Aso Mohammed Ibrahim Wins Appeal to Remain in Britain

I've written previously about the case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, a thuggish "asylum seeker" from northern Iraq who left a twelve year old girl to die after running her over:

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.

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.

After getting out, Ibrahim met and married a British woman, who had two children. He'd just won life's lottery - after exhaustive attempts to deport him and appeal after appeal paid for by us, immigration judges have ruled today that he can remain in Britain:

But two senior immigration judges have now ruled he can remain in the UK.

The judges agreed with Ibrahim's legal team's case that his human rights would be impinged if he was sent back to Iraq.

Ah yes, human rights. You see, Ibrahim has a "right to a family life." Not like Amy's poor father, the man who had to turn off her life support machine, who has had his stolen from him forever by a callous chancer who should never have been here in the first place:

Her father Paul Houston, from Darwen, told judges last month they had the power to bring his "seven years of hell to an end" by sending Ibrahim to Iraq.

An angry Mr Houston called the decision ridiculous and said: "What are the judges saying here? They are saying it doesn't matter what you do when you come here, who you kill, what laws you break, as long as you have a child here you can stay?

"He's not a life-saving surgeon or a Nobel prize winner. He was a criminal before, a criminal now and he will continue being a criminal."

Unfortunately that is indeed what they're saying, Mr Houston. In fact, sometimes I think the lower the scumbag, the better they like him.

Only he has rights, not us, and to suggest he might actually have to be a worthwhile human being and contribute something to gain the privilege of residing here is probably tantamount to racism.

So, despite the fact that Ibrahim has a string of criminal convictions and there's not even any evidence he still lives with the fool who married him and his two children, we're stuck with him:

Lawyers for the Border Agency asked for Ibrahim to be deported on the grounds that the judge who originally allowed him leave to remain on the basis of his right to a family life did so incorrectly. Although he now has two children, there was little evidence he was living at the same address and so could not claim a right to family life, it was argued.

But Senior Immigration Judges Lane and Taylor, in a reserved judgment now made public, rejected the appeal. They said the original decision should stand but added that the outcome might well have been different if the process to remove Ibrahim had begun before he had children.

I'm sure that's of great comfort to Mr Houston - and the rest of us condemned to fund Ibrahim's criminal, parasitic lifestