"While dictators rage and statesmen talk, all Europe dances — to The Lambeth Walk."

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

An Audience with Yvonne Ridley (I)

British journalist and prominent Muslim convert Yvonne Ridley, pictured above, was in the news a while back leading a convoy of British vehicles containing £1 million in aid to Gaza.

I have some personal experience of this woman. In 2005, whilst I was attending the University of Kent and completing a degree in Politics & International Relations, she came to the campus to deliver a talk on her time in captivity in Afghanistan and her (then) recent conversion to Islam.

The talk was organised by the university's 'Muslim Society', and I decided to attend along with three friends, two male, one female. We were all quite interested in current affairs, and thought we were simply in for a good story.

At the time I knew almost nothing about Islam, at least compared to what I know now. The talk occurred just a few months before British-born Muslim suicide bombers slaughtered commuters during London's morning rush hour on the 7th July 2005.

Like the vast majority of the civilised world, I was distressed and upset by the events of 11th September 2001, but I did not realise the inherent nature of Islam and Jihad at that time; I was more concerned about the lax immigration policies which exist in most Western countries, and which 9/11 highlighted quite mercilessly.

Anyway, my friends and I arrived at the lecture theatre in which Ridley was to speak. Three large Asian men, who wouldn't have looked out of place as nightclub bouncers but for their long beards, stood blocking the door. Next to them stood a long table, upon which were stacked scores of green-bound books, which turned out to be free, English-language copies of the Koran.

We approached the men and explained we wished to hear Ridley's talk. Their stony faced demeanour changed - they smiled and opened the door whilst wishing us As-Salāmu `Alaykum السلام عليكم.

The lecture theatre was fairly full, and I was surprised by the number of Muslims in the audience. There were also some lecturers and other students, but the vast majority of people seemed to be Muslims and Left-wing activists from outside the university staff and student body.

We found four seats next to each other and filed in. However, as we sat down, a bearded Muslim man cleared his throat and explained that 'sex segregation' was in force - women sat to the left of the aisle and men to the right, as in a mosque.

Two of the large men from the door came over, and explained again that my female friend would have to move across the aisle. She didn't particularly want to, so I told them that we were staying put - if we'd chosen to go in a mosque then I would within reason respect any requests they made, but this was a lecture theatre in an English university.

One of the men looked angry and told us we would have to leave, but the other suggested a compromise - that she sit in the aisle seat of the men's side. We agreed to this, and duly shuffled around, but by now I was wondering what on earth was going on.

It got worse, however - we were told by the president of the Muslim Society, a Muslim girl wearing a headscarf, that the car that had been sent to collect Ridley had become stuck in traffic - so to pass the time, we were going to listen to pupils from an Arabic-language Koran 'Sunday school' in Canterbury recite prayers and passages from the Koran.

The menacing bouncers shut the doors, and we resigned ourselves to sitting there and listening to one child after the other take the podium and chant in Arabic. I'm as tolerant and open-minded as the next person, but I found it an unnecessary imposition, in all honesty. I had not gone to a religious event, and even a few of the lecturers and aging Leftists looked a little uncomfortable.

After about 20 minutes of incessant chanting, the doors burst open, and the president urged our applause - Yvonne Ridley was there, wearing a pink headscarf.

She's not an imposing woman to look at or speak to - she has the air of a teacher at a polytechnic, sort of a cross between someone with an academic air of authority, and someone who just wants to be friends and buy you a pint (well, not anymore, obviously).

She sat rather than stood, and spent about an hour and a half telling us about her journalistic career, her determination to get into to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and expose the treatment of women, her subsequent capture by the Taliban and her treatment, and her conversion to Islam after her release.

Something was not quite right, though. Although she admitted she was scared when the Taliban found her wearing a burqa in the back of a taxi, that was as far as it went. She talked of gazing into the green eyes of the bearded maniac who disrobed her at the roadside, as if they were strolling along the Seine together. As it was, she was actually being arrested by one of the most fearsome and misogynistic Islamic regimes the modern world has known.

Foreigners at that time were banned from Afghanistan on pain of death. The idea of an infidel, a woman at that, trying to sneak in to reveal the plight of ordinary Afghans should have been packed with notions of courage and honour - but it simply fell flat.

It fell flat because it was obvious as soon as she opened her mouth that she had some sympathy for the Taliban - and had even before her conversion.

The rest of the story was less James Bond and more Mills and Boon; 'they were so polite, so courteous, they didn't rape me or murder me or force me to convert to Islam...' etc etc etc.

Big of them. It seems she spent some time locked in a palatial room with a Taliban big-wig - the deputy leader, their interior minister or some such. She seemed far more interested in his 'beautiful white clothes and bejewelled turban' than the medieval barbarities he was almost directly responsible for, however.

He asked her to convert to Islam, or as she put it, 'revert to Islam'. She refused, but promised him that when she was released, she would read the Koran, study its message, and make up her own mind. She also promised she would help the Taliban get 'a fair hearing' in the British media.

She kept her promise, liked what she saw, and became perhaps Britain's most famous and prominent Muslim convert. Unfortunately, instead of whiling away her days in purdah reading the Koran, she decided to proselytize and spread Islam's message.

Here's where the talk completely parted company from reality (and, let's be honest, it had been touch and go before); Islam, you'll be surprised to learn, is a religion of peace, truth and beauty. Bush, Israel and the American media distort these simple realities.

Not 9/11, not rape and forced marriage, not forced conversions, honour killings and acid attacks, not suicide bombings, not treating women like cattle, gang rapes and violence. Just Bush, Israel and the US media.

At the time, I felt angry. Not only had I been lured to the talk under false pretences, but she was taking me and every non-Muslim in the room for an idiot, a complete dupe. I gritted my teeth through the rest of it, then left speedily at the end, but not before asking her an awkward question about women's rights and taking a free copy of the Koran.

That night, I sat down and read - and I began to understand. However, the picture I formed was very different to Ridley's. But then, maybe she was always inclined that way. For who is Yvonne Ridley, this woman I am almost indebted to for helping me to discover the truth of Islam?

Please proceed in an orderly fashion to Part Two.

The Israeli Military Did Not Kill Innocent Civilians

Certainly not deliberately. The investigation into claims of misconduct among Israel soldiers in Gaza and the murder of civilians has concluded the claims are false, based on conjecture and hearsay:

In particular, the results of the investigation referred to one testimony
from a soldier named Aviv, who had said that an elderly Palestinian woman had
been shot, but admitted to the army that he had heard about the incident from
two people who themselves had just heard a rumor.

The army said its probe found that the shots were actually fired at a
female suicide bomber.
Concerning another testimony from a soldier called
Ram, who had said that a woman and two children had been shot at by IDF troops,
the army said that he admitted to not being a witness to the incident, and that
according to soldiers who were there, the shots were fired in a completely
different direction at two suspicious men in the area.

I said I would comment more fully when the reports were released; well, as far as I can tell, the Israeli military stands vindicated.

I would like to assume an apology will be forthcoming from their accusers, but I haven't taken leave of my senses just yet.

The newspaper Haaretz had made claims stemming from the rumours circulating among soldiers that civilians had been shot out of hand by the Israeli military during their Gaza ground campaign.

However, it quickly emerged that one of the soldiers had not even been in Gaza and was repeating hearsay, and another was referring to a specific incident which did take place, but did so within the rules of engagement.

There have also been claims that a left-leaning instructor at the Rabin Pre-military Academy may have coached soldiers in their testimonies or taken rumours and conversations out of context. The investigation found that none of the soldiers actually witnessed the events the complaints were based on.

I never believed that Israeli soldiers murdered civilians in Gaza - but I thought it prudent to await the outcome of the investigation, so everyone has their facts straight.

Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper which was so quick to play up the claims, does not seem ready to accept the findings.

Warfare is a tough and uncompromising business. Mistakes occur in the heat of battle, when young men are fighting for their lives. However, these vicious rumours are not even based upon mistakes, but standard operational procedure and common sense.

If you are holding a position in hostile territory and someone approaches you, is asked to halt but continues, then isn't it natural to open fire on them?

Hamas has a record of using women and youths as suicide bombers.

Nonsense such as these allegations not only does a great deal of harm to the image of Israel and its forces abroad, but it is downright dangerous. Soldiers cannot always afford to stop and have a think about how the press will react when they are defending themselves and responding to threats in the middle of a war zone; expecting them to is likely to get a lot of young men killed needlessly.

The usual suspects are already bleating about a cover up; I say to them at least the IDF investigated these claims. Would Hamas? Would Fatah? Would any Arab military body?

I have a great deal of respect for the Israeli Defence Forces; they conduct themselves as morally as possible in an unforgiving and immoral environment against an immoral foe; they often risk their own lives to avoid harming enemy civilians, and they have to overcome the huge hurdles of intense public and international scrutiny, as well as the unscrupulousness of Hamas, with its booby traps, suicide bombers and human shields.

Under the circumstances, they do a very hard job well, and I think it's about time they got a little credit for it.

This post stands as a tribute to the IDF and their bravery; an apology may not be forthcoming from the directions it should, but at least those of us who seek the truth now have it.

I for one appreciate the way the IDF stands up for freedom, and the blows it takes on behalf of all of us so we have the right to say and think as we wish.

Lincolnshire Fire Brigade Introduces the Hijab

It will only be for female Muslim employees, obviously, but apparently the service needs recruits 'of all sexes and backgrounds'.

The move is part of a drive to create specific protective clothing and firefighting suits for women and their unique anatomical needs.

The hijab version, however, is simply to be worn around the fire station and on school trips - not in an operational situation.

You can see the 'dress uniform' for female Muslim recruits below - hijab, long skirt, long sleeves.

Mike Thomas, Chief Fire Officer for Lincolnshire, declared the uniforms would help 'bust the traditional image of the hunky, British, white, male, firefighter' - even though a great many of his staff probably fit this description.

'There are no better positive role models than women and ethnic recruits in these uniforms, and hopefully they will encourage people to join,' he added. Below, you can see a cross-section of his staff - not many 'positive role models' among them.

Fire minister Sadiq Khan added: 'We want the widest range of applicants to apply to join the fire and rescue service.

'To achieve this, it is important that all applicants - men and women - know that the uniform and clothing they will be issued with will not only protect them but will also fit properly and be comfortable.

'The uniform now available shows that cultural beliefs are being recognised, as we seek to increase the representation of ethnic minorities within service.'

Right, so the 'Fire Minister' is a Muslim himself.

Actually, Sadiq Khan MP is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He is also a Fabian, a professional Muslim and a vocal critic of 'the UK's foreign policy'.

The most interesting snippet is from Wikipedia:

On 3 February 2008, The Sunday Times[5] claimed that a conversation between Khan and prisoner Babar Ahmad (a friend and constituent) at Woodhill Prison in Milton Keynes was bugged by the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch.[6]

Yes - that's the same Babar Ahmad I've written about here twice before. He's the one currently awaiting extradition to the US for raising funds for terrorist organisations.

An incumbent MP and Government Minister feels no shame in describing such a man as a 'friend' whilst he's busy chipping away at the fabric of this nation.

The job of the Fire Brigade is to put out fires and rescue people, that sort of thing. Cultural and social engineering and making Muslim women conform to the modest standards their men require of them is not part of their remit.

Similarly, Sadiq Khan's job is to serve this country, all of it, not act on his own whims and cultural predilections whilst sucking up to his terrorist friends.

If more people simply did what they are paid to do rather than what they think they should be paid to do, this country would start making sense again very quickly.

Al-Qaeda Inmate Escape Plan Foiled

The Daily Mail reports that an escape plot involving 9 al-Qaeda terrorists held in Yorkshire's HMP Wakefield has been foiled.

The 9 men planned to kidnap the prison Imam during prayers with smuggled weapons, then use him as a human shield as they made their way to the sports field.

Accomplices on the outside were to hire a helicopter on business then hijack it at gunpoint, forcing it to land in the prison grounds until the men could jump aboard.

The escape attempt was allegedly scheduled for Friday, and prison officers discovered the weapons haul just hours before the attempt was due to take place.

It is said that the 9 men have been segregated and will now be transferred to separate prisons.

A prison source confirmed these reports, which were originally revealed in 'The Sun', and said that the escape attempt involved some of the most dangerous known al-Qaeda men in Britain and was rumbled just in time.

One of the terrorists held at Wakefield is Omar Khyam. He was sentenced to 20 years in 2007 for leading a terror cell which planned to blow up the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London and Bluewater Shopping Centre (Europe's largest) in Kent.

The Prison Service is investigating further.

Monday, 30 March 2009

Awards for Unsung Muslim Heroes

Sometimes, when I discuss Islamic militancy, chauvinism or terrorism, people ask me: "What about all the moderate Muslims, the productive members of society?"

A fair point, perhaps. Well, it turns out that not only has the BBC tracked down such Muslims, but they've had their own special award ceremony for the last 9 years.

This ceremony is the annual Muslim News Awards for Excellence. Jacqui Smith left her sister's home specially to be there, and other distinguished guests among the 800 invited included shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.

So, without further ado, who are these heroes, those Muslims who make us proud to be a tolerant, inclusive nation?

The winners included:

Mohammed Ali, a Birmingham-based graffiti artist whose so-called aerosol Arabic is influenced by both classical Islamic calligraphy and urban street graffiti.

Imran Sidat, 15, from Leicester, who competes for England in freestyle karate and kickboxing

Mohammed Mujahid Ali, an alternative therapist, for work improving the wellbeing and mental health of black and minority ethnic people.

Reverend Gilleasbuig MacMillan, minister at St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, for welcoming Muslims to the cathedral.

Acclaimed Iraq-born composer Ahmed Mukhtar, who is based in London and is master player of the Oud, the stringed instrument popular in the Middle East.


We have a petty vandal, a sportsman (worthy, but he's no different from any of the scores of other British kids training for the Olympics), a racist masseuse, a dhimmi and a person who plays an instrument no one has ever heard of.

Can you seriously imagine the Home Secretary turning up to something like this if the terms 'ethnic minority' and 'community relations' weren't involved?

In any case, where are the Muslim firemen, police officers, paramedics, doctors? There must be many, so is this seriously the best they can do?

The BBC trills:

A judging panel drawn from Britain's Muslim community judged the awards in politics, business, sports and the arts.

Ms Smith, who took to the stage to present an award, said: "Promoting dialogue and understanding is crucially important at a time when we see those on the extreme fringes of society peddling an empty ideology of isolation, fear and hatred.

"We will have to stand up to them and we all have a duty to make ourselves heard."

Previous winners have included boxing champion Amir Khan and MP Sadiq Khan.

The editor of the Muslim News, Ahmed Versi, said: "We began this event nine years ago because we believed that British Muslims have a lot to offer to British society.

"The quality of nominations from our 150,000 readers show that British Muslims still have what it takes to be pioneering contributors to the common good."

What utterly patronising nonsense.

Dhimmitude in the Church of England

At the weekend it was announced that Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali, scourge of Dhimmis and church liberals alike, is resigning his post.

Damian Thompson in The Telegraph hails this move as a 'victory for Islamism'; I fear he is right.
That's not to say I think this is part of some conspiracy on behalf of Muslims - I smell a deeper and more troubling conspiracy on the part of church leaders.

Bishop Nazir-Ali is perhaps the only senior figure in the Church of England who actually understands Islam for what it is, and the threat it can pose to Britain's ancient liberties. Everyone else seems to be under the impression that Muslims believe in the same God, they just go to a mosque on Friday instead of a church on Sunday.

As a Christian who was unfortunate enough to grow up in Pakistan, Bishop Nazir-Ali knows that is simply untrue. He also knows the ravages which Sharia law leaves, no matter how rich or strong the culture and values it is imposed over - in short, he knows that Sharia is simply incompatible not only with British law but British life.

Is it a coincidence then that on the very day Bishop Nazir-Ali announced his resignation, his erstwhile boss, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, leader of the Church of England, made a statement praising Muslims for "bringing religion and ethics back into public life."

He continued:
"I think Islam has made a very significant contribution to getting a debate about religion into public life. And I think it's very right that we should have these debates and discussions between Muslims and Christians and others in public."

Williams called for bolstering Muslim-Christian cooperation to serve the well being of the whole community.

"The idea that what's good for me and what's good for you belongs together," he said.

"Both Muslims and Christians have a very strong sense of God's will being done in community, when we really follow the needs of the community and work for one another on that in the will of God."

"We've got to deal with it and complicated questions, but we have to make good neighbors."

The Anglican leader, however, admitted that the Christian Muslim Forum, which he initiated in 2001 for bringing UK Muslims and Christians together, had not reached the grassroots so far.

"The conversation of the elite and intellectuals isn't in itself going to change anything," he pointed out.

"We've got to deal with it and complicated questions, but we have to make good neighbors."

Yes, I'm very grateful for the debate that Muslims have brought into public life. Tell me, would that be the 'respect Islam or you're dead' debate or 'the UK will submit to Islam' debate?

Perhaps the 'despite living off the generosity of the British taxpayer, I hate Britain and all it stands for and wish to see its citizens/soldiers dead and its ancient laws/customs/liberties destroyed' debate?

Because if you'll excuse me, Archbishop, I generally see only one significant group making 'bad neighbours'. Incidentally, it's the very same group that has a choice - plenty of countries have instituted Sharia law, if they really find being here that difficult.

How do you feel about the fact that when your churches and congregations are stoned, your vicars beaten, the police just aren't as interested as they would be if it were happening to a mosque and an imam?

Good relations are fostered by treating people fairly and equally. Islam wants more than that, however - it wants to be supreme.

Men like Rowan Williams seemingly want to let it.

Here is a so-called 'moderate' Islamic preacher, an Egyptian called Amr Khalid, letting Egyptian television know what he really thinks.

He is spreading the idea that all of the controversies surrounding Islam in Europe, from the Mohammed cartoons controversy to Fitna, are part of an orchestrated plan to make Muslims so angry and violent we have an excuse to expell them.

At least he credits us with being able to see the danger Europe's 30 million Muslims potentially pose. Here's the video:

So in other words, he puts the whole of Europe into the role of Yugoslavia during the break-up, and every Muslim into the role of a Bosnian.

If these sorts of lies begin to take hold in the Islamic world, what's next? We all know what happened in Bosnia - thousands of foreign fighters, Muslims all, answered the call to help their 'brothers'.

If this video is taken literally, it means that any European citizen is a legitimate target for violent retribution for a supposed conspiracy.

Is the contribution which Islam is making to Western society really such that we can afford to overlook these dangers?

Williams might think so, but then he's always had his head rather firmly in the clouds - he is a lifelong member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and was during the height of the Soviet threat.

Isn't appeasing and recasting Islam as a religion of peace and love simply another manifestation of that delusional idealism?

For all our sakes I hope the answer isn't yes - but I fear it is.

The Changing Names of Britain

An interesting article appeared in the Daily Mirror last Tuesday which tracked the top ten most popular surnames in Britain, and the fastest growing ten between 1996 - 2008. The research was carried out by marketing company Experian.

The top ten are:
1. Smith
2. Jones
3. Williams
4. Brown
5. Taylor
6. Davies
7. Wilson
8. Evans
9. Thomas
10. Johnson

According to the article, 545,707 are called Smith, 418,534 are called Jones and 294,865 are called Williams.

However, the fastest growing ten surnames are most interesting:
1. Zhang
2. Wang
3. Yang
4. Huang
5. Lin
6. Moyo
7. Dube
8. Chen
9. Lu
10. Muhammed

They are almost all Chinese names. I suppose that looking at the time period measured (1996 - 2008), that might have something to do with the handing of Hong Kong to China in 1997.

An interesting perspective on immigration to Britain though - the presence of people called Zhang has risen 4,700% over the last 12 years.

Another perspective is the most popular first names; in 2006 the most popular names given to baby boys were:

The most popular names for baby boys in 2006
1. Jack 6,928,
2. Muhammad (all spellings) 5,991
3. Thomas 5,921
4 Joshua 5,808
5 Oliver 5,208,
6 Harry 5,006
7 James 4,783
8 William 4,327
9 Samuel 4,320
10 Daniel 4,303

Mohammed is included with the 14 most common spelling variants counting as one name. However, it only entered the top 30 in 2000.

The Times reported the above story in 2007, but by 2008 Mohammed was nowhere to be seen on the list of top ten baby names - although it was the most popular name in certain areas, for example Peterborough. Apparently it is the most popular baby boys' name in Brussels, too.

Geert Wilders' PVV Continues to Rise in Polls

According to the latest news from Radio Netherlands Geert Wilders' Partij voor de Vrijheid has continued to rise in the Dutch polls.

If an election were held now, the PVV would stand to gain 32 of 150 seats. This puts it in first place and means it would have 4 seats more than the Christian Democrats, the current largest party in the Dutch parliament and the governing 3 party coalition.

Although an election is not due for some time, it would seem the efforts of Wilders' enemies and detractors are actually working in favour of his popularity. His party started to soar in the polls after he was denied entry to Britain, and his profile has grown since then - he has received he Orianna Fallaci free speech award in Italy, completed a successful speaking and interview tour in America, and now faces a law suit for inciting racial hatred in France.

Could Europe finally be stirring in its slumber? I daren't hope...

Sunday, 29 March 2009

100 Dangerous Islamists in Germany

Yesterday it was reported that the German security services believe that hundreds of fanatical Islamists described as ' potentially dangerous' may be living in Germany, with a hardcore of 100 described as 'particularly dangerous'.

It is believed that between 60 - 80 of the 100 particularly dangerous Jihadists had at some point been involved with fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and potentially 140 more have received 'some' training in Jihadist training camps, Deputy Interior Minister August Hanning said.

He continued:

"The danger should not be underestimated. The 60 to 80 who have returned make up the overwhelming majority of up to around 100 people whom we class as dangerous," Hanning told the daily Tagesspiegel."There are approximately another 300 potentially dangerous Islamists on top of this. Altogether we are talking about a network of around 1,000 people," said Hanning, who used to head Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND.

He added that he was worried about the possibility of attacks in the run up to this September's general election in Germany. "The threats do not mention the elections directly. But for Jihadists in Pakistan the election is important because it will determine Germany's foreign policy in the future," he said."We remember that the attacks in Madrid in 2004 were carried out a few days before elections in Spain," he said, referring to the commuter train bombings that left 191 people dead in Europe's worst terror attack."That really did affect the outcome of the elections ... al-Qaeda sees this as a model for success," Hanning said. "In the threats against Germany the Spanish elections are mentioned. That worries us."

Germany has yet to suffer from a major Islamic terror attack, but with the number of Muslims living there, many unemployed or disaffected young men, I fear that will not be the case indefinitely.

It has come close; in 2006 suitcase bombs were placed on trains heading to Cologne's main railway station, but they failed to detonate. In 2007, police arrested 3 men suspected of planning chemical attacks on US citizens and interests.

The Joys of Diversity & Cultural Enrichment (V)

A regular look at which Western country is getting the most out of its immigration policy. This time the two candidates are Germany and France.

1) It seems that German police officers are at increasing risk of being attacked whilst on duty, and some areas, particularly in larger cities, are practically becoming 'no go areas' for them.

Over the last decade attacks on patrolling police officers and other emergency workers such as firemen have soared by 22 percent.

Matthias Seeger, president of the federal police presidium, said, “Respect for police officers has dropped in general, in particular for young people of a migration background.”He said small altercations held the possibility of escalation, “It can happen that, for example, the demand that a cigarette be put out, can lead to a violent confrontation.”

Berlin is the most violent city for police officers, with 3,371 recorded attacks last year.
Gerd Neubeck, head of the police in the capital said, “Berlin is sadly the leader in this. The numbers are also rising in other states though.”The police union suggested that anyone in uniform becomes an object of hate and the problems with what it said were ‘non-German and German multiple offenders with a migration background, were increasingly threatening.

