Nazir Ahmed (pictured outside Sheffield Magistrates' Court) was sentenced to twelve weeks in prison and a twelve month driving ban for dangerous driving. The sentence is out of a maximum possible two years, and he will serve half the tariff imposed (standard procedure under the Criminal Justice Act of 1991).
It was proven in court that Ahmed was sending and receiving a series of text messages as he sped along the M1 at speeds of up to 60mph and beyond on Christmas Day 2007. The last text message was sent 2 minutes before his Jaguar collided with a broken down Audi, instantly killing 28 year old Slovakian father-of-two Martyn Gombar.
I would like to say I'm surprised by this verdict, and in a sense I am; I thought he would escape jail altogether. The modern justice system seems to pride itself on the fact that the less an individual actually deserves sympathy and understanding, the more of it they must receive.
According the The Times:
'David Cicak, Mr Gombar's cousin, said: “We’re not happy with this. He could be out in six weeks, that’s nothing. [My cousin] left behind two small kids now with only their mother.” '
Quite. Ain't British justice grand, Mr Cicak? Best in the world, don't you know.
In any case, Ahmed is a man who certainly does not deserve sympathy or understanding; he comes across as an arrogant, scheming political chancer who would sell his own grandmother if he thought it would allow him to increase his own power and that of the 'Muslim community' in Great Britain.
I actually think he's been incredibly lucky; not only should he have been made to serve the full two years for the offence as allowed under the law (it would be longer if I had my way, excuses do not raise people from the dead), but by now he should have probably been at the very least expelled from the House of Lords and at most tried for treason for some of the controversies that have surrounded him.
I almost wrote 'dogged' him, but in New Britain that's not really the right word; a country that has lost all confidence in and respect for itself continues to promote such self-serving traitors in any case. It just so happens that this particular self-serving traitor was born in Pakistan and has some rather interesting contacts in the Ummah.
I'm going to say something controversial now (it shouldn't be, but it probably is); Lord Nazir Ahmed is what you get when you promote people to positions of power and influence purely on the basis of how much melanin their skin contains, how exotic their name sounds, or how much you'd like a certain 'community' to think you're very tolerant.
Some people think they can get away with anything; when they're proved right, and all resistance to them is obviously feeble, you create a narcissistic megalomaniac. Ahmed knows his background and his religion act as a crude shield in today's Britain, and from what I can gather he has not stopped exploiting it for a moment.
Let's take a brief look at what Lord Ahmed no doubt sees as his brighter moments. His Wikipedia page is quite telling (although I wouldn't really trust it any more than I'd trust his own wife or mother to give me an unbiased account of him). One of the youngest peers ever created, the first Muslim life peer. Although it is marked 'citation needed', I find this passage interesting:
"As a Muslim peer, much [sic] of his activities relate to the Muslim community, both at home and internationally. Ahmed led one of the first delegations on behalf of the British Government on the Muslim pilgrimage of the Hajj, to Saudi Arabia and has advocated legislation against religious discrimination, international terrorism and forced marriages."
A few points immediately spring to mind; why is a British peer who really owes everything he is and has to Britain's generosity specifically focusing on issues that affect Muslims? Does he not have other constituents? Why the international focus? Is it simply that he can't find enough problems to solve here?
You see, if a white English peer was focusing purely on white English issues or constituents it would be racism. Many of these people, especially among the working class, feel alienated and disenfranchised too. So why is Ahmed's obvious bias written as something to be celebrated? Am I suppose to clap him on the back and buy him a (non-alcoholic) beer because he can't get past his own ethnic identity, when I'd be an evil racist in the same position?
I also find his leading a 'British government delegation' on the Hajj fascinating. Why, exactly, and at who's expense? Have the modern British government got themselves confused with medieval tributaries to the Caliphate or some such?
Seeing as non-Muslims are banned from Mecca, does this really fit in with his position against religious discrimination? Also, his other positions are ambiguous; legislation against forced marriage would quite clearly clash with legislation against religious discrimination. Which point of view would prevail?
I think we already know the answer; just like we know that whilst it's completely insensitive to eat around fasting Muslims during Ramadan, it's not completely insensitive of them to ask you to change your habits to fit in with traditions you and your country do not follow. Etc.
Now, as many of you will know, Ahmed was active in trying to revoke the invitation of Geert Wilders to show Fitna in the House of Lords. Although the invitation was withdrawn and then re-issued, I believe Ahmed's threat to lead 10,000 Muslims on parliament was instrumental in the decision of the Home Secretary to detain and deport Mr Wilders.
But that's odd, isn't it? Because Lord Ahmed seems rather under the impression that free speech and the right to be controversial are there - it's just they only work one way.
For example, on 23rd February 2005, Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for the anti-semite Israel Shamir. Whilst there, Shamir was quoted as saying:
“The Jews like an Empire... This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance... Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.”
