Thursday, 30 April 2009
Sentencing the men, Judge David Turner QC, said:
'This was crude, quick, opportunistic, non-consensual sex in public with a drunken young girl by two of you, one after the other, with others standing nearby and in the vicinity.'
With this in mind, what was their sentence?
Six years each - and they will most likely serve three years because of the ludicrous Criminal Justice Act 1991.
As they were sentenced the two men, John-Claude Rugero, 19 (pictured below), and Prince Afriyie, 17, burst out laughing.
Her sister-in-law went home and shortly afterwards the girl also decided to go home, the jury heard.
But by chance she bumped into Rugero and his friend, who were with three other men in a car.
The men followed the girl into an underpass and when she tried to walk away they pulled her back into a garden in the middle of the roundabout.
Miss Farrimond, prosecuting, said the 17-year-old defendant raped her first while Rugero held her shoulders and then 'immediately after he had finished Rugero took his turn'.
The victim told the court: 'When it was happening, my body closed down, all I could move was my eyes.
'JC didn't speak - all he did was laugh.'
Laughing at her and at all of us, no doubt. Well, he has good reason to laugh - he must have known that even in the unlikely event of being caught and convicted he would not be punished.
Now, he will spend a couple of years playing games consoles and using the gym at taxpayers' expense, before being released to menace civilised society once more.
There was a time when the words 'British Justice' meant positive things to millions of people around the world.
Sadly, it seems those days are long past.
Yesterday a failed asylum seeker who killed a 12 year old girl (Amy Houston, above left) in a hit and run car crash walked free after receiving bail from a custodial immigration sentence.
Aso Mohammed Ibrahim (above right), an Iraqi Kurd, hit her more than five years ago whilst she was playing outside her home, and left her dying and trapped under the front wheels of his Rover whilst he ran away.
He received four months in prison - for driving whilst disqualified and failing to stop after an accident. The maximum sentence the Magistrates could have imposed was 6 months - but they had to give him some credit for his early guilty plea.
He married a British woman and had two children with her. A year ago, the UK Border Agency decided that he had exhausted his applications for asylum and appeals (all on us, naturally) and he was seized and put into immigration detention pending deportation 'at the earliest opportunity'.
However, he fought a court appeal against this decision (again on the taxpayer), and this week an immigration judge decided his case was just. He will not now be detained whilst he fights his deportation.
He walked free from immigration detention yesterday despite the fact that the trial judge recommended he be deported after jailing him more than five years ago. He walked free despite the fact that his claim for asylum and British citizenship have been turned down again and again, all paid for by us.
He claims he is still in danger in his homeland.
Weeks before he killed Amy Houston, Ibrahim was banned from driving for 9 months for driving whilst disqualified, driving without insurance and driving without a licence - despite the fact he has never held a driving licence in his life.
A spokesman for the Border Agency said:
'We are extremely disappointed at the court's decision - we vigorously opposed bail for this man.
'Individuals with no rights to remain in the UK will sometimes attempt to frustrate the removal process, but the public can be rest assured we will continue to work towards their removal as quickly as possible.'
The agency said it could not estimate how long it would take before a decision was made on Ibrahim, who will have to report to a police station as part of his bail conditions.
He keeps 'frustrating the process' because the UK authorities keep giving him free cash and all but inviting him to do so. It's not complicated - the appeals are just a series of steps on the road to not going back and being looked after here no matter what he does and how much contempt he has for our laws and values.
So it is not bad enough that he killed an innocent child then ran away like a coward after committing a string of other offences.
It's not enough that he should never have been here in the first place.
Tell me, what does someone have to do before they're no longer welcome here in the eyes of the government?
The culprit was a 38 year old Dutch man who had recently been sacked from his job as a security guard. The newspapers are making it very clear that not only was he a Dutch national, but a white Dutch national - almost with a bizarre sense of relief, it seems.
I personally jumped to no conclusions, although my first reaction upon hearing of the incident was to wonder about a possible terrorist attack. I know I wasn't alone, because I've had a remarkable number of hits today from searches wondering if the driver of the car was a Muslim.
As it turns out, he was not. The man in question, Karst Tates, was apparently acting alone and has no connection to terrorist activity, Islam, or known terrorist groups (not that I actually ever suggested he had, but it seems pertinent to make that clear).
It seems that after losing his job, he may well have been about to lose his home, and he just snapped. Some speculate that this was not an act intended to kill the Royals, but an attempt at 'suicide by cop'.
Quite why he chose to carry out this wicked, fruitless act will probably never be understood; but I would like to offer my condolences to the Dutch people at this sad time, especially those injured or bereaved by this tragic event.
Today should have been one of joy and celebration; instead it is one of sadness and introspection, and that can never be right, no matter who the perpetrator or what his intentions.
Hat tip: Klein Verzet & Joanna.
The BBC reports that a car has crashed into the crowd in Apeldoorn after apparently trying to ram the open-top bus carrying Queen Beatrix and the Dutch Royal Family.
They missed, but two people are dead:
A car has crashed into the crowd at a parade that included Queen Beatrix and the Dutch royal family, injuring many people, although no royals were hurt.
Dutch police told the BBC it appeared to have been a deliberate attack.
Unconfirmed reports said the driver deliberately tried to ram an open bus carrying Queen Beatrix, but missed.
The black Suzuki injured at least 14 people before crashing into a monument.
The royals were attending celebrations for the Queen's Day national holiday in the city of Apeldoorn, about 90km (56 miles) from Amsterdam.
Dutch News has slightly more:
At least two people have been killed and 12 injured in a serious incident during the royal family's visit to Apeldoorn to celebrate Queen's Day.
TV pictures show a heavily-damaged black car driving through the barriers erected to keep the crowd under control, close to the open bus carrying queen Beatrix and the rest of her family.
The car hit several people and ploughed into a fenced-off obelisk.
Family members on board the open bus witnessed the incident.
The driver of the car was cut out and taken to an ambulance on a stretcher. One eyewitness told the Telegraaf someone had fallen out of the car shortly before it hit the pillar. Another said the car appeared to be attempting to drive at the bus.
The rest of the celebrations in Apeldoorn have been cancelled and the royal family will not appear again in public, Nos tv reports.
I would be grateful if anyone who can understand Dutch or knows more would like to contact me, please email or leave a comment.
***UPDATE*** 13:51 GMT
The Daily Mail reports that four people are dead, all of them innocent bystanders. The car ploughed in to what was described as a 'happy' crowd waiting to see the Queen, sending at least 20 people flying through the air.
This is a shocking and vile incident perpetrated against innocent people, and I send my sincere condolences to all those affected.
The police still refuse to speculate about the nature of the attack and whether it was a genuine attempt on the life of Queen Beatrix and her family.
***UPDATE*** 15:51 GMT
A press conference has been held by the Dutch police and the authorities in Apeldoorn. With thanks to Klein Verzet:
The number of injured is 17, with 4 dead. Eight of the injured are in critical condition. The incident was 'a deliberate act, but not a terrorist one'. The culprit is a 38 year old Dutchman without a criminal record and no prior records of mental instability. In contradiction to earlier reports, authorities say he was taken to hospital with severe injuries and was still being operated on at the time of the press conference. Police still do not know the reasons for this 'deliberate act'. EN report here.