Berlin’s state interior minister Ehrhart Körting rushed to defend his country's failed immigration and integration policies, stating: “It would be wrong to say that a generation of young people with such a migration background are growing up here to be overwhelmingly criminal,”

Of course that would be wrong, Ehrhart - never mind what the empirical and anecdotal evidence might suggest. For the record, my own personal experience of Germany contradicts him - i had to teach in an overwhelmingly 'migration background' school, and it wasn't easy.

I have also found a couple of videos which might contradict him:

The one above is from Kiel, a city in northern Germany in which I once lived. It shows police intervening in a violent street fight between Turks and Kurds. The casual violence against the police and lack of respect is shocking.

I'll allow you to make up your own mind whether or not you believe the minister.

2) I am grateful to the excellent blog 'Israel Matzav' from where I obtained the following video. It shows a number of Muslim youths and Leftists trying to persuade customers of French supermarket chain Carrefour to boycott the Israeli-produced goods inside. When their demands get nowhere, they go inside and start removing the Israeli-produced goods by the armload - seemingly without interference from staff or police. Here it is:

Here is the translation, also from Israel Matzav:

First man: On this day, we solemnly ask the Carrefour's direction for the last time why they do not indicate on their products if they come from Israel. Why do we not know if they come from the "occupied territories", like avocados or pineapples? It's not indicated at all. It's illegal. Why doesn't Carrefour sell products from "palestine"?

Second man: Israeli peppers... from occupied, colonozied territories, they steal the lands. We see it clearly, nothing left.


Small tomatoes. Israeli tomatoes. It's written there, just there. Israel.

We don't know where those are from, those might be coming from Israel.

Direction: the fruits

They steal the land, and then come to sell at Carrefour. It's shameful. It's taken from the "palestinians", on the "palestinians' land". What a shame. With the "palestinians' water".

Orange juice from Israel. We can see it clearly. Israel. They are sold at carrefour. Shameful for France. On territories stolen, land stolen, they steal their water, then we sell it at Carrefour, what a shame.

Old woman: South Africa started to shake once all countries started to boycott their products, so what you're doing, I find it good.

Second man: Thank you madam

Second man: They back Israeli criminals, more than 400 children killed, at least 1500 people assassinated, here l'Oréal backs these war criminals. Well we don't accept that. In the trash can. All of you who support Israel, look at what's waiting for you.

See, it's empty now, we don't want these products in our home. We're at home here, we're in France, we're not in Israel.

Let's go to the Israeli wet tissues, it's cheap, number 1, let's remove everything from the shelf, in the trash.

Third man: It's written here, imported from Israel. It's written in big letters there. Imported from Israel.

Second man: We're giving a message to Sarkozy, political message, if they don't want to act, we will act.Wet tissues for babies, sold here to the French, it's unacceptable. They kill babies then they want to sell wet tissues for babies after that.Here, the brand Tex, fabricated by Delta Galil in Israel, and sold here to the French, it's unacceptable. It's from the colonies.

Young woman: L'Oréal, it's not an Israeli company, but they built factories there, they boast in the chamber of commerce that they have the best customer base in Israel. Of course, "palestinian" women do not care about their beauty, they care about feeding their children. So we buy them? Those clementines from Yaffa, they are bombs to destroy houses, lived-in houses, schools, mosques, do we buy them? By wearing and buying those clothes, we participate in the occupation, it's illegal. When we see these peppers, we see pretty colors uh? We think they are for diversity, well they treat "palestinians" like racist, they treat them back like in the times of apartheid. Do we buy them?

First man: A lot of us contacted the direction of Carrefour, to receive satisfying answers to our questions. To this day, unfortunately, no answer. Each customer has the right to know what he is buying, especially the right not to contribute to the massacre of the "palestinian" people. We are many associations here today, and these types of operations are happening all over France, all over the world. We will continue to boycott and inform the population. Today, this is Israeli products and products without origin that we boycott. Without a quick answer and changes from Carrefour, tomorrow it's Carrefour that we will boycott!

Then they chant "Boycott! Boycott! Boycott! We are all "palestinians!"

I think it's also very important to see that they consider all of Israel to be occupied land stolen from the so-called "palestinians", for example saying products from the Galil is product from "colonies".

Media Bias About Kosovo

On Thursday I posted the following documentary on YouTube:

In it, British reporter Sam Kylie returns to Kosovo (it was filmed and broadcast in 2008, just months before independence was announced) to see what the situation is 9 years after the NATO campaign and the withdrawal of Serb security forces.

I think Kylie is biased in his coverage, however; not necessarily against the Serbs per se, but more against those who reject the idea of Kosovan independence and leaving their Serbian identity to 'integrate' into Kosovo.

I find this troubling. There are several points when Kylie all but ridicules the Serbs who live in their own little enclaves, generally funded by Belgrade. They have their own currency, their own post offices, their own education and legal systems.

What he fails to note, however, is that the Kosovan Albanians don't all want 'independence' in the sense he means it - they want to be part of Albania.

Many of their organisations and political parties are funded by Albania. They use Albanian textbooks, don't learn Serbian in their schools, and live largely separate lives.

Why is it that if 'integration' is so wonderful, the ethnic Albanians never integrated into Serb culture and society, seeing as they were living in Serbia?

This smacks of a huge double standard. The Serbs have had this territory wrenched from them by NATO for resisting a war of separation (albeit brutally); they must now integrate into the culture of the people who took their territory, the people who smash their cultural and religious symbols, the people who destroy their houses and steal their farm equipment; the people who have in many cases brutally driven them from their homes and villages, attacked them, raped them, murdered and mutilated them.

If integration and forgetting cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic division is as easy as Kylie seems to suggest, why was the onus never on the Albanians to change any of their ways? Why are they also fighting low-level separation campaigns in the district of any country where they comprise an ethnic majority?

In a sense I understand what he is saying; whatever anyone's feelings on the matter, the reality is that Kosovo has a large Albanian majority and is now independent of Serbian control; however, I feel the documentary does not appropriately deal with just what sort of state he is asking the Serbs to abandon their history and identity for, and just where a lot of the backing, funding and resistance to the majority-Serb areas remaining Serbian comes from.

He does deal with the ongoing campaign of violence against the Serb minority, and the attempts of Albanian nationalists to purge the region of any sign of its Serbian past and its importance to Serbian culture.

However, he seems another multiculturalist dreamer; the US and Britain don't want the three majority-Serb provinces of Kosovo which border central Serbia to split from the rest and become part of sovereign Serbia because they want to create a magical, mythical rainbow nation.

We all know how that turned out last time.

Earth Hour

The ridiculous 'Earth Hour', in which we were all supposed to pretend Thomas Eddison was never born in order to 'highlight climate change' took place yesterday, apparently in 400 cities across the globe.

There was one good thing about it, however - some stunning photographs.

See the rest here.

Saturday, 28 March 2009

A Response on Galloway

A contributor called 'dwillsworth' who blogs over at 'In Ruins' recently responded to a comment I left on his blog with a full length post.

The issue in question is whether or not George Galloway actually defended Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, and whether or not the latter individual counts as a 'genocidal dictator'.

Here is my response:

Thanks for this detailed response to my request.

Now, you say that the 'anti-Galloway lobby' generally see him as a 'Muslim-lover'; I think I see through him. Does he really care about ordinary Muslims? I don't think so. I think he cares about any bandwagon which serves his ego and anti-West agenda, to be quite honest.

I want to be clear here; I do fundamentally disagree with most of Galloway's beliefs, but finding him to be quite an unpleasant person is separate from that. Galloway is a hypocrite, full stop, and he picks and chooses his causes to suit himself.

He was happy for Geert Wilders to be banned from Britain under threat of Muslim violence, but he feels being banned from Canada is an unbearable affront, as well as pretending that the Jewish Defence League will attack him or incite violence against him. I don't know about you, but it seems to me the vast majority of the violence and violent rhetoric in the world today does not come from Jewish organisations but from the militants Galloway spends his life apologising for.

You must also ask yourself why Galloway is generally free to strut around the world spreading his message, when critics of Islamic militancy such as Mr Wilders must live in genuine fear of their lives.

