Stephen Sizer, the little devil, justifies apartheid in the name of God. I refused to speak in South Africa when they had apartheid. You know our ministry runs orphanages in South Africa, yes? I know people who suffered under apartheid. What an insult to people who really suffered under apartheid.

When I went to Hebrew University we had plenty of Arab students. My wife went to Technion in Haifa where there were plenty of Arab student – about 20%, 15% at least. Some universities – Israeli universities – had at least 20%. Non-Muslim students from Malaysia, people who are non-ethnic Malays, have to go to university in Australia or Indonesia; you can’t even go to school in a Muslim country. That’s real apartheid. Nobody's calling for an academic boycott of Malaysia. You want to find apartheid? How about a country where a woman can’t drive a car? That’s Saudi Arabia. Yet this is the Christian church calling for it.

Free speech in Europe, how long will it last? The Lords have been overruled. The definition of the new offense of judicious libel in EC law as conduct seriously prejudices a community's interests and damages the institutions and image and reputation. The rights that can be restricted include not only free speech and the right to life but also the right not to be punished in retroactive legislation, the right of a fair trial, the assumption of innocence, and the absence of double jeopardy, a provision which Jack Straw (British Secretary of State for Justice) wants to take advantage of already. In other words, if you’re acquitted of crime you can be tried twice. In other words, if you’re found guilty of something and they pass a law against something they can say retroactively after you’ve already been sentenced, “No, you were sentenced to 10 years, we’re going to make it 20”. In other words – this is unbelievable – because of retroactive legislation, speaking against Europe can be criminalized. They want to criminalize it. Now, I’m not kidding.

“Euro Court Outlaws Criticism of the EU”. (I’ll show anyone these documents who wants to see them.) The ruling states that the Commission could restrict dissent in order to protect the rights of others and punish individuals who damage the institution’s image and reputation. If you talk about the corruption of the common agricultural policy, you’re damaging the reputation of Europe. “The court called the economy book aggressively derogatory, insulting, and taking particular umbrage at the author’s suggestion that the economic and monetary union was a threat to democracy”. You think it’s a threat to democracy? You’re under arrest. “To imply Mr. Conde’s criticism of the EU is akin to extreme blasphemy.” I thought you could only blaspheme God, contrasting Rosenthal’s column here. Beware foreign policeman at your door. If you do something that is not even a crime in Britain but a crime in another country, a policeman from Poland or another country will have the right to come and arrest you in Britain, deport you to a country, and you would be put on trial for something that’s not even against the law in Britain, including countries where there's no presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Of course, the British government wants this. This is from the Telegraph, Thursday, July 9th. Unbelievable.

The Daily Telegraph: “The Criminal Justice System Will Limit Trial by Jury. The extradition bail will bring into UK law one of the EU commission's most cherished symbols of political and legal integration, the EU arrest warrant. The government appears unmoved by opposition to this measure which has united pressure groups. The bill will allow British citizens to be extradited for a wide range of offenses, many of them relatively minor and ill-defined which are not crimes in the UK. British defendants will be tried under judicial systems where there is a presumption of guilt.”

“Freedom of speech is under assault from an initiative of the EU Social Affairs Directorate. The ‘racism and xenophobia directive’, which is soon to be enshrined into British law. Under the law racism itself, as opposed to inciting racial hatred, becomes an offense. Under the astounding, broad definition the public condoning of war crimes and the public dissemination, including by the Internet, which attracts pictures or other material containing expressions of racism or xenophobia becomes an offense. But so does trivialization of what Slobodan Milosevic (former President of Yugoslavia) did and things of that nature.” The problem is who is going to define what’s racism?

There are black intellectuals in Zimbabwe who said Mugabe (President of Zimbabwe) has destroyed the country, he’s driving that nation into poverty. White people were able to leave, the black intellectuals were arrested and charged with making racist comments. These are black people themselves. Because you denounced Mugabe, that becomes the definition of a racist. They want to bring that here.

“Slow march of the compulsory identity card which is currently packaged in a cuddly new labor language as the ‘Universal Entitlement Card’”. I mean it goes on and on. How do you preach the Gospel in such an environment?