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
A Jewish woman who wished to stand as a Labour councillor was rejected because she was 'too white and too Jewish' for the predominantly black and Muslim ward. The councillor who rejected her was not only a Muslim - but the former Lord Mayor of Birmingham.
I do feel some sympathy for Elaina Cohen, the lady in question, but she was standing for Labour - a party which has proven time and again it is happy to discriminate against white people, against men, and against British citizens.
She says 'I can't believe I heard such comments in 2009' - but if the party she wishes to represent gets its way, many white men will be hearing such things on a regular basis.
This is a wonderfully Kafkaesque piece - apparently we're supposed to focus strictly on the article and not wonder about pretexts such as why local British councillors need to go on 'official visits to Pakistan', or Cohen feels this somehow qualifies her for low office.
It's amazing that someone feels the need to feed the politically correct monster which has just beheaded them, but then not much surprises me anymore.
Here is the full story:
The Labour Party has become embroiled in a race row after a prospective female councillor was allegedly told she was 'too white and Jewish' to be selected.
Elaina Cohen claims that Labour councillor Mahmood Hussain said he would not support her application for an inner-city ward because 'my Muslim members don't want you because you are Jewish'.
Mrs Cohen, 50, has made an official complaint about the alleged remarks made by Mr Hussain, a Muslim and former lord mayor of Birmingham.
She said: 'I am shocked and upset that a member of the Labour Party in this day and age could even think something like that, let alone say it.
'People should not be allowed to make racist comments like that. If someone in the party feels I cannot represent them because of my colour or religion, that's ridiculous.
'I felt particularly aggrieved because I have worked across all sections of the community, particularly with the Muslim section, and have been on official visits to Pakistan.'
Mrs Cohen had applied to stand as a Labour councillor for the Birmingham ward of East Handsworth and Lozells, which has a high Asian and Afro-Caribbean population.
As one of Labour's safest seats on Tory-led Birmingham city council, the final candidate would be almost certain of victory at the June 4 by-election.
But when Mrs Cohen telephoned 57-year-old Mr Hussain for his support, she was astonished to be told that she was too 'white and Jewish' to be considered.
Lorraine Briscoe, who runs a local community association, was sitting next to Mrs Cohen when the conversation took place on speakerphone last Tuesday.
'I was disgusted that a councillor could make comments like that in 2009,' she said.
He told her, "They will not vote for someone who is white and Jewish. My Muslim members don't want you because you are Jewish".
'Elaina then asked him if he had talked to his Muslim members about it and he said, "I don't want to talk about it with you" and hung up.
'Elaina does a lot of good work in this community and she does not see race or religion, she just sees people.'
Two days after the alleged conversation, Mrs Cohen and another candidate were rejected by a pre-selection panel after failing to gain the support of the local party.
Instead, members were presented with one candidate, black South African Hendrina Quinnen, who was selected by an almost unanimous vote.
Mrs Cohen has now sent an official complaint to Labour Party general secretary Ray Collins and Birmingham city council accusing Mr Hussain of improper conduct.
Mr Hussain said yesterday: 'I would not make those sort of comments. The allegations are not true.'
Generally I am against socialist, statist methods, but in many European countries the social welfare network represented the pinnacle of human achievement, the kindest and most nurturing a human society will probably ever be.
In terms of medical and technical advancement, again Britain and the modern West are the ultimate success stories, enjoying health care and a (material) standard of living which most people living and most advanced civilisations of the past could only dream of.
So, we care about humanity and we are very successful at putting that into practical terms - as I say, the very pinnacle of human achievement.
Well, so many think - but before you decide, meet Leanne Salt, 24.
That's her pictured above. These are her triplets, Deeana, Daisy and Finlee:
When Miss Salt gave birth last August, she had the rather dubious honour of being the fattest woman to ever give birth to triplets - at the time, she weighed 40 stone.
It took 68 NHS specialist staff to deliver her children, born to a man she had known for just four weeks after a meeting in a nightclub (he left her halfway through the pregnancy) - and cost the British taxpayer £200,000, including a specially built operating table so she could have her Caesarean section.
Back home living with her mother and weighing in at a positively diminutive 30 stone, she receives total benefits of £227 a week - £140 tax credit, £42 child benefit and £45 family allowance - which she apparently spends on her ten-a-day cigarette habit and food.
She gets the children dressed and takes them out just once a week - to collect her benefits. She feeds them mainly on regurgitated junk food:
'They were six months old when they had their first McDonald's,' she said. 'They had chicken nuggets and chips and loved it.
'They like fish and chips too, but I take the batter off the fish, so I guess that's healthy.'
So healthy, in fact, that they are consuming double their recommended calories some days.
Now, she wants her own council house - all on us, naturally. Why? Because she can 'mash a potato and stick stuff in the microwave, so we'd be alright on our own'. Well, her and the scabrous teat of the welfare state, at least.
She can do everything except fend for herself and behave responsibly, it seems.
Why do we reward this seedy behaviour and ignorance? We live in a country where many decent, working people can't afford to have children, where many workers have to hand over almost half their income or more to the government so that fools like this can not only maintain their lifestyles, but bring up the next generation of ignorant, grasping low lives who are, simply put, a waste of space.
These are not the high-minded ideals which spawned the welfare state and the benefits culture; but it is, inevitably, where they lead.
Is the story above really produced by a society at the pinnacle of its achievement? God help Britain if this is to be our future.
On Monday Brown was in Afghanistan to meet British troops and play the big I am. Whilst there, he warned of a 'crucible of terror' emanating from Afghanistan and the Pakistan border regions which needed to be smashed to keep Britain's streets safe. He also acknowledged that the stability of Pakistan had a direct impact on the safety of Britons in the streets of London.
There is a reason why this is so - and is has little to do with a 'crucible of terror' and everything to do with Britain's lax immigration laws and its lack of will even to enforce the ones it has.
This is the bottom line, and it is utterly astounding that anyone could think otherwise. Brown, like all mainstream politicians, is playing a game when it comes to mass immigration. He and his ilk, including the Tories, have indicated time and time again that they are unable or unwilling to listen to the majority of the British people on this most pressing of issues.
Now, after it emerged that eleven Pakistani nationals in this country were being investigated for terrorism charges, Immigration Minister Phil Woolas admitted that student and tourist visas were the Achilles' heel of Britain's immigration policy.
The Pakistani government seem to feel that these raids and the subsequent investigation were a 'slur' on them (God forbid, after they recently handed over an entire province to the tender mercies of the Taliban):
In an interview with the Guardian, Asif Durrani, Pakistan's deputy high commissioner to London, said Britain appeared vindictive against Pakistani nationals and said claims that Islamabad was soft on terror were slurs.
Durrani, a diplomat for 23 years with previous postings in Kabul and the United Nations, said: "Pointing a finger towards Pakistan was shocking for us ... it was uncalled for and shocking."
Well, that's as maybe. But whatever the outcome of the terrorism investigation, those eleven men should not have been in this country - and there are thousands more that should not either. Only one of them was studying at a reputable institution. The Pakistani government are angry and claim 'thousands' of teenagers will now not be able to get into Britain, although I'm sure the stricter controls will only be very brief - the public have a short memory.
My question is, why are 'thousands' of Pakistani students coming here, particularly when the government has admitted that its checks are not up to scratch?