Anyway, on to your list of points:
Yes the title of the video is anti-Galloway, but it was hosted by an anti-Galloway channel. I'm sure there are plenty of pro-Galloway ones that also carry the clip. You'll notice that he's talking on Press TV, the Iranian equivalent of al-Jazeera, and I think that alone enables us to take much of what he says with a large pinch of salt. That's not to say I necessarily trust the Western media either, for the record.

You can re-define what Omar al-Bashir is all you want, but the fact is I doubt you'd want to live under his rule or that you genuinely find the man morally acceptable. He is at the very least a ruthless authoritarian - the very sort of person Galloway would love to protest against if he wasn't a Muslim Arab and it didn't suit his agenda this month (don't forget, he's got to get elected to a largely Muslim constituency in east London in a year or two).

Now we get on to definitions of genocide - again, we're back to hypocrisy. If a non-Muslim country was treating Muslims the way Bashir is treating his citizens, we'd have peace marches and protests and hand-wringing. But it's the same old story - I've never seen student occupations and protests about how Arab countries treat their citizens, or when Hamas purged Fatah elements from Gaza - this is why I made my comment about Muslim deaths, because on some issues the Left always seems oddly silent.

Al-Bashir has been in power since 1993. He appointed himself president after seeing his power base increase and then disbanded other political parties. Is this not how a dictator behaves?

I think there is a middle ground to be taken between the typical 'what's happening in Darfur is the worst humanitarian crisis ever line' and 'nothing's happening in Darfur, move along, nothing to see here.' Why did Kofi Annan meet with al-Bashir on three occasion in 2004 and demand he disarm the Janjaweed? The estimated death toll of the ethnic cleansing in Darfur is 200,000 - 400,000. Al-Bashir claimed it was just 10,000. Why should I take his word?

Whatever you feel the West has to gain by inventing these charges of genocide, it's clear that something deeply unpleasant is occurring there, but I too find the modern Western habit of painting a metaphorical Hitler moustache on all its opponents distasteful and counter-productive. But anyway, is the West inventing the testimony of survivors?

I can believe they might doctor Wikipedia, but why only on this issue? Wikipedia often seems biased in the opposite direction on other articles, and surely the criminals Olmert and Bush would want themselves and their conflicts seen in only a good light?

Galloway also fails to mention what Sudan and al-Bashir are getting in return for 'every drop' of their oil - military hardware and training programmes from the Chinese Government so they can continue the war against the black Africans of the south west.

I'm not going to get into 'Olmert, Blair and Bush are the biggest war criminals' territory; I don't personally care for any of them or their policies, but there is a huge difference between deliberately targeting civilians and doing your very best not to target civilians.

In a sense I agree bringing al-Bashir before the ICC is absurd, but only because I think the ICC itself is absurd; but not as absurd as pretending that China, the Arab World or the African Union have more moral legitimacy than the West.

I am not blind to the faults of the West and Israel (a country in which many Sudanese refugees are finding a new life), but it occurs to me that none of the former countries and organisations are exactly paragons of freedom, human rights and military restraint.

I think part of the problem here is simply definition; the word 'genocide' is over-used, in my opinion. But if Slobodan Milosevic was guilty of it and deserved to go to the ICC, then so is and does al-Bashir.

Headmistress Forced out by Muslims Speaks out

Today's Daily Mail carries a special report into the circumstances surrounding New Monument School in Woking and the orchestrated efforts of Muslim governors to drive out its dedicated Headmistress, Erica Connor, and make it an Islamic faith school.

I reported on this extraordinary case here after Mrs Connor was awarded a £450,000 payout for her ordeal, and because her employers and the local council were too afraid of being called racist to stand up for her.

This case is a testament to the dangers which occur when one group is allowed to function under their own laws, customs and rules with compunction by a state too weak and lacking in self confidence to assert itself, its authority or its traditional values.

Mrs Connor, her non-Muslim pupils and those Muslims who wished for a decent, secular education were abandoned by the very forces which should protect them; the forces which tell us that any form of cultural supremacy or arrogance is wrong.

Looking at this case, it would seem that only applies to the native culture and values of Great Britain. At the vanguard of this campaign against Mrs Connor stood Paul Martin (pictured above), a British convert to Islam who felt his adopted values and beliefs trumped not only his birthright as a free-born subject of the Crown, but those of the 20% non-Muslim pupils at New Monument School and any Muslims who wished to have a secular education and be part of British society.

The article is quite long, but I have reproduced it here in full; it is a very interesting, though disheartening, read, summing up so many of the issues we face in this country today, and just how much unscrupulous people can get away with by hiding behind their religion or ethnicity.

'Rising up from the centre of the Surrey commuter town of Woking stands the magnificent Shah Jahan mosque. It was founded in 1889 by Dr Gottlieb Leitner, a Jew who converted to Anglicanism.

He wanted the mosque to be part of an Oriental Institute, promoting a greater understanding between religions.

What irony. One hundred and twenty years later, two officials from Shah Jahan pursued a 'hidden agenda' forcibly to transform a local, secular primary school into an Islamic faith school.

Their aggressive campaign of 'anti-Christian' lobbying and unfounded allegations of racism and Islamophobia managed to destroy what had been a model school. Its inspirational headmistress was reduced to a nervous wreck, to the extent that she has now left education altogether.

Last week in the High Court, Surrey County Council was ordered to pay headmistress Erica Connor more than £400,000 compensation for having failed to support her. It is only now the full background to her case can be revealed.

Using statements of evidence and interviews, it is possible to piece together the extraordinary story of the downfall of New Monument school.

If there is one overriding lesson, it is that officialdom, anxious to maintain political correctness, will often kowtow to radical Islam - even if it does not reflect the wishes of the wider Muslim community.

New Monument is a maintained community school - state-run, with no religious affiliation. Mrs Connor arrived in 1994 and became headmistress four years later. Some 80 per cent of her pupils were Muslim, many with parents illiterate in English. Half were on the special needs register.

But under Mrs Connor the school showed the second most improved SATs results in the country. In 2001, she was invited to Downing Street in recognition of this.

However, these achievements began to unravel in February 2003 when Paul Martin was appointed as a governor - even though he did not have any children at the school.

Mr Martin, 57, who ran a clothes shop in the town, is a white Muslim convert (as is his Austrian-born wife) and, at the time, headed the education committee at the mosque.

Within months he proposed that Sofia Syed, another Muslim, join the school's board. Mumtaz Saleem, 41, was also recruited as a Local Education Authority (LEA) nominated governor.

Martin and Saleem and, to a much lesser extent, Syed, were to be the architects of the disaster which followed.

At his first governors' meeting, Mr Martin demanded they begin with a non-denominational prayer to the Almighty. Ominously, even at this early stage, he said he sensed 'tension between the school and the community'. This was news to everyone else at the meeting. But the storm really broke the following February.

It was then Mr Martin wrote to the headmistress alleging that a Muslim teacher and governor called Rosie Mir had said to him: 'I tell the children to throw the Koran away.'

He claimed she said that the holy book should be read only when the children were older and could understand it. He also alleged she said pupils were told they must leave their culture at home and become 'nice little English children'.

Mr Martin went on to make an equally explosive allegation against another female staff member. He said Stephanie Roche had asked: 'Why do they (children) have to go to the mosque? They can't even read English. It's so pointless.'

In response to these claims, Mrs Connor, wrote to Mr Martin and told him both women denied his allegations ' vehemently'. She added that she also consulted the imam of the Shah Jahan mosque, saying: 'He was astonished and perplexed by your suggestion that there was any ill-feeling between the school and the mosque.'

Mrs Connor took the precaution of informing the LEA's director of education, warning that the situation was becoming 'extremely difficult'.

Tellingly, for the first time, she also used the phrase 'hidden agenda' in connection with Mr Martin's behaviour. She said she heard from parents that proposals had been mooted for New Monument to become an Islamic school.

As an indication of her professionalism, she said she did not have a problem being head teacher of a faith school if the community wanted that.

