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

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.

9 comments:

Kwelos said...

Good article. I've indexed it as link PO27 under 'Political Paralysis in the face of Islamic aggression' at The Religion of Peace™ Subject Index.

Dr.D said...

"This scheme offers to teach us things our parents can't."s

That's just wonderful! I'm sure I would want my children to learn such things that I can't teach them, ideas about religion, values, culture, nation, ... NOT!

Why on earth would English parents submit to having their children brainwashed in this fashion?

We all have to live together sounds great, but how well does it work? Is it working for the UK? Is it working for Europe? Or does it simply mean submission - izlam, as the word means? That is not my idea of "living together." The only way we can "live together" is to live separately, that is to put the muzlims back in the Middle East where they belong, and put Europeans back in possession of Europe. Separation is the only solution that will allow us to "live together." Otherwise it is submission, and that is not living.

WAKE UP said...

MUSLIMS, LIKE RUST, NEVER SLEEP.

The only possible stance is No, Not now, Not ever.

WAKE UP said...

And only this morning, I read, in the second sentence of a perfectly innocent profile on BBC World presenter Lucky Hockings, "We have free rein over what we wear, but have to keep our arms covered because of our Muslim viewers."

Who invented radio, and broadcasting? Not Muslims. Who invented film and television? Not Muslims. Whon asked them to come to Britain and tell us what to do? Ask yourself.

This is how it begins, with small acqiescences against the very fabric of freedom, when the stance should be No, Not now, Not ever.

It's also a fine irony that Miss Hockings, who migrated all the way from New Zealand to find success at the BBC, doesn't seem to see the significance of her casual remark. Unless she's trying to tell us something.

MUSLIMS, LIKE RUST, NEVER SLEEP.

Dr.D said...

Don't you know that muzlims had camel to camel radio communication in the 8th century? That is why there were so effective at conquering Christian north Africa!

As was said, MUSLIMS, LIKE RUST, NEVER SLEEP, but I would add, THEY ARE MUCH MORE CORROSIVE.

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...

Dr. D:

Knowing what I do about Islam, I found the entire exercise chilling. Islam is about submission, not tolerance and holding hands. They want tolerace when they're weak, but when they're strong they don't know the meaning of the word.

If it was adding something to the UK and Europe that would be one thing, but most of what it gives us belongs in the Middle Ages where we left it when we advanced and moved on.

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...

Wake Up:

Interesting. I personally would say 'if they don't like it, they know what they can do' - and that's why you'll never see me on the BBC.

But seriously, it is shocking how they kow-tow to this primitive cult.

Mike O'Neill said...

* I still can't see any of the three main parties addressing the concerns of ordinary British people *

In 2013 that's not changed.

However, UKIP does now address those concerns.

Unknown said...

The book of Revelation in the New Testament says that in the final days Christians will be beheaded. Doesnt take too much imagination to see how that will come about.