On Sunday, former Apprentice star and British Pakistani Saira Khan told the story of how she had reported her cousin to MI5. He came to Britain on a six month tourist visa to visit her and her husband and see the sights - then he promptly vanished, after meeting a mysterious 'uncle' that Khan claims she was unaware of and had never seen before.
Khan says that there is no system in place to monitor or find those who abscond and then are absorbed into the community after overstaying their visas and vehemently insists she wants to see him found and deported:
It has not only caused a huge family rift, but has also opened my eyes to some of the darker practices among some people in my community.
I am referring, in particular, to the widespread belief that it is entirely acceptable to use travel and study visas to circumvent normal immigration rules.
Fifteen days after he had landed, Kamran packed his bags, with all the nice new clothes I had bought him, and disappeared. In doing so he broke the conditions of his visa, which tied him to staying with Steve and me as his sponsors.
Like many before him – it is impossible to say how many because no official records are kept of those who abscond – he has been absorbed and is being protected by a community that is as colossal as it is impenetrable.
The Government has estimated that there are up to 570,000 illegal immigrants in Britain, but with so many visas being applied for with malicious intent, that figure could run to millions. Not that there is any attempt by the Government to chase it down.
Although there are no official figures for the number of overstayers from Pakistan, or from anywhere else for that matter, there is enough anecdotal evidence to show that it is a growing problem. In 2007, at Portsmouth University alone, 379 students from Pakistan were unaccounted for when their visas expired.
Considering that the number of Pakistani students in Britain has more than doubled since 2001, from fewer than 5,000 then to 10,600 today, the national figure of absconders could run into several thousand.
So that is 379 missing Pakistanis, most of them young men (the demographic most likely to become terrorists or radicalised) missing from ONE university.
Is this not absolutely astounding? How can Gordon Brown send young men to die in far off deserts whilst talking about 'national security' when our borders are this porous, our controls this ineffective?
It absolutely beggars belief. But, as always, there's more; yesterday, Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced that the government had not necessarily ruled out taking Guantanamo Bay detainees once the camp finally closes.
He insisted that Britain must do its bit to aid Obama's decision to free the terror suspects, and confirmed that the UK was open to 'considering any request'.
There are around 240 men who have not yet been placed:
The US is working out what to do with around 240 inmates at the camp so it can be closed by the January deadline set by the new president.
Some may be put on trial in the US, released there or sent overseas.
Several European countries, including Portugal and Lithuania, are reported to have offered to take in ex-prisoners.
So, they haven't even decided which are innocent yet, but some might be sent here (or, indeed to countries which we have no real border controls with, which amounts to the same thing).
So much for being tough on terrorism - it's all just guff, like everything from this dying government. Let's just hope that this monumental incompetence, blindness and stupidity does not lead to a major terrorist attack.
If it doesn't, it will surely be through accident rather than design.
Harman insists that this will make the workplace more 'fair', by boosting the number of women and ethnic minorities in certain jobs and pushing more into senior roles:
Miss Harman said: 'If you have got two equally qualified candidates, you might actually want to have the woman because she is a woman.
'Now at the moment, if you choose her because she is a woman, you could face a sex discrimination case.
'So this says to employers, if you want to, and want to be able to diversify your workforce, then actually you can choose, if you have got equally-qualified candidates, you can choose the one from the group that is under-represented.'
The Government released figures showing only one chief constable is from an ethnic minority, only 15 MPs are black or Asian and only 131 - or 11 per cent - of directors in the top 100 firms are female.
Well, after the next election, perhaps fewer than that will be Labour. The legislation will bring together nine current laws. Many business chiefs dismissed the proposal as a form of socialism.
This obsession with diversity is damaging - it is simply a form of social engineering. If I run a business, I do not care about the 'diversity' of my workforce, only that they are fit for purpose.
Increasingly it is dangerous to think such things, however. When Harman passed her first equality bill in early 2008, any opposition MPs who spoke up against it where dismissed as 'belonging in the stone age' and 'ranting'.
In last Thursday's Times, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Britain's black, female Attorney-General, called for action to 'increase diversity in the legal profession'.
Why? Well, the statistics aren't good enough for her. Out of 140,000 solicitors on the roll, 10% are from black ethnic minorities (that does not include Asians or others) - that is vastly out of proportion with society (around 9% of Britons aren't white). At partnership level, 26.6% are black.
At the bar, 13% of the 15,000 practising barristers are from ethnic minorities, and they make up 4% of QCs. However, only one High Court judge is black, and there are none in the House of Lords or Court of appeal.
Baroness Scotland claims that 39% of student enrolments for the bar are from ethnic minorities, however. Presumably it is perfectly OK if that doesn't quite reflect society?
It seems, shockingly, that none of this is good enough, however:
“It is much better than it was,” Scotland says. “But is it yet totally mirroring the community we serve? No. Is there a long way to go? I think there is. We need to acknowledge we are not over the hump yet.”
Ah, mirroring society. In other words, black people can only be treated properly by people who look like them and have a similar life experience. On the other hand, white Britons should welcome 'diversity' and basically being strangers in their own land (as they will be by the standards of Baroness Scotland herself, I might add).
Is it just me or is that actually quite a patronising view? Scotland is against specific employment targets, but she insists that she will be monitoring the appointment of judges and the stage before of sitting on panels to 'ensure it reflects the diversity of our profession'.
Lovely - I'm sure she has nothing better to do. It's not as if Britain has seen violent crime soar in recent years and people are losing faith in the justice system everyday. More because increasingly senior judges seem to come from an altogether different planet, never mind colour.
On Saturday there was a 'Minority Lawyers' Conference' in London. Here is what was outlined beforehand:
So what can be done? The theme of Saturday’s conference is “less talk, more action”. Kim Hollis, QC, who is chairing the event, has called for positive action to champion diversity and widen the available pool of talent. “There needs to be a clearer understanding of the term positive action. This doesn’t mean diluting the requirement for excellence: it would reflect other vital skills and experience to include those who may have been previously excluded as these factors have not been given adequate importance in any selection process.”
Again, this use of the term 'positive' - positive for who, exactly? We know from experience that it very much does mean 'diluting the standards for excellence'; social engineering always does when it can't raise up the groups it chooses - so it drags everyone down instead.
“In my view there are enough people within the profession — it’s a question of encouraging that talent where we find it . . . black, women, of different sexual orientation, young, old . . . if we are going to compete on a global stage.”
She “would love” to see a black law lord but predicts one only in the next “10 to 20 years”. “We are at a tipping point. We need to push hard to search out that talent we are looking for.”
Where does all this end? Does it really matter if your lawyer is black enough or gay enough - isn't it sufficient for him/her to simply be able to do their job?
No wonder nothing really works in Britain when educated people are distracting themselves with nonsensical rubbish such as this. They talk about limiting discrimination - by making us more and more aware of and constantly focusing on colour and differences.
Long may Israel remain a beacon of freedom, light and civilisation in the Middle East. May the sacrifices of those who gave everything to make it so not be forgotten.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
This was the culmination of the First Barbary War, fought by the fledgling United States against the Barbary pirates.
The Barbary pirates were feared throughout Western Christendom; they generally seized ships and their crews and demanded ransoms, but they also carried out slave raids along European coastlines. Some historians believe that up to 1.25 million European Christians were carried into slavery in these raids - some from as far north as England and Iceland.
The Barbary states demanded tributes from nations that wished to be safe from these attacks by signing a peace treaty.
The war can be largely attributed to the tenacity of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams; they saw the fact that the US Congress had budgeted for tribute to the Barbary states as a matter of dishonour.
In their roles as ambassadors to Britain and France respectively, they sought out the reasons why a people which they had not harmed sought 'to do them injury'.
Here is the answer they received:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.  
Sound familiar? For all who say that the Somali pirate problem is all about poverty and lack of opportunity, or Somali resentment of the West, they need only click on the Wikipedia link above to think about an alternative perspective.
The situations are remarkably similar. For more detail, I refer you to this excellent video from Occidental Soapbox, in which he examines Leftist excuses for the 9/11 attacks and why many Muslims hate the West and wish it great harm.
In response to this, he asks: why did they hate us in 1783? Why did they attack Americans, kill and enslave them, a mere seven years after the Declaration of Independence? Nearly two centuries before modern Israel existed? Before Reagan bombed Libya, Bush Iraq, and all the other excuses used for Muslim violence and grievances against the free world.
These questions are more pertinent today than they have been at any point since the Barbary War - yet many don't even know that such an event occurred, let alone why.
You would think with the danger we face, it would be taught in every school - but then that might be racist rather than tolerant.
Best to just pretend it's not happening - which seems to be the modern West's solution to everything else.
Monday, 27 April 2009
I am not fully defending the actions of the police; as they increasingly seem a politicised, paramilitary force, it becomes harder and harder for me to do so.
The facts of the matter are these; a man, believed to be an innocent bystander, is now dead after being attacked by at least one riot officer at the G20 summit. A woman claims she was beaten around the legs and then slapped by a Sergeant (who had his ID number covered) for no more than shouting at him.
This paragon of anti-capitalist virtue is now represented by PR man Max Clifford and is seeking £50,000 in damages.
This has become a circus, in other words. Whatever the police did wrong, the truth is that hundreds of demonstrators showed up looking for trouble. Many of them found it, but the actions of the police meant a lot more did not.
Until I've faced down a screaming mob with nothing more than a plastic shield and a hollow baton, I think I'll reserve judgement.
The floodgates are open, however. Now scores of people are claiming they were assaulted by the police, and the Left-wing media is wringing its hands - it's typical, isn't it, the fascists beating up a few poor innocent crusties who just want a better world.
The Mail's token Left-winger Suzanne Moore is in fine form:
Was the policing at the G20 demo any different to the policing of many protests during the past 15 years? Not in my experience. Finally, though, complaints are being taken seriously because we have the technology. All those phone cameras mean the police cannot carry on as they always have. I never wanted a camera in my phone, or a toaster in my hairdryer, or all these dumb multifunctional devices ...but this time, you know, I see the point. The surveillance society is turning its gaze right back. And the police are in trouble.
Up to a point, I agree. The problem I have is thus; I don't think the Left is complaining so loudly because they resent police brutality, but because on this occasion that brutality was aimed at them - or at the very least, groups for which they have some sympathy.
In 2004, there was a London protest organised by the pro-hunt lobby, those in favour of reversing the ban on fox hunting.
It was brutally put down by the police. Dozens of the protesters outside Parliament were left bruised, bloodied and injured. Many members of the public described the carnage as the police clubbed the marchers as 'criminal'.
I didn't hear the likes of Ms Moore complaining, though - after all, these people vote Tory and only got what was coming to them.
But I have something even more tangible to compare this with; let's look at how Muslim protesters and native British protesters are treated by the police.
Here is a video of Muslim demonstrators, who had turned up to heckle a homecoming parade for British troops, being protected by the police from an angry mob of Britons back in March. The reason?
Well, the Muslims had applied for a permit to demonstrate and received one. Take a look:
Now, here is a counter-demonstration by British people in Luton earlier this month. Unfortunately, these people did not apply for a permit and that is why, so we're told, the police met them forcefully (not that this was widely publicised in the press, despite several protesters being injured, including two who had teeth knocked out):
Can you see the difference? The protesters in the latter video are clearly frustrated by what is happening in this country, just as the G20 crowd were - but it seems it is OK to treat one group like cattle.
Perhaps Ms Moore would have preferred it if the police had acted like this towards the Left-wing demonstrators:
Yes, the now infamous footage of British police running away from a largely Muslim crowd during January's round of Israel-bashing.
Oddly, Ms Moore didn't comment on this either.
I'm certain that if one of the poor dears screaming 'poof', 'kuffar' and 'cowards' at the police had been hurt, that would have piqued her interest.
That relief could be premature, however - for it seems that British prisons are now a fertile breeding ground for all sorts of violent Islamic rhetoric.
Muslim gangs are not only recruiting other Muslim prisoners to their extremist creed, but also converting non-Muslim prisoners to Islam.
They preach that committing crime is allowed in Islam - so long as it is aimed at undermining infidels and their societies and furthering the cause of the Ummah.
The Prison Service is now so alarmed that spot checks have been ordered at Muslim prayer meetings, and Imams will be strictly screened (it's hard to believe they aren't already, but then that's probably due to naivety or political correctness). They also claim that Imams will never be left to manage prisoners alone, and that at high security jails no inmate will be able to lead prayers, even if no Imam is available.
Early last year, Channel 4 made a documentary about Islam's growing influence in prisons, and recommended that Imams fight the extremist rhetoric by revealing the 'true nature of Islam'. Needless to say, it hasn't worked.
By all accounts, 'the Muslim Boys' gang are still terrorising other inmates at HMP Belmarsh in south London.
On 25th April it emerged that radical cleric Abu Hamza and several of his followers, currently languishing in the High Security Unit at HMP Belmarsh, had refused cooked food all week because they objected to a Muslim prisoner being strip searched by an officer.
The Prison Service deny they are on hunger strike because they were caught gorging on crisps and snacks - but this isn't the most telling part of the story. This is:
The weak-willed backlash came after a Muslim prisoner objected to a strip search along with two other inmates. All three lashed out and were placed in the segregation unit.
The officer who tried to search them received death threats and was moved to a new job.
So not only do they think they have the power to change prison rules and policy, but the Prison Service agrees to the point where it will move any officer who challenges them - for the officer's own safety.
This should be unbelievable. But it's not - this is simply the pattern which emerges when Muslims are given their way on anything.
As soon as one concession is made, it becomes an affront not to make the second.
This was demonstrated quite aptly earlier this year, when Kemal Bourgass, the Algerian al-Qaeda fanatic who stabbed police officer DC Stephen Oake to death during a police raid, demanded that female prison officers and staff who dealt with him wear the veil.
Bourgass, who was plotting a cyanide attack on the Tube, was described thus by a prison source:
"He is very abusive and confrontational and says female officers in prayer meetings are a breach of his human rights and demands they wear a veil. He preaches hatred and is attempting to radicalise prisoners."
Well, quite. But then he has nothing to lose, and he knows it. If there were no prayer meetings, there would be no problem.
Not hugely surprised, but still. Mark Austin wrote in yesterday's Sunday Mirror:
After ridding itself of apartheid and embracing democracy, South Africa has come a long way in 15 years.
But now the “Rainbow Nation” stands at a crossroads as this weekend Jacob Zuma becomes the new president.
He’s endorsed by Nelson Mandela, but clouds of suspicion hover over him after charges of corruption were dropped just before the election.
The new president insists he’s innocent, but many people are worried for the future.
Let’s hope Jacob Zuma proves his critics wrong and turns out to be the president the people of that country deserve.
To which I must ask, is there a less appropriate person to address with this rhetoric than Zuma?
To me, Jacob Zuma sums up pretty much everything that is wrong with modern South Africa. Crime, corruption, tribalism, 'big man' syndrome and the idea that poverty is pretty much an excuse for anything.
Because, in all honesty, South Africa has not 'come a long way in 15 years'. It has actually fallen a long way in that time in almost every conceivable sense and is now to all intents and purposes a Third World country (and no, I'm not necessarily defending apartheid).
What South Africa deserves is a president who does not subscribe to primitive beliefs about 'not leaving a woman in heat'. What it deserves is a president who did not take campaign funds from Colonel Gaddafi, and did not have over 700 corruption, fraud, racketeering and tax evasion charges against him dropped due to 'political interference' (in the words of the National Prosecution Agency).
The idea that garnering Nelson Mandela's support makes him a benevolent candidate is patent nonsense. Mandela himself is no saint, and as far as I can tell Zuma represents what many always felt the ANC should be about. His election anthem, 'bring me my machine gun', might be a warning, surely?
What of Zuma's background itself? Until a few years ago, he was an unashamed Communist. During the apartheid years he led the intelligence section of the ANC's feared armed wing, 'Spear of the Nation'.
He's an unashamed polygamist with four wives and up to twenty children.
Yet still he feels qualified to pontificate to the voters about various issues. How can his views on the violent crime and corruption which blights the country be taken seriously? He has a rape charge (quashed in court) on his record, plus the aforementioned corruption charges (783, to be exact).
Overpopulation, unsustainable families and promiscuity are also huge problems, fuelling not only poverty but the AIDS crisis - again, how can he judge? It is the purest hypocrisy.
In a just society, Zuma would be in prison, not presidential office.
Peter Hitchens wrote an excellent article on the subject which was published on the 22nd April. I would urge anyone who wants a clearer understanding of these issues and how potentially dangerous Zuma is to read it.
As Hitchens points out, the world was too busy hailing Mandela as a saint to intervene or pay any special attention to South Africa when it might have mattered - Zuma is just a bump on the slope of the country's decline, aided and abetted by smug liberal Westerners.
As Zuma was being lauded, despite the ANC losing the super-majority it needed if it wished to change the constitution, it was business as usual for the ordinary people of South Africa.
I've written here before about the 'Plaasmoorde', the spate of farm attacks that have killed over 3,000 white farmers since the end of apartheid.
However, this total does not include urban crime - some estimate that between 7,000 and 9,000 white South Africans may have been killed by this crime spree, many raped or brutally tortured to death even when little is stolen.
On Saturday, a gang carjacked 5 teenage girls in Germiston. If it was not for the fact that two of the girls were highly skilled in martial arts, the situation could have been far worse than a broken nose and an injured foot between them:
Five teenage girls in a car may appear to be a soft target for would-be hijackers - but not if two of them are highly skilled martial artists.
On Wednesday night, Niccie Grobelar, 17, her sister Joanne, 16, and three of their friends Marlecia Marais, 18 and twins Estie and Simone de Kock, 18 - had planned a girls' night out at a nightclub in Germiston.
The five went to collect other friends a few streets away.
When they arrived in Lambton Street, Estie - who was driving the two-door Ford Fiesta - said four men attacked them.
"I had just got out of the car and was unlocking the front seat so that my friends could climb out when they pounced on us. "Four of the girls were already out of the car and one was still in the back.
The girls claim two of their assailants pushed two of them to the pavement while the other two went for the Grobelar sisters."One of them came to me and aggressively demanded the keys. I refused to hand the keys and we wrestled," Niccie said.
What the hijacker didn't count on was that Niccie was South Africa's under-17 martial arts champion last year.
Nor did his accomplice realise that Niccie's sister, Joanne, is also trained in martial arts. "My dad taught us martial arts, so we gave them a serious hiding," Niccie said.
Had it not been for a gun, the two girls believe they would have been able to fight off the hijackers. As the men drove off, Niccie charged at them and grabbed onto the driver.
She hung on for about 300m before losing her grip when a wheel went over one of her feet. "I fell onto the road and rolled several times, and ended on the pavement."
In the meantime, 400m from where Niccie had fallen, the hijackers stopped to let the fifth girl out of the backseat before making off with the vehicle.
Niccie was taken to Netcare's Union Hospital in Alberton.
Surgeon Dr M Somwe said the teenager was scheduled for surgery to reconstruct her nose, which had been broken in five places.
He said Niccie's foot, which had torn ligaments, was to be assessed to determine whether it could be operated on.
Meanwhile, Germiston police said the vehicle had a satellite tracking device and had been traced to Natalspruit. There had been no arrests.
Sadly, such things are the tip of an iceberg - but I'm not sure that Mr Zuma is quite the man to stop it.
Far from ending South Africa's tragic slide into Third World obscurity, I imagine he will help speed it up.
Let's just pray that all those in danger are able to pack for Perth sooner rather than later.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
His unique and often controversial work coined the term 'Ballardian', such was its impact and originality.
Among his most famous works is the novel 'Empire of the Sun', a fictional work which draws heavily on his own experiences as a civilian internee of the Japanese military during the Second World War.
Born in Shanghai's International Settlement, he was 13 when the Japanese invaded and his family were sent to Lunghua Civilian Assembly Centre.
Japanese war crimes and brutality during that period are fairly well-documented, particularly regarding Chinese civilians and Western POWs. However, it is not widely known in the West that over 200,000 Western civilians, mainly Dutch, British, American and Australian were captured and interned by the Japanese for the duration of the war.
Many suffered terrible abuses, and there were summary executions, widespread starvation and mistreatment and even cases of Dutch and Australian women forced into prostitution for Japanese soldiers.
In 2008 Ballard released his memoirs of this period, and they are well worth the read. The Mail published a serialisation on Saturday.
Ballard recounts how he knew something of the horrors which were happening around him, but being very imaginative and being a child gave him some much needed escape; he started ff in awe of the Japanese, particularly the pilots, but found a new fixation when American Mustang pilots would fly low over the camp on their way to bombing raids.
He managed to take mainly positive experiences from his ordeal, and treated the internment as a bit of an adventure. It must have had profound effects deep down, however, because much of his fiction was filled with themes such as the misery of modernity and the limits of the human mind.
Here is an extract:
Looking back, it puzzles me that my parents decided to stay in Shanghai when they must have known that war was imminent.
But the cotton works were my father's responsibility and duty then counted for something.
In March 1943, my parents, four-year- old sister and I were interned with other foreign civilians at Lunghua camp, a former teacher training college outside Shanghai, where we remained until the end of August 1945.
Our assembly point was the city's American Club. There we found a huge press of people, mostly British, sitting with their suitcases around the swimming pool, many of the women in their fur coats.
Some of the men carried nothing apart from the clothes they were wearing, confident that the war would be over within days. Others had strapped tennis rackets, cricket bats and fishing rods to their luggage. Together we waited at the tables where Americans had once sipped their bourbons.
