. If this is the case, it is out task to report this," CBS researcher Jan Latten explained in NRC Handelsblad.

"At present, it is not included in our statistics," Latten pointed out. "In the same way, we delete marriages involving fourteen-year-olds. A man with two wives just cannot exist by law."

Spokesman T. Verhoeven of the Rotterdam city council disclosed that polygamous marriages are registered almost every week. "They are simply acknowledged. It is important for us to check that the documents are authentic and that the husband does not have Dutch nationality." Otherwise the construction is illegal, Verhoeven explained.

In Amsterdam, local government employees must inform the Public Prosecutors' Office (OM) if there is any suspicion of marriages of convenience or exploitation of women. But this has never happened, a spokeswoman revealed. In Rotterdam, too, the registration of bigamous or polygamous marriages is "practically never" refused, Verhoeven observed.

The first step seemed somewhat simple for me: wear the ‘hijab’ (veil) and that would be making a statement to me and to others that I am a true ‘Muslim woman.' Modest and dignified. I know for a lot of women embracing Islam that this is fundamental to their journey because either their understanding from the Hadith and Sunna (what is understood to be the practices of the Prophet Muhammad) leads them to this conclusion or they are told by others in their local Muslim community that this is a requirement upon all women entering Islam.

My initial wearing of the hijab was at university and upon examination the real reason behind this was to discourage any male intrusion, a form of protecting myself from unwanted attention. Little did I realise that by adorning this veil I would be entering some form of ‘groupie.’ That wearing this cloth over my head gave me a ticket straight to God’s Kingdom. I am in no way against those women who wear the hijab as part of the modest dress code but I am concerned about those who are teaching others about Islam and promote the hijab as the only modest way for a Muslim woman to dress.

I soon realised that my reasons behind wearing the hijab became questionable. Was I sending out a message to others that this is the way for Muslim women to dress? Was the hijab the only way? Or was I adhering to some culture that was practised centuries ago in the time of Prophet Mohammad.

It now leads me onto the question of the word ‘hijab’ and where it comes from. The Arabic word ‘hijab’ can basically be translated as ‘barrier’ and occurs in the Quran several times but not once does it refer to the veiling of women. In the present time, the context of hijab is the modest covering of a Muslim woman. The question now is where did the veil originate from if the Quran does not require veiling?
“Hijab" or veil can be traced back to pre-Quranic civilisations. A common misconception is that that the requirement for veiling originated with the Arabs but this is clearly not the case.

The actual Quranic verses relating to the dress code has more to do with following the basic rule, number one being righteousness, those who follow this will have no problem in making the right decision to reveal only what is necessary. God refers to terms such as ’maintaining modesty and not to reveal too much of their bodies, lengthen their garments……’

A giant inflatable dog poo by American artist Paul McCarthy blew away from an exhibition in the garden of a Swiss museum, bringing down a power line and breaking a greenhouse window before it landed again, the museum said Monday.

The art work, titled Complex $hit, is the size of a house.

The wind carried it 200 metres from the Paul Klee Centre in Berne before it fell back to Earth in the grounds of a children's home, museum director Juri Steiner said.

The inflatable poo broke the window at the children's home when it blew away on the night of July 31, Mr Steiner said.

The art work has a safety system which normally makes it deflate when there is a storm, but this did not work when it blew away.

Mr Steiner said Mr McCarthy had not yet been contacted and the museum was not sure if Complex $hit would be put back on display.

Americans United Fights to Have Crosses Removed from Utah Highways

Cincinnati - The Archdiocese of Cincinnati has issued a detailed list of inappropriate behaviours for Roman Catholic priests, saying they should not kiss, tickle or wrestle children.

The newest version of the archdiocese's Decree on Child Protection also prohibits big hugs, lap-sitting and putting children on one's shoulders or back, The Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper reported on Monday.

But it says priests may still shake children's hands, pat them on the back and give high-fives.

Victim advocates who have criticised the archdiocese for its handling of abuse cases say they support the new measures as a step toward better protection of children.

The European Union is an organization of corrupt parasites and power-grabbing traitors, mixed up with some dangerously naive fools. EU leaders are intent on flooding their countries with even more Muslims at the same time as immigrants commit countless acts of violence against native Europeans. The greatest organized betrayal in history is celebrated as a victory for peace and tolerance. Our so-called leaders open the floodgates to people who are, always have been, and always will be hostile to everything we hold dear, and tell us to love them. Unfortunately, others have rather different plans for us.

Iranian writer Amir Taheri explains how al Qaeda's chief theoretician, Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji, in his new book Governance in the Wilderness suggests that low-intensity war should be extended to anywhere in the world with a significant Muslim presence, creating parallel societies resembling "liberated zones" set up by Marxist guerrillas in parts of Latin America in the twentieth century. The Jihadis are to begin by giving areas where Muslims live a distinctly Islamic appearance, by imposing special styles of dress for women and beards for men. Then they start imposing Islamic law. In the final phase, they should create a parallel system of taxation and law enforcement. This is already being implemented in many European urban areas.

Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji recommends that Islamic Jihad should be everywhere, with "countless small operations" that render daily life unbearable for the infidels, who, when leaving their homes every morning, should be unsure whether they'll return in the evening. Naji recommends kidnappings, exhibition killings to terrorize the enemy, suicide bombings and countless gestures that make a normal life impossible. Once parallel societies are established throughout the world, they would exert pressure on non-Muslims to submit. Naji believes that, subjected to constant intimidation and fear of death, most non-Muslims would submit because "The West has no stomach for a long fight."