The easiness with which Jews change their allegiance, yes. I suppose that the Muslims make no secret of their allegiances to begin with, so there's no cause for confusion. After all, Ahmed is obviously so very loyal to the country and culture which took him in.
Shamir also said that Britain's large Muslim population was important to "turn the tide of Judaic values in Britain".
When challenged about these statements, Ahmed refused point blank to discuss the situation.
When the controversial author Salman Rushdie was knighted in 2007, Ahmed claimed it was a 'disgrace' and that Rushdie 'has blood on his hands'. The full quote:
"It's hypocrisy by Tony Blair who two weeks ago was talking about building bridges to mainstream Muslims, and then he's honouring a man who has insulted the British public and been divisive in community relations."
"This man not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people who were killed around the world. Forgiving and forgetting is one thing, but honouring the man who has blood on his hands, sort of, because of what he did, I think is going a bit too far."
Which is interesting, is it not? It's never those poor, sensitive dears in the Muslim community who want to kill and destroy who are to blame. Always the nasty man who dared to inflame them. I mean, after all, we should just do and say whatever they tell us we can, right? Does that sound so unreasonable?
Who did Salman Rushdie kill? Is it absolutely necessary to go on a murderous rampage because someone wrote a book you don't like? Lord Ahmed doesn't say, but I think his silence speaks volumes.
My favourite quote from his Wiki page is this one:
"...he has worked on the plight of Muslims around the world ranging from the collapse of former Yugoslavia, to the Chechens and Palestinians. He has been on many delegations to the Arab world, the US, Eastern Europe, Africa, the former states of the USSR and the Far East, meeting with heads of state to discuss their respective problems and how he may be able to assist them."
He really is like the Muslim version of Superman, always showing up in a crisis. How could foreign governments resist him, after the problems he's solved here? You see, his formula is so simple anyone can follow it. Got a problem with your Muslim community? Want them to stop perpetrating indiscriminate violence? Give in. Submit.
That's all it takes - a grovelling apology, some special protections under the law, pretending Muslims are eternal victims - abracadabra! Allah will once more be merciful, and your country or region can be as peaceful as Turkish-occupied Cyprus on a Friday afternoon.
I would also, for the record, be very interested to know which lords the British government has dispatched to deal with the grievances of the Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Russians, Georgians and Israelis in these respective strife-torn regions.
So, next controversy. On 25 July 2005 Lord Ahmed, whilst talking with Robert Siegel on National Public Radio said that the suicide bombers of 7/7 had an "identity crisis" and, that "unfortunately, our imams and mosques have not been able to communicate the true message of Islam in the language that these young people can understand."
Lord Ahmed did acknowledge, "the community leaders and religious leaders, who have kept very close contacts with South Asia and the Middle East rather than keeping a good contact with the British society where we live."
With all due respect, prisoner 50987 - sorry, I mean Lord Ahmed - might that be because people such as yourself are specifically employed to keep such allegiances alive? I mean, after all, expecting loyalty and assimilation from these immigrants and their descendants might be racist or something.
It's probably best to just risk the odd suicide-bombing and be done with it. After all, if Lord Ahmed lost his place on the multicultural gravy train, who'd employ him? An ex-convict of 51 years old - maybe it's time for some new anti-discrimination legislation?
OK. One more controversy, inexplicably omitted from his wikipedia entry. From the New York City News:
"Three years ago, Lord Ahmed, Labour's first Muslim peer, invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh to Westminster, after meeting him at the Regent's Park mosque.
Abu Rideh, a Palestinian, had been detained in Britain in December 2001 on suspicion of fundraising for groups linked to Al Qaeda.
He is said to have admitted travelling in Afghanistan with large sums of money hidden in a plaster cast on his leg.
He has since been subjected to a control order which places restrictions on his freedom."
Indeed. But, this isn't enough. He has also campaigned for such people to suffer no legal sanctions for the actions they may have undertaken for Al Qaeda abroad, plus be allowed to remain in Britain. He was happy to speak up for several 'British' Muslims released from Guantanamo Bay.
However, he feels that British Jews who fight for the IDF should be tried for 'war crimes'.
I hope these examples adequately demonstrate that this man has no scruples and absolutely no shame. It would be impossible to have shame and support some of the blatant double standards and injustices that he does.
This 'Lord' does not make a good case for promoting people for the purposes of 'diversity' and social engineering. He belongs to the group of immigrants who are here to change the UK to suit them, rather than changing to suit it.
For an example of his exact opposite, please look at Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali. Also an immigrant born in Pakistan, he converted to Christianity and now spends his working life sticking up for the country and culture which took him in, as well as its traditional values.
Nazir Ahmed has got a long six weeks coming up. Maybe he could put it to good use and learn a thing or two.
***UPDATE*** Contributor Dr. D pointed out that Bishop Nazir-Ali was actually born into a Christian family. He's correct. It was his father who converted from Islam. Apologies for the error.