Then we were taken to Lunghua, my last real childhood home, where I would spend the next two-and-a-half largely happy years.
Many found his work controversial; he is best known for 'Crash' a novel about the sexual fetishism derived by a couple from car crashes.
However, many of his lesser known works were truly great works of fiction, despite their often eerie detachment from all known reality.
Ballard was not only a great writer who will be sadly missed, but a member of the dwindling group of people who remember a Britain before what we have now, who knew there was worse than the 'evils' of Western civilisation - because they had the misfortune to experience it first hand.
Rest in peace.
Rarely, far more people think that the country is heading in the right direction than not.
I must say this surprises me greatly, because I can't really see that Obama is headed in the right direction at all, particularly when it comes to foreign policy.
The tip of this iceberg is the case of US journalist Roxana Saberi, arrested in Iran in January - allegedly for buying a bottle of wine.
Miss Saberi, who is of Iranian and Japanese parentage, was then accused of working as a journalist without a valid press card. Finally, on 8th April 2009, the charges against her were upgraded to a full blown accusation that she was an American spy.
Between January and March, Miss Saberi was only able to contact her family twice, and confirmed that she was being held in Tehran's Evin Prison. She claimed that she was not being physically harmed.
On 20th of April she was convicted of espionage and sentenced to 8 years in prison.
It is understood that Iranian President Ahmadinejad personally told the prosecutor that Saberi should be permitted a proper defence.
However, it has now been announced that Miss Saberi is on hunger strike, and has been so for five days.
The BBC refers to this as a 'strange case'. Former colleagues of Miss Saberi describe her as careful, and insist she was aware of the dangers of operating as a Western journalist in a repressive state and would not have taken unnecessary risks.
So what exactly is going on?
In my humble opinion, Miss Saberi is a pawn in the game between Obama and Ahmadinejad. Admittedly, she was arrested before Obama's Newroz message overture to the Iranian regime, but the charges have been slowly escalating, and now obviously she is in prison and possibly in grave danger.
Her father and Western observers claim that the trial was a sham which lasted only a few minutes.
This is quite clearly a test of Obama's mettle. Some disagree; they claim it is the easiest way for Iranian hardliners to shoot down Obama's peace and reconciliation hopes in flames, by forcing his hand.
There's probably some partial truth in this. However, what I see is a very inexperienced US President increasingly floundering and being played by his friends and his enemies alike when it comes to the world stage.
The world is curious; how far can this man, who talks peace and has no real foreign policy experience, be pushed?
How far will he go to preserve the fantasy of an America loved equally by all the peoples of the world?
My fear is that he will actually go quite far. Then, like Bush, when he feels forced up against the wall, he may well lash out and regret it. Unlike Bush, he seems to believe that every other leader on earth is also a naive optimist who just wants to play nice.
That is a hallmark of inexperience.
As 'The Frozen North' has it:
At least Obama has finally spoken up about Saberi’s case. He says that “we are going to be in contact” with Iran via the Swiss, and that it is “appropriate” that Saberi is released. (Tough talk, eh?) It’s not clear why Saberi being released should be seen as ”a coup” for Obama. If Saberi is innocent, and Iran is playing political games here, then forcing an American president to go on bended knee to them, via the Swiss, would be something of “a coup” for Iran, not for America.
Exactly. The problem with negotiating with regimes such as Iran's is that there is very little common ground, which is absolutely necessary for meaningful dialogue, promises and compromise.
If one side wants peace and the other simply sees peace as a stop on the road to more concessions and ultimate victory - well, we have the Israeli-Arab conflict. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to modern negotiations, but that doesn't mean it's untrue.
I am fairly confident that if Ahmadinejad thought of Obama as a man who says what he means and means what he says, then Miss Saberi would be back at home.
These are dangerous times - can the civilised world afford Obama's learning curve?
As Miss Saberi turns 32 in Iranian custody today, I would suggest not.
Hat tip: The Frozen North.
A BRITISH air stewardess was sacked for refusing to fly to Saudi Arabia after she was ordered to wear a traditional Islamic robe and walk behind male colleagues.
Lisa Ashton, a £15,000-a-year stewardess with BMI, was told that in public areas in Saudi Arabia she was required to wear a black robe, known as an abaya. This covers everything but the face, feet and hands. She was told to follow her male colleagues, irrespective of rank.
Ashton, 37, who was worried about security in the country, refused to fly there, claiming the instructions were discriminatory. She was sacked last April.
“It’s not the law that you have to walk behind men in Saudi Arabia, or that you have to wear an abaya, and I’m not going to be treated as a second-class citizen,” Ashton said last week.
“It’s outrageous. I’m a proud Englishwoman and I don’t want these restrictions placed on myself.”
Saudi experts and companies that recruit women to work in the country say it is a “myth” that western women are required to walk behind men. There is no requirement for them to wear the abaya in public, though many do.
...A BMI document circulated to staff who might travel to Saudi Arabia stated: “It is expected that female crew members will walk behind their male counterparts in public areas such as airports no matter what rank.”
Staff were also given abayas and were required to put them on when leaving the aircraft. Ashton, a practising Christian, was advised by union officials that it was considered a part of the uniform and she could face disciplinary action if she did not wear it.
On June 13, 2007, she was told she was rostered for a flight from London to Saudi Arabia and refused to go. She was dismissed for refusing to fly and for making it clear she would not travel to Saudi Arabia.
Her letter of dismissal said it was “proportionate” to ask female employees to walk behind men out of respect for Saudi culture. BMI has also defended its decision to require female staff to wear abayas.
Can you imagine the uproar if a Muslim woman were expected to go against her culture and religion in favour of or out of 'respect' for another?
Even one practised by a country in which she had chosen to live?
The double standards here are simply shocking.
I'm glad Lisa Ashton chose to fight this draconian nonsense, thus bringing it to the public's attention, and I wish her well in taking her case further now that it has been dismissed.
Where are all the human rights organisations when you need them?
Hat tip: Tundra Tabloids.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
The Times, naturally, led the charge on this issue, publishing nice objective headlines such as 'Israel's rain of fire on Gaza'.
Oddly, though, they seemed eager to overlook another fairly important development which also emerged this week.
The Jerusalem Post revealed that Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh set up his command post in a hospital during Israel's campaign, deliberately daring the Israeli military to kill civilians if they wished to take him out.
Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh operated a command and control center inside Shifa Hospital in downtown Gaza City throughout Operation Cast Lead in January, the IDF revealed on Wednesday.
IDF probes opened following the offensive discovered that Haniyeh and other senior Hamas commanders took over a ward of the hospital, the Gaza Strip's largest, and set up a command center for the duration of the campaign.
Hamas believed that Israel would not target the hospital due to the high risk of collateral damage.
Guards were posted at the entrance to the ward and field commanders took advantage of the humanitarian corridor and cessation of action that the IDF instituted every day for several hours, to enter the hospital and meet with senior Hamas officials to receive instructions.
Senior Hamas commanders also set up a command center in a Red Crescent Society clinic in Khan Yunis and used it as a detention center.
So is this not a 'definite war crime'? Do we not need an independent inquiry? Does it not put into perspective all the hysterical hand-wringing about Israel 'targeting civilians'?