The LEA remained silent. But Mr Martin made himself busy, complaining to the authority that he felt 'traumatised' and bullied by the other governors. He said he suffered from 'loss of sleep, profuse sweating, loss of concentration, poor performance at work' and disruption in his family life. Furthermore, he was not convinced that the school was doing all it could 'to proactively avoid anti-Muslim feeling within the school'.

A memorandum was duly produced by an LEA official, in which the following observation was made about Martin: 'He takes everything literally and ... one wonders if he does not have a hidden agenda. He is very active in the local mosque and has the potential to do harm to the school's reputation.'

On June 9, 2004, another governors' meeting took place. Again, Mr Martin and Mr Saleem harangued the headmistress on the need for a closer relationship between Islam and the school.

Eventually, Mrs Connor walked out, 'clearly upset' by the aggressive questioning.

Afterwards, one of the governors wrote complaining to the chair of governors, Mark Tackley-Goodman, about Mr Saleem's hostile attitude and his 'highly insulting' observation that parents who sent their children to New Monument had a 'lack of values'.

But Mr Martin was also back on the attack. He sent the chairman an email saying: 'I have been a Muslim for nearly 25 years and I have never had any personal experience of Islamophobia. I am sorry to say that that has changed since I have been a governor.'

Unsurprisingly, Mr Tackley-Goodman lost patience at this accusation. He emailed an LEA official to complain about Mr Martin and Mr Saleem, adding: 'I believe the time is well overdue for the LEA to step in and investigate.'

But the LEA was not prepared to defend its staff. In fact, one of the senior LEA officials expressed the view that Mr Martin was 'quite reasonable' and not a trouble-maker adding:'He has clearly stated to me that he is not after a single faith school.' A bland reassurance was sent to the headmistress and an LEA officer later met her to discuss the situation.

Mrs Connor told the officer that parents were reporting meetings in the community that were organised to, in her words, 'get me out'. She was also upset by an extraordinary ' cultural awareness' training session that had been organised by Mrs Syed for the school's staff.

The session trainers produced a special diagram setting out ideal Islamic attitudes in contrast to perceived English values - which contained things such as drinking, drug-taking and extra-marital affairs.

Once again, the chairman of governors asked the LEA to step in. This time the authority agreed to conduct a review.

It coincided with another 'stormy' governors' meeting. Again, Martin and Saleem focused on faith.

Such was the atmosphere, that the Muslim teacher Ms Mir said Mr Martin's allegations had made her ' emotionally ill' and had driven her to question-her choice of career. In November-the LEA review delivered its report, having conducted 58 interviews, including one with the imam of the mosque.

It found there was 'no evidence of deliberate racism or religious bias within the governing body or the school staff'. It added: 'The head teacher has established a strong and enthusiastic team of staff who are committed to doing their best for pupils.'

But the strain caused by Martin and Saleem's provocative behaviour was beginning to tell. The clerk to the governors quit.

In her resignation letter she said: 'The last few meetings have been monopolised by Paul Martin and Mumtaz [Saleem] ... An inordinate amount of time (was) spent on discussions concerning the mosque/school relationship.'

An educational training consultant who attended a governors' meeting observed 'bullying' of the majority took place. She, too, noted that the term 'hidden agenda' was now being widely used in relation to 'a campaign-by certain governors to get a single faith Islamic school on the New Monument site'.

Mr Tackley-Goodman, the chairman of the governors, went on the counter-attack yet again. In early 2005 he wrote to the LEA saying: 'The LEA are now casting those who have tried to resolve the anti-Christian and anti-secular antics of a small group of individuals, as the parties at fault.'

In May, mediation between the warring factions took place. Two days later the governing body voted to remove Mr Martin. Mrs Connor, the head, said that after that meeting Mr Saleem shouted at her that they were going to get her. If she thought she would 'get away with this' she was wrong.

As part of routine changes among the governors, Mr Tackley-Goodman stepped aside as chairman, though he continued to play an active role on the board.

A week later an LEA official reported a conversation he had with the new chairman, a moderate Muslim called Mr Shah, who reported that the militant governors 'did not represent any community and had been removed from their respective roles/interest in the mosque'.

Mr Shah could not understand why Mr Martin was pursuing a single faith school when that was not the wish of the wider community.

Yet still tensions were rising. June 14 was to prove a disastrous day for the school. There was another explosive meeting, during which Mr Tackley-Goodman claimed to have been threatened by Mr Saleem. He said Saleem also made a 'scandalous allegation of racism' against the headmistress.

The same day, Mr Martin delivered his coup de grace - a complaint to the LEA that the school was, to use that dread phrase, institutionally racist.

Among his criticisms was that while the cover of a school document showed seven children, only one of whom was brown-skinned.

That afternoon, outside the school gates, rumours circulated of the existence of a petition of no confidence in the headmistress. Graffiti offensive to Mrs Connor was daubed on school walls.

That same evening, senior LEA officers were advised by the grandly-titled County Council Complaints Management and the Equalities Coordinator that they should launch an independent investigation into the complaints against the school and its headmistress. If not, they faced 'the risk of a referral to the Commission of Racial Equality'.

The following day the rumoured petition appeared. It was headed with the words: 'We the undersigned, parents of children at New Monument School, no longer have confidence in Erica Connor to educate our children in a way that respects and values our faith, culture and heritage.'

Attached to the petition were two pages describing the headmistress as 'racist and Islamophobic'. She had, the petition alleged, transferred resources from 'brown Muslim children to white special needs children'. Scandalously, the document also drew attention to her part- Jewish background.

Presiding over the High Court case, Deputy Judge John Leighton Williams would later observe this petition was 'a highly offensive document, itself racist'. Yet here it was, being distributed in the playground and to local homes. Mrs Connor said some parents told her they had been intimidated into signing it, and apologised to her.

But by now there was real fear among school staff. Police issued them with personal attack alarms and advised them not to stay at school after 3pm. On one occasion, Mrs Connor said she had been surrounded by youths after leaving the school, but an ex-pupil intervened to help her. She said the experience was 'very threatening'.

So, again, what did the LEA do? It wrote a letter to parents and staff which the judge later described as 'not clearly and unequivocally supportive of the staff and Mrs Connor'.

Mrs Connor was now not only fearful for her safety, but deeply demoralised. She told staff her life was 'falling apart' while the LEA stood idly by. One LEA-appointed consultant warned the authority the staff as a body were 'deeply offended to be called racist.' The consultant added: 'There is a real atmosphere of fear and suspicion ... Everyone is careful of what they say and who they speak to. This seems to be permeating into the classroom.'

Yet astonishingly, far from supporting the headmistress and her loyal staff, the authority assured Mr Martin they were setting up an investigation into his concerns. Two people would conduct it, one of them from a Muslim background, as he had demanded.

Mr Tackley-Goodman tried one last time to get the LEA engaged.

He told the authority: 'The school has time and time again been held up as a model of racial and cultural integration and I would like to believe the LEA will now take positive action to reinforce these messages in the community.

'Unfortunately I fear that so-called political correctness will prevent a fair-minded and balanced approach.'

How right he was. The LEA was then put under further pressure.

A 'joint communication' purportedly from 'Woking Asian/Muslim organisations' suggested in schools where there is 'not a majority, but a significant Muslim presence' there should be changes. These included an act of collective Islamic worship, recruitment of Islamic teachers, 'adjustment of the National Curriculum', facilities for Friday prayers and a staff dress code.

The final straw came when the LEA report into allegations of racism was delivered.

Investigators admitted they could not 'find sufficient evidence to uphold the complaint of racism by the school or the local authority'.

But it added: 'We believe the headmistress, along with some other governors, indirectly displayed Islamophobia through ignorance and fear of losing control.'

Indirect Islamophobia? Delivering his verdict last week, Judge Williams was scathing. He said: 'I have to say that many of the views they (the investigators) have expressed are not views I would have reached on the evidence before me.'

At the time, Mrs Connor was simply 'horrified' - and 28 of her staff signed a letter to the LEA damning the report. They said they felt 'let down' by the authority.

