Rather remiss of me not to have posted this earlier, but please find below a list of first rate products from our European cousins, the Danes. I suggest that you do as we are doing right now and make a simple switch from your usual brands to the Danish equivalent until the rabid rabble understand the critical issue of the separation of religion and state in Denmark (and the rest of secular Europe) and sales of Danish brands start to stabilise around the world. This brand switching will be no hardship as the Danes make a cracking selection of beer, food, toys, clothes etc. Here are some that spring to mind.

Food & Beverages

Arla Foods
Danish meat
Carlsberg
Tuborg
Danish Butter Cookies
Dancake

Design

Lego
Bang & Olufsen
Jacob Jensen
Bodum
Rosendahl
Louis Poulsen
Skagen Watches
Danish Furniture Online
Piet Hein
Arne Jacobsen
House Of Denmark
Bo Concept
Pilgrim
DYRBERG/KERN

Clothes, textile & Shoes

H2O
Jysk
Hummel
Ecco
Jaco
Inwear
Matinique
Saga Furs

Culture

VisitDenmark
Danish film
Danish art
Legoland

You couldn’t make it up

The Sun’s article surrounding the spat between the Muslim Council of Britain and Ann Summers will take some beating this year.
The MCB are furious with Ann Summers for selling a blowup male doll called Mustafa Shag. Quite how they found out about Mustafa in order to be offended by him is not clear. It may be that there was some confusion: given that "blowup males" are one of Islam's leading exports, perhaps some believers went along expecting to find Ahmed and Walid modeling the new line of Semtex belts. Instead, they were greeted by just another disgusting infidel sex joke. The MCB’s complaint, needless to say, is that the sex toy "insults the prophet muhammad -- who also has the title al-mustapha.''
In a world in which Danish cartoons insult the prophet, Disney piglet mugs insult the prophet and Burger King chocolate ice-cream swirl designs insult the prophet, maybe it would just be easier if the MCB made a list of things that don't insult him. The MCB wrote to the Ann Summers sex-shop chain, "We are asking you to have our Most Revered Prophet's name 'Mustafa' and the afflicted word 'shag' removed."
You would think that as a muslim, they’d be "hurt" and "humiliated" that the revered prophet's name is given not to latex blowup males but to so many real blowup males:
The leader of the 9/11 gang? - Mohammed Atta.
The British muslim who blew himself up in a Tel Aviv bar? - Asif Mohammed Hanif.
The gunman who shot the El Al counter at LAX? - Heshamed Mohamed Hedayet.
The former U.S. Army sergeant who masterminded the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? - Ali Mohamed.
The murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh? - Mohammed Bouyeri.
The notorious Sydney gang rapist? - Mohammed Skaf.
The Washington sniper? - John Allen Muhammed.
But as yet no hurt and humiliation has been detected, maybe we'll just have to wait for that...
When is this loonacy going to stop? No time soon that is for sure. In fact, the boys from Brussels have been on the case and have revealed their cunning plan. The European Union's Justice and Security Commissioner, Franco Frattini, said on Thursday that the EU would set up a "media code" to encourage "prudence" in the way they cover certain sensitive subjects. As Frattini explained, "The press will give the muslim world the message: we are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression......we can and we are ready to self-regulate that right." Quite whether this euro-claptrap will cover the grave Ann Summers error is not clear. More importantly, "Prudence"? "Self-regulate our free expression"? Those words give the muslim world the message: You've won, we surrender, please stop giving us a shoeing.
The issue is not "freedom of speech" or "the responsibilities of the press" or "sensitivity to certain cultures." The issue, as it has been in all these controversies going back to the Salman Rushdie affair, is the point at which a free society gathers the will to stand up to those that threaten it.
Don't hold your breath.

Now you may well be wondering exactly where the 100,000 supporters of the ‘moderate muslim’ march to Trafalgar Square got to yesterday. On the eve of the event The BBC, with no trace of bias, told us that they had been informed (not by the Police) that at least that number would gather at Admiral Lord Nelson’s feet (what on earth he would have made of it I simply shudder to think - it was well worth giving his life to defeating the French and the Spanish….).
The sad answer is that ‘moderate muslims’ are in desperately short supply. Just 5,000 of them managed to find their way to SW1. Here was a chance for 100,000 of them (a mere 2% of the muslim population of the United Kingdom) to make a stand against the hardliners and state plainly that they would like to distance themselves from their chums in hizb ut tahir whose sole mission here in Blightly is to introduce sharia law.
The harsh reality is that these ‘moderates’ were nowhere to be found. They are simply hedging their bets. They are not prepared to stick their head above the parapet, yet. But no sooner than there is a whiff of a possibility that they will be able to kick down the door that successive generations of spineless liberals have left ajar (or in the case of the Marxists - Attlee, Bevan, Wilson, Callaghan & Blair have actually willingly opened) they will be all over Trafalgar Square. If the Marxists and David Cameron are unfazed by this prospect I hope they know that this will mean that along with up-ending Nelson’s column, it will also signal the removal of the statue that so brilliantly sums up how far this country has managed to come in the last 40 years - ‘Alison Lapper’ - A testament to the Human race’s ability to override Darwin’s theory - to both comic & disastrous effect.

I commend the article below to you. Mark Steyn seems like a beacon of common sense in a sea of liberalism gone mad.
Enjoy.