The same report also revealed that Hamas operatives commandeered ambulances to transport personnel and weapons - instead of allowing them to attempt to save the civilians we were all supposed to be so concerned about.
The most disturbing aspect of this case is that Westerner Dr Mads Gilbert gave several interviews to the media from the Shifa Hospital during the campaign. Although he must have known exactly what was going on, he chose to say nothing and continue his one-man propaganda crusade against the Israeli military. Here he is being interviewed by the BBC at the height of the conflict:
This isn't the only glaring omission in the news this week, however. Now that Obama has revealed that some who were involved in sanctioning the torture of terror suspects may be tried, as well as ordering the release of over 2,000 damning images of prisoner abuse, we're all agreed that torture is bad and must be stamped on wherever it is found.
Well, I must confess that I've not seen the most outrageous story concerning torture this week appear on the BBC.
A tape has appeared of the brother of the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates brutally torturing a grain merchant he suspected of short changing him on a delivery to the Royal cattle ranch.
From The Mad Hatters:
A videotape smuggled out of the UAE shows Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al Nahyan — brother of the country’s crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed — torturing a man with whips, electric cattle prods and wooden planks with protruding nails.The torture victim, Mohammed Shah Poor, was accused by the Sheikh of short changing him on a grain delivery to his royal ranch on the outskirts of Abu Dhabi.
The final scene on the tape shows the Sheikh positioning his victim on the desert sand and then driving over him repeatedly. A sound of breaking bones can be heard on the tape.
Such are the joys of living in a moderate, enlightened Arab country. Whereas the US torture story has been all over the news here, I haven' seen one mention of this (according to some sources the tape is one year old - but I didn't hear anything about it then either).
ABC carried a more detailed version of the story. From the ABC News site:
A video tape smuggled out of the United Arab Emirates shows a member of the country’s royal family mercilessly torturing a man with whips, electric cattle prods and wooden planks with protruding nails.
A man in a UAE police uniform is seen on the tape tying the victim’s arms and legs, and later holding him down as the Sheikh pours salt on the man’s wounds and then drives over him with his Mercedes SUV.
In a statement to ABC News, the UAE Ministry of the Interior said it had reviewed the tape and acknowledged the involvement of Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al Nahyan, brother of the country’s crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed.
“The incidents depicted in the video tapes were not part of a pattern of behavior,” the Interior Ministry’s statement declared.
The Minister of the Interior is also one of Sheikh Issa’s brother. [sic]
The government statement said its review found “all rules, policies and procedures were followed correctly by the Police Department.”
Please note the last part.
This sort of hypocrisy from sources which many people still trust is incredibly dangerous and disturbing. The media's role in a fair and open democracy should not be underestimated, nor undermined.
Hat tip: Israelly Cool & Gates of Vienna.
Today is the anniversary of the 1915 Gallipoli landings, in which countless young men were slaughtered at ANZAC cove, and also at the British landing sites.
Their sacrifice will not be forgotten.
Friday, 24 April 2009
In light of the statement which the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) issued yesterday calling Britain's treatment of 11 Pakistani terror suspects 'dishonourable', I thought it might be interesting to examine this group in a little more detail.
What is this organisation's agenda, and is it honourable?
On 25th March the Mail reported that Communities Secretary Hazel Blears had severed ties with the Muslim Council of Britain after its deputy leader made comments supporting violence against the Royal Navy if it should be involved in patrolling the coastline of Gaza to prevent arms smuggling. Dr Daud Abdullah also signed a public declaration of support for Hamas:
He was one of 90 Muslim leaders around the globe who signed the controversial 'Istanbul declaration'.
It said: 'The obligation of the Islamic Nation [is] to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.'
"The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard everyone standing with the Zionist entity, whether countries, institutions or individuals, as providing a substantial contribution to the crimes and brutality of this entity; the position towards him is the same as towards this usurping entity."
It is understood that Abdullah was repeatedly called upon to distance himself and the organisation from these remarks. He chose instead to launch a lawsuit, accusing Blears of 'crude bullying', and insisting that the document he signed does not call for attacks on Jews or any Western military forces.
He has demanded a 'substantial' payout from the government if it wishes to avoid court. All legal costs and any damages awarded will, naturally, by picked up by the taxpayer.
How did the rest of the MCB react to this furore? Sadly, rather predictably:
The MCB, which has received substantial Whitehall grants, refused to condemn its deputy secretary-general and accused Mrs Blears of 'high-handed and condescending action'.
Of course. So, the battle lines have been drawn, and everyone has made it very clear which side they stand on - as if we didn't already know.
In defence of Hazel Blears, Hamas is a terrorist organisation whose founding charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and she is right to be concerned by Abdullah's endorsement and deny the MCB public funds.
To give you some idea of the toxicity of the waste in which we are currently wading, no less a paragon of virtue than Yvonne Ridley stepped forward to defend Abdullah. This is the same Yvonne Ridley who put the lack of WiFi service, internet cafes and the low tolerance of the regimes in North Africa down to 'Zionist influences'.
Here is what Ridley wrote in an imaginary letter to Blears:
“I have just come from Gaza - a place from where you could learn a great deal about community initiatives. A place where the democratically elected government would be swept into power if there was a snap election tomorrow.
“I, like millions of ordinary people across the world support the Palestinian peoples’ right to vote for whoever they want in their elections therefore I support their right to vote for Hamas.
“Having seen what Hamas has achieved on the ground, I have no qualms in signing any document which supports Hamas.
“And believing fully in international law, I support their right in defending themselves against attacks - the fourth largest army in the world which is tooled up by the British Government has no qualms about killing and maiming the women and children of Gaza.
“What I do not support Hazel are the evil actions of Gaza’s neighbours Israel who deployed banned weapons in Gaza on a civilian population during a 22-day war. We now know,20from the mouths of the soldiers who served in the Israeli military, what most of us already suspected, that war crimes have been committed.
“Hazel, do you really endorse, support and give your unconditional loyalty to a country which deploys its weapons on women and children? Do you really support Israel’s bombing of UN buildings, mosques and schools in the war?
Now that I’ve got that off my chest, I will resist the temptation to write to the Prime Minister Gordon Brown urging him to sack Hazel Blears for her unconditional support of the Israeli child killers and war criminals.
But what I will do is recommend that he invites the Mayor of Gaza, Rafiq Mikki, to London to tell us exactly how he has brought crime down in Gaza 80% since Hamas took over in The Strip? How recycling in Gaza, where nothing is wasted because of the medieval siege, has turned the city into a world-beater in environmental terms.
There are no unruly, drunken kids hanging around street corners in Gaza and the only ASBO that should be issued is on the obnoxious neighbours in Israel.
Well, that's quite an endorsement - after reading that diatribe, who could doubt that Dr Abdullah is as pure as the driven snow? Can't say much about the company he keeps though...
Of course, Blears isn't allowed to tell the MCB who they can and can't employ - despite the fact they have received hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money. What is OK, however, is for Muslims to tell the government exactly who can and who can't enter this country.
Just some of their funding arrangements are as follows:
The Charity Commission records show that the Charitable Foundation received an income of £139,391 for the year 2006-2007; but that the accounts for this period are overdue as at September 2008.