On September 21, 2005, the deputy head teacher was certified unfit for work due to stress. Six days later Mrs Connor followed suit. Neither has been back to New Monument. Mrs Connor has not taught again.

With the school in disarray, Ofsted was forced to intervene, placing it under special measures and appointing an interim head teacher and deputy. Academic standards slipped. The school's subsequent Ofsted report stated, thanks to plunging morale among teachers, 'standards are low and pupils' achievement inadequate'.

Mr Martin still lives in the area, but is no longer involved with the school. He declined to speak to the Mail. Mr Saleem has moved out of the area and could not be contacted. Nor could Mrs Syed.

Their legacy, though, is only too apparent. New Monument, once a beacon for community cohesion and educational excellence, has been sacrificed on the altar of religious bigotry.'

Fjordman Fights False History

Over at Gates of Vienna the noted Norwegian blogger Fjordman has published a review of two books which distort the extent to which Western Civilisation and its scientific advancements owe a debt to Arab Muslim scholarship.

Below is an excerpt:

Stephen O’Shea of The Los Angeles Times has reviewed the book The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization by Jonathan Lyons. I will publish a longer and more thorough rebuttal of this book at some point in April, either at Jihad Watch or at Atlas Shrugs. I will publish a review of John Freely’s related book Aladdin’s Lamp: How Greek Science Came to Europe Through the Islamic World next week at The Brussels Journal.

I have read both of them, and Freely’s book is the best of the two, or the least bad, since he at a minimum has some understanding of the history of science, which Mr. Lyons in my view does not. That doesn’t mean that I would recommend buying his book; there are better and more balanced titles available on the market. Stephen O’Shea in his very positive review claims that “Dust will never gather on Jonathan Lyons’ lively new book of medieval history.” I strongly disagree. I consider The House of Wisdom to be a bad case of poor scholarship.

Lyons’ book is 200 pages long, Freely’s Aladdin’s Lamp 255 pages. Neither of them mentions the terms ‘Jihad’ or ‘dhimmi’ even once in their books about Islamic culture. This says a great deal about the current intellectual climate. I didn’t notice these words while reading the books and they are not listed in the indexes. The authors certainly don’t devote much time to debating the violent aspects of Islamic expansionism through the Islamically unique institution of Jihad, or the fates of the conquered peoples. Is it a coincidence that whatever useful work that was done in the Islamic world happened during the first centuries of the Islamic era, while there were still large numbers of non-Muslims living in the region? We don’t know because the question is never debated by these authors, but it deserves to be.

It's an excellent read - head over there to read the rest.

Friday, 27 March 2009

Double Standards on Racism

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes Blog

The video below shows Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva blaming the world's financial crisis on 'white people with blue eyes' in front of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Sources say 'it was an uncomfortable moment' for Mr Brown - but then added 'the remarks were meant for domestic consumption'.

Oh, that's OK then!

Can you seriously imagine the outcry had he blamed black people for the economic crisis?

I highly doubt there would be any excusing his remarks then, even if they were innocent or taken out of context.

Aren't double standards wonderful?

The Passover Massacre of 2002

At the Park Hotel in Netanya on 27th March 2002, a ceremony was held to celebrate the Jewish ceremony of Passover, which marks the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.

A Hamas suicide bomber, Abdel-Basset Obeh, 25, strolled past the security guard at the entrance, entered the main dining hall, and detonated a device carried in a suitcase.

28 people died instantly, and 2 more would die later of their wounds. Over 140 people were injured. Many of the dead and injured were elderly people, and some were Holocaust survivors.

This attack, classed as part of the Second Intifada, is the deadliest suicide bombing carried out by Hamas on Israeli civilians to date, albeit by quite a small margin.

The bomber was already on the wanted list of the Shin Bet, but apparently wasn't seen as a very high priority.

On the same day, 27th March 2002, Israeli authorities found a suicide bomber hidden in the back of a Red Crescent ambulance, his 10 kilo explosives belt hidden under a stretcher containing a young boy. His family were also present in the back.

The Palestinian Authority, the allegedly 'moderate' Fatah led by Mahmoud Abbas with whom the Israelis are supposed to believe they can do business, funded this the year after the Passover massacre:

A Palestinian soccer tournament for 12-year-old boys has been named after the suicide bomber who killed 29 Jews during Passover Seder. The suicide bomber's brother has been chosen to present the trophy to the winning team. All seven teams participating in the tournament are named after terrorists and others who the PA refers to as Shahids - those having died for Allah.

The following is the report in the official PA paper< "...in Tulkarm's Abd Al-Majid Tia School soccer field, under the auspices of Jamal Tarif, director of education; Sport Supervisor Jamal Odeh; and in the presence of school principal Jamal Ayat; the head of the Sports committee, and committee members; the Tulkarm Shahids Memorial Soccer Championship tournament of the Shahid Abd Al-Baset Odeh [the suicide bomber who attacked a Netanya hotel last Passover Eve], began with the participation of seven top teams, named after Shahids who gave their lives to redeem the homeland. Isam, the brother of the Shahid, will distribute the trophies.

"The teams are:
Abed Al Basset Odeh [carried out the Passover Eve Massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya] Raed Carmi [slain Tulkarm Fatah Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade commander]
Wajdi Al-Hatab [Palestinian child who requested cake be distributed after his death in combat]Tarek Abu Safaka [carried out the suicide attack on the Samaria community of Hermesh on February 10, 2002, killing three Israelis]
Tarek Alqato [Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade operative killed in a clash with IDF troops]
Mahmud Marmash [Netanya suicide bomber]
Husam Al[Hamshari [Sports pages of the official PA daily newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida January 21, 2003]. '

That's right. Blow up a room full of Jewish people, many elderly, and 12 year old boys can play in a football league named after you!

Is it any wonder the cycle of violence is perpetual?

This is why I fully support every single measure Israel has taken to improve its security and protect its citizens since, no matter how controversial.

The suicide bombings and other violence needed to stop; clearly there was only will for that to happen on one side, the Israeli side.

The much criticised measures such as the West Bank Barrier have been largely effective in preventing suicide attacks on Israeli civilians.

Clearly, there is a long way to go before the fanatics of Hamas and all the other Arab 'liberation' organisations renounce their struggle; in fact, such a long way to go that I can never see it happening.

That is why Israel must do all she can to defend her citizens.

I would like this post to stand as a tribute to all those Israelis and other innocents who have died in this pointless, bitter campaign of violence perpetuated by psychopaths, fanatics, cowards and religious maniacs, the overwhelming majority of them Arab Muslims who can't accept the status quo.

God bless Israel and those who protect her, and long may she remain a bastion of freedom and enlightenment in a sea of barbarity and Medieval darkness.

George Galloway Shamelessly Lying Again

Here is a video of George Galloway talking his usual brand of hyperbole and nonsense at Rutgers University in New Jersey, US.

Apparently he is not a terrorist supporter or a supporter of Hamas. He does however count the late terrorist Yasser Arafat as a 'comrade', and claims if he had a vote in Gaza's election his would have gone to Marwan Barghouti مروان البرغوثي . He seems to believe that this is somehow a redeeming feature - because it's just so obvious that those dastardly Zionists set the whole 'Marwan Barghouti is a murderous criminal who led uprisings in the Second Intifada' thing up.

As my old history teacher used to say: "Well, now we know."

The clip is ten minutes long, and there are a number of lies on many subjects, from the freedom of the Gaza election to the current living conditions there and Israeli military activities - see if you can count the lies and leave the total in a comment.

Anger & Anarchy

The campaign to blame bankers for the Government's incompetence is stepping up a gear, with the enthusiastic support of the British public and far-Left anarchist groups.

Earlier this week the home of Sir Fred Goodwin, Gordon Brown's favourite scapegoat, was attacked. Windows were smashed at the £3 million mansion, and a Mercedes S600 Saloon parked outside was damaged.

The tabloids are now complaining that one of those greedy fat-cat bankers who ruined our lives with their greed, the Capitalist, probably Tory-voting scum has a personal police guard sitting outside his house.

Well if you target a man's home and family for wrongs you perceive he committed in his working life, then that will probably happen. The idiots who vandalised his house and car have cost the public that money, not Sir Fred.