"I long ago lost count of the number of times I've switched on the TV and seen crazy guys jumping up and down in the street, torching the Stars and Stripes and yelling ''Death to the Great Satan!'' Or torching the Union Jack and yelling ''Death to the Original If Now Somewhat Arthritic And Semi-Retired Satan!'' But I never thought I'd switch on the TV and see the excitable young lads jumping up and down in Jakarta, Lahore, Aden, Hebron, etc., etc., torching the flag of Denmark.
Denmark! Even if you were overcome with a sudden urge to burn the Danish flag, where do you get one in a hurry in Gaza? Well, OK, that's easy: the nearest European Union Humanitarian Aid and Intifada-Funding Branch Office. But where do you get one in an obscure town on the Punjabi plain on a Thursday afternoon? If I had a sudden yen to burn the Yemeni or Sudanese flag on my village green, I haven't a clue how I'd get hold of one in this part of New Hampshire. Say what you like about the Islamic world, but they show tremendous initiative and energy and inventiveness, at least when it comes to threatening death to the infidels every 48 hours for one perceived offense or another. If only it could be channeled into, say, a small software company, what an economy they'd have.
Meanwhile, back in Copenhagen, the Danes are a little bewildered to find that this time it's plucky little Denmark who's caught the eye of the nutters. Last year, a newspaper called Jyllands-Posten published several cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, whose physical representation in art is forbidden by Islam. The cartoons aren't particularly good and they were intended to be provocative. But they had a serious point. Before coming to that, we should note that in the Western world "artists" "provoke" with the same numbing regularity as young Muslim men light up other countries' flags. When Tony-winning author Terence McNally writes a Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times and Co. rush to garland him with praise for how "brave" and "challenging" he is. The rule for "brave" "transgressive" "artists" is a simple one: If you're going to be provocative, it's best to do it with people who can't be provoked.
Thus, NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the gay sitcom "Will & Grace," in which a Christian conservative cooking-show host, played by the popular singing slattern Britney Spears, offers seasonal recipes -- "Cruci-fixin's." On the other hand, the same network, in its coverage of the global riots over the Danish cartoons, has declined to show any of the offending artwork out of "respect" for the Muslim faith.
Which means out of respect for their ability to locate the executive vice president's home in the suburbs and firebomb his garage.
Jyllands-Posten wasn't being offensive for the sake of it. They had a serious point -- or, at any rate, a more serious one than Britney Spears or Terence McNally. The cartoons accompanied a piece about the dangers of "self-censorship" -- i.e., a climate in which there's no explicit law forbidding you from addressing the more, er, lively aspects of Islam but nonetheless everyone feels it's better not to.
That's the question the Danish newspaper was testing: the weakness of free societies in the face of intimidation by militant Islam.
One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the "sensitivity" of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.
No doubt he's similarly impressed by the "sensitivity" of Anne Owers, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, for prohibiting the flying of the English national flag in English prisons on the grounds that it shows the cross of St. George, which was used by the Crusaders and thus is offensive to Muslims. And no doubt he's impressed by the "sensitivity" of Burger King, which withdrew its ice cream cones from its British menus because Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe complained that the creamy swirl shown on the lid looked like the word "Allah" in Arabic script. I don't know which sura in the Koran says don't forget, folks, it's not just physical representations of God or the Prophet but also chocolate ice cream squiggly representations of the name, but ixnay on both just to be "sensitive."
And doubtless the British foreign secretary also appreciates the "sensitivity" of the owner of France-Soir, who fired his editor for republishing the Danish cartoons. And the "sensitivity" of the Dutch film director Albert Ter Heerdt, who canceled the sequel to his hit multicultural comedy ''Shouf Shouf Habibi!'' on the grounds that "I don't want a knife in my chest" -- which is what happened to the last Dutch film director to make a movie about Islam: Theo van Gogh, on whose ''right to dissent'' all those Hollywood blowhards are strangely silent. Perhaps they're just being "sensitive,'' too.
And perhaps the British foreign secretary also admires the "sensitivity" of those Dutch public figures who once spoke out against the intimidatory aspects of Islam and have now opted for diplomatic silence and life under 24-hour armed guard. And maybe he even admires the "sensitivity" of the increasing numbers of Dutch people who dislike the pervasive fear and tension in certain parts of the Netherlands and so have emigrated to Canada and New Zealand.
Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of a "diverse" "tolerant" society, and, when one gently raises the matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the question somewhat moot.
One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that, in practice, there's very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia. As a famously sensitive Dane once put it, "To be or not to be, that is the question.""

The CPS are surely going to be rushed off their feet over the next couple of months - so many new criminals, so little time to prosecute.
Next to Nick Griffin's lager induced rants in a Yorkshire pub, the boys from the Tower Hamlets Mujahideen have surely cranked up Religious and Race hatred to an altogether new level. As the picture here shows, Incitement to Racial Hatred is writ large, or have I missed the point?

I have just witnessed the (what I presume is spontaneous) London march by some muslims protesting about the publication of those tasteless (& more importantly) unfunny cartoons. Those marching were bearing many erudite (I sincerely jest) banners and placards.
One of them read, "Behed (sic) all Europeans!".
Anyone living in this 'multiculti' paradise can have no complaints whatsoever about such exclamations. While the old rules are still in force, everyone has the right in 'multicultiland' to say what they like about the State, Government, Press, Church or 'fellow countrymen', etc. It won't be long however, before the old rules are completely discarded to make way for some new rules that bar any comment regarding any of the above - it really does stand to reason.
As an aside, I wonder how much of my taxes has gone to pay for the significant police presence (including helicopter) to manage them.