Read the whole thing>>. It's important.

The left in this country is leading us down the same path France is going down. Remember that if your are thing of voting Democrat this November. A vote for a Democrat is proof to the enemy that "The West has no stomach for a long fight."

The exit of Bush from the White House is already anticipated in the Arab region with sighs of relief. But what is ahead under the next US president; more of the same, regardless of who wins, or change? 

True, Obama has promised some degree of withdrawal from Iraq and a level of communication with Iran. But even these promises are ambiguous and can be easily modified to fit political interests and lobby pressures at any time. Any military redeployment in Iraq would, now we are told, be matched with greater military build up in Afghanistan, a sign that the militant mentality that motivated the war hawks in the Bush administration is yet to change; the valuable lesson that bombs don't bring peace, yet to be heeded.

Even talking to Iran is an indistinct promise. To begin with, various officials in the Bush administration have already been talking to Iran - in less touted meetings, but they have engaged Tehran nonetheless - in matters most pertinent to US, not Israeli, interests (i.e. the Iraq war). Moreover, in what was widely seen as "a shift of policy", senior US diplomat William Burns joined envoys from China, Russia, France, Britain, Germany and the EU in their talks with Tehran in Geneva 19 July. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised US participation and the "respect" the US envoy had shown during the meeting.

Obama's statements to assure Israel on his proposed talk with Iran are most alarming. He has tirelessly repeated that the "military option" remains on the table to ensure Israel's security. Isn't this the exact same policy trademark infused during the Bush administration, which eventually led to the war on Iraq? The US will exhaust every diplomatic channel, but the "military option" remains on the table. This was the gist of the message repeated by the warmongers of the White House through Bush's two terms. Does one need any proof of why such an attitude is not reflective of well-intentioned diplomacy?

What is equally dangerous in Obama's uttering is that he might be, and is already, feeling pressured to balance his seemingly soft attitude towards Iraq and Iran by exaggerating his country's pro-Israel stance in a way that will derail any possibility for a peaceful solution to the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, at least during his term. In fact, ominous signs of that pressure, and his succumbing to it are ample, the last of which was his statement, prior to his visit, that Jerusalem must remain undivided, a position that negates international law and the consistent tradition of various US administrations, including Bush's.

One need not repeat what Obama has said during his visit to Israel, for such rhetoric is becoming most predictable. His "commitment" to Israel and to the ever "special relationship" that unites both nations were generously invoked. Obama promised to do his utmost to keep Israel secure and to stop Iran from obtaining the atomic bomb. As for the Palestinians, he seems keenly interested in engaging their non-democratic forces and shuns those who dare to challenge his country's biased official line that has contributed in myriad ways to the ongoing conflict.

Obama insists on disregarding the US official blind spot that has continued to destabilize the Middle East for generations. If he is indeed interested in straightening the distorted course of his country's foreign policy in this region, then he is certainly viewing it from an Israeli looking glass, the same as that used by the Bush neoconservative clique that led America into an unrivalled downfall in Mesopotamia.

But Obama is not alone. If he wins the presidential race he will join a growing club of Western leaders who refuse to heed to common sense and who behave erratically, even against the wishes of their own people. 

Starting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to Israel last March, to French President Nicolas Sarkozy's in June, to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's in July, no one has failed to deviate from the predictable mantra: Israel first and foremost. True, some like Sarkozy dared voice some criticism of Israel's settlement policy in Jerusalem - one that Obama cannot dare repeat, even in private - but the underpinnings are the same: Israel, a country of a few million, remains the primary concern of the West in a region of hundreds of millions. Those leaders' brazen "commitment" to Israel, regardless of the consistently brutal policy carried out by the latter, is surely bizarre to say the least; bizarre, and in fact non-Democratic.

An international poll, conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org examined the views of people from 18 countries, including France, the UK and the United States. The findings of the poll were released 1 July and were most telling. In 14 countries "people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favors taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 per cent favor taking neither side." The entire hoopla about the "common cause" and "special relationship" and "promised land", and the fear mongers of the Armageddon crowd, failed to sway the views of the great majority of Americans.

Why then, doesn't the "candidate of change", Obama, listen to his people and truly change his government's destructive path regarding Palestine and Israel? Why doesn't the UK's Brown and France's Sarkozy listen to their peoples, considering that an equal percentage in both of their countries - 79 per cent - is beseeching them to do the same? These results have of course been consistent with public opinion in Western countries for years. It might behoove these leaders to respect the cannons of democracy in their own countries before lecturing others.

Following his Israel trip, Obama kick-started a European tour that took him to Germany, France and the UK. The moods were described as "cheerful" and the expectations as "high" everywhere the senator went, including Israel. As for the Palestinians, it's more of the same for them: the same arrogant demands, same unfair policies, and ever-historic bias.

In the southern Israeli town of Siderot, widely grinning Obama receive a t-shirt that read, "Siderot loves Obama". Obama, of course, didn't visit the Gaza concentration camp to find out what Palestinians there thought of him, considering his ardent defense of Israel's brutal policies against the Strip in recent years. One can only imagine what a Gazan t-shirt for Obama might have read.