I must say I personally resent paying for Gordon Brown and the rest of the Government to live in their bubble of ignorance and privilege far more.

Because ultimately, Gordon, the buck stops with you. You were Chancellor for 10 years, and have been Prime Minister for nearly 2. You wanted the top job, and you were quite happy to use any dirty trick to get it, including pretending the largely stable economic conditions your Government inherited were your doing.

You told shameless lies - remember 'boom, and an end to the days of bust'?

Whilst you were telling these lies, you were busy spending like a drunken sailor and pillaging this country's assets like some Mongol-in-Chief.

How much would all that gold you took and sold off cheap to fund god-knows-what be worth now? Yeah, about 3 times as much.

You economic genius, you. I probably know more about Quantum Physics than I do Economics, and I know nothing of the former.

Yet I do know a loan isn't the solution to debt and you can't spend your way solvent.

Now, Gordon, it's time to take some responsibility. You signed off the pension payments for Sir Fred when you thought no one was looking - before it was convenient to pin your woes and failings on the man.

Let's be clear here; unlike you, Sir Fred did his job. Your responsibility should be to this country as a whole; his was only to RBS.

RBS may have lost £25 billion on his watch, but he got the Government to invest, perhaps making the bank as stable as it ever will be. So he did what he was paid for and contracted for - he got people to shore up his bank with large sums of cash.

Gordon, your job is undoubtedly more complex. But you can make up for your failings by suppressing your inner-Socialist and not letting this crisis be an excuse for the radical Left to rise in influence.

We have violent groups of extremists threatening to attack the homes of more people, a violent anarchist professor who lives in a £1 million home threatening to storm any building which does not turn off its lights during Saturday's 'Earth Hour', as well as urging people to attack the G20 and storm banks.

Let's just hope you're not looking the other way this time, Gordon, or our future does indeed look bleak.

Thursday, 26 March 2009

Shahid Malik MP Calls for a Muslim Dominated Britain

The above video was uploaded to YouTube on the 18th of March 2009. In it, you can see Shahid Malik MP, Britain's first Muslim minister, talking about the number of Muslims in the British Parliament.

He was addressing the Global Peace and Unity Conference in October 2008. However, as far as I'm aware, traditional media outlets did not cover the conference, or at least did not show this clip.

Malik talks about how the proportion of Muslim MPs has grown since the first one was elected in 1997. He jokes that 'at this rate the whole Parliament will be Muslim', but then says in all seriousness there should be at least 20 Muslim MPs.

Peppering his speech with 'inshallah', 'God willing', he even predicts that in 30 years Britain could have a Muslim Prime Minister, again 'inshallah'.

I must confess, I have a bit of a problem with all of this. Firstly, why is it the case that if I am represented by a Muslim MP I am supposed to see it as progress, a great leap forwards - but the very implication of being concerned about the number of Muslim MPs is that if Muslims are represented by an MP who is not Muslim, it is some sort of insufferable, unbearable slight?

The '20 Muslim MPs' remark is a call for what he sees as fair representation. I disagree, but fair enough. However, the 'Muslim Prime Minister' remark is totally different, and reveals his true agenda - he wants not only a Muslim dominated Britain, but a Muslim orientated Britain. If led by a Muslim, no matter what percentage of the country's population was Muslim, our foreign policy would be Islam-friendly overnight. This would isolate us from our natural, cultural and spiritual allies.

This sort of talk encourages division. The only white MPs who represent heavily Muslim constituencies these days are shameless apologists like George Galloway. If a Sikh or Hindu candidate stands in a largely Muslim constituency, they will generally lose.

Malik himself is the MP for Dewsbury, a heavily Muslim constituency in West Yorkshire. In 2005, Malik won for Labour. The Conservative candidate, also a Muslim, came second, taking 29% of the vote to Malik's 41%. The Lib Dems came third with around 14%, and the BNP fourth with around 13%.

George Galloway's constituency, Bethnal Green & Bow, is also largely Muslim. In the next election, Galloway will stand for a newly created seat next door, and the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and Galloway's Respect party will all field Muslim candidates.

This seems to be the way forward in Muslim areas. If these trends continue, the idea of a Muslim Prime Minister does not seem so ridiculous.

Should that be a problem?

Well, if the potential PM is anything like Shahid Malik, then I'm afraid it is a problem. Malik isn't just an MP who happens to be Muslim - he is a Muslim who happens to be an MP in Britain. Is there a difference?

I think so. Malik has exactly the sort of CV you would expect from a 'professional Muslim' - involvement in operation Black Vote, chief group executive of the Pakistan Muslim Centre in Sheffield, a position with the Commission for Racial Equality.

Malik came to national prominence in 2001; son of the Deputy Mayor of Burnley, he was arrested during the Burnley Race Riots, and shown on TV handcuffed, his face covered in blood. Lancashire Police later accepted he was working as a 'peacemaker' in the crowd and apologised to him.

He is a supporter of Holocaust Memorial Day, despite being a fierce critic of Israel. He observed the Palestinian elections in 2005, and in 2006 toured the areas of Lebanon bombed by Israel in retaliation for Hezbollah attacks. However Malik did not see it this way, and was sharply critical of the UK Government's silence and foreign policy towards Israel.

In 2007 he accused the US immigration authorities of wrongly detaining him for 40 minutes whilst they searched for explosives. They dispute his claims.

The job of an MP is to represent their constituents, and I suppose he does that - but the job of the Prime Minister is to lead, work for and represent the people of this country, at home and abroad.

Malik clearly cares more about being a Muslim than he does British, so why should I believe he would put my interests first? Or those of Britain as a whole? He has had his shining moments - like refusing to support a teacher who claimed discrimination because she could not wear her niqab to work, and calling for the swift removal of failed asylum seekers.

However, it is hard to tell whether he does such things because he believes them, or because he is trying to improve Islam's image and score points from the BNP.

However, the idea that any opposition to Islamification or call for immigrants to accept British values is hatred is taking root and growing.

On the same day this video appeared on YouTube, an article was published in the Sun newspaper. The main picture of the double page spread is 9 English school children gathered around an Imam in a Mosque in Stoke.

It begins: 'This could be a scene straight from a Taliban training school in Pakistan’s lawless badlands.But these are not young people being brainwashed into hating the West — they are non-Muslim teens from Stoke taking part in a challenge which could help change the face of race relations in the UK.'

Er, well they're certainly being brainwashed into something.

They are taking part in the 'Step Up' campaign, run by Pakistani tycoon Mo Chaudry and English darts legend Phil Taylor. Its premise is to help community relations and harmony, and stop the growth of the BNP among the white working-class voters who have been abandoned by mainstream politics.

It works by getting a number of white children involved in learning about different cultures in the area. At the end of the programme the 'most accepting' six after 'cultural coaching' will get work placements with top London firms. They are (and I'm not joking) given a test on 'entrepreneurial skills and race-relations'.

Chaudry says: "We all have to live together so we might as well get on with it."

Right. So you'll be taking Muslim kids to church then, will you? Thought not.

Ultimately this is not a Muslim country. I'm all for tolerance and respect, but it must work both ways or it won't work at all. Why should I respect cultural mores that wish to subvert my own? Living together is hard because so many groups refuse to at least try to conform to the mainstream, not because no English kids attend mosques.

One of the teenagers on the scheme, Michaela Bills, 15, said: "I was so nervous about stepping inside a mosque but actually Muslims have a lot of the same ideas as Christians, they are the same as us. Everyone was so happy inside and the colours were really bright. This scheme offers to teach us things our parents can't."

'The colours were really bright' - I thought this scheme aimed to overcome ignorance? Is that the only basis on which we judge a religion?

For all the anti-BNP scaremongering, I still can't see any of the three main parties addressing the concerns of ordinary British people. Filling the heads of young people with nonsense such as this should be very high on that list of concerns, however.

If this sort of thing steps up, if you'll pardon the pun, Malik won't have to wait 30 years for a Muslim Prime Minister - nor will one be needed for our descent into abject Dhimmitude to be complete.