The MCB has applied and gained finance for projects devoted to the development of Muslim communities in Britain.  The MCB received £150,000 of public money from the Government for a number of specific projects. These were: the MCB leadership development programme; the MCB leadership mentoring programme; MCB direct, a web portal for information on Islam and Muslims; a British citizenship programme, and the British Muslim Equality Programme. .
In 2006 the MCB won a grant of £300,000 from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). According to a DFID press release, projects will include (subject to final arrangements) producing teaching materials for Muslim schools and madrasahs and a website focusing on work to reduce poverty and links between Muslim communities in the UK and those in Nigeria, Bangladesh and India.
But then, the MCB has always been a controversial organisation. Between 2001 and 2007 it refused to send representatives to Holocaust Memorial Day events 'in protest at the ongoing genocide of Muslims'. It called for the day to be replaced by 'Genocide Memorial Day', but balked at the idea of the Armenian Genocide being included in the commemorations.
When it voted to end the boycott, one leading British Muslim said:
Anas al-Tikriti: "rather than a mere remembrance of victims of one of the most heinous crimes in history", Holocaust Memorial Day has "become a political event" which "glorifies the state of Israel, turning a collective blind eye to the immeasurable suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis every single day."
The organisation was also prominent in urging the UK government to pass 'religious defamation' laws, and also to get a clause banning 'the glorification of terror' taken out of the Terrorism Act. they insisted that such a clause 'unfairly targeted Muslims and stifled legitimate debate'.
They have been responsible for several controversial campaigns; 'Islam is Peace' was an advertising campaign which aimed to "break down barriers of suspicion and division, challenge stereotypes, combat prejudice, and offer an opportunity for strengthening the values of respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence."
They also ran a 'books for schools' campaign, with the stated aim of providing 'high quality Islamic resources for mainstream primary schools'. and a 'Mosque 100' campaign which aims to build more mosques in areas with high Muslim populations, and maintain existing ones properly.
During the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons crisis, the MCB issued the following statement: "the emergence of an increasingly xenophobic tone being adopted towards Muslims in parts of the Western media" and argued that: "We should not allow our valued freedoms in Europe to be abused by those deliberately seeking to provoke hatred and division between communities".
Perhaps unsurprisingly, they have urged the British government to sever ties with Israel and take a 'neutral' position in the Israeli-Arab conflict:
On 3 March 2008, the MCB criticised the Foreign Secretary David Milliband's response to Israel's killing of over 100 Palestinians in Gaza as "blatantly one-sided", and said: "If we are serious about wanting peace, we must act as honest brokers, not partisan bystanders."
As an umbrella movement for many other Muslim organisations, she argued that many of these were more extreme, and that the MCB's appearance of moderation was a pretence. She also attacked a "cheerful" remark by Bari where he stated that the aims of the MCB were the Islamisation of Britain, and arranged marriages for all.
I think that before the MCB is allowed to give any more lectures on honour, everything presented here should be made known to the wider public.
These people are extremists in suits (exactly the same phrase they use about the BNP), and it is time this became more widely known. This organisation is trying to transform Britain and its values through stealth, and we, the ordinary people of Britain, are expected to pay for the privilege.
As the MCB is now trying to find 'the Muslim leaders of tomorrow', the question must be asked: Are they fit for purpose? Do we want younger Muslims with aspirations drinking from this poisoned well - is it simply naive to feel it could be otherwise?
They should certainly receive no more public funding, and I hope any sane judge will throw Abdullah's lawsuit in the dustbin where it belongs.
In it, Shafiq attempts to argue the case for allowing self-proclaimed Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi into the United Kingdom (he was, after much wrangling, banned). This individual was active in sowing disinformation about the 2006 Lebanon War, and once described Jews as 'a lesion on the forehead of history'.
As you will hear in the interview, Shafiq's only response to that remark is 'well, what language was he speaking in, and was he talking about Zionism?'
Shafiq is hailed as a moderate, and his Ramadhan Foundation is intended to create a discourse between Muslims and the rest of society. In this interview, he disputes clear facts and denies that Mousawi is a member of Hezbollah.
When cornered, he asks why it matters. The presenter replies it is a terrorist group - and this shining example of a Muslim moderate replies 'well, I could say that about Mr Lieberman'.
He doesn't see a parallel between the banning of Mousawi from the UK and the deportation of Dutch MP Geert Wilders back in February.
He insists that he supports Wilders' right to hold whatever opinions he wishes, and says he would like to engage him in a civilised debate. However he can't seem to grasp that non-Muslims might have been as upset and offended by Mousawi's visit as Muslims allegedly would have been by Wilders.
I imagine the difference would have come in the way that upset was expressed.
In many ways it is a victory that this character was banned from Britain, but the Home Secretary continues to make some very inconsistent decisions.
During the G20 protests, two notorious Islamists were allowed into Britain. From the News of the World:
Both spoke at the House of Commons last week at a pro-Palestinian meeting organised by a far-left Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn.
One is Hussein Al Hajj Hassan, a member of the political wing of Lebanese terror group Hezbollah.
The other is Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Belgian Muslim firebrand who has published disgusting anti-Semitic cartoons.
One of these cartoon showed Adolf Hitler and 15 year old Holocaust victim Anne Frank in bed together, with the caption 'write that in your diary, Anne'.
Jahjah has also urged Flemish people to adapt to Muslims, rather than the other way around, and described the 'sweet feeling of revenge' he felt upon hearing of the 9/11 attacks.
All of this is hypocrisy of the purest kind - but then what have we come to expect? As Geert Wilders himself says, there may be moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.
When Islam is involved there will always be disingenuous double standards, it seems. Mohammed Shafiq does his constituents no favours by proving this to be true.
The Red Sunday - (Armenian: Կարմիր Կիրակի) is the night which the leaders of Armenian community of the Ottoman capital, Constantinopole, and later extending to other centers were arrested and moved to two holding centers near Ankara by than the minister of interior Mehmed Talat Bey with his order on April 24, 1915 and later deported with the passage of Tehcir Law on 29 May 1915. In the larger framework of the Armenian Genocide the date 24 April, Genocide Remembrance Day, commemorates the Armenian notables deported from the Ottoman capital in 1915, which was a precursor to the ensuing events.
This precursor to the actual genocide saw around 270 notable Armenians deported from Constantinople. They included doctors, lawyers, teachers, writers, political leaders and clergy. A second wave of arrests swelled this figure to around 600 individuals.
The modern state of Turkey still insist that the word 'genocide' does not accurately depict the events which occurred; its government claims that mutual hostility led to civil war.
In reality the only hostility came from the fact that these non-Muslim 'dhimmis' might relinquish their second class status under secular democracy and would certainly concentrate power in certain regions; therefore they had to b destroyed, as did the Greeks, as did the Assyrians, and to a lesser extent as did the Kurds.
These events, and Turkey's refusal to accept them or the mindset which led to them, are a major reason why I see it as a backward, potentially dangerous state.
Like most Muslim countries, the Turks are more than happy to play the victim card when it suits them, but very rarely acknowledge the wrongs they have committed, and continue to commit.
Hypocrisy is not a very attractive trait - and after their behaviour in northern Iraq, that's exactly what their criticism of Israel's operations in Gaza is.
I would like this post to stand as a tribute to the Armenians killed in the early part of last century, and also to the current victims of the Turkish state.
We should never forget this slaughter and why it happened - nor should we forget who refuses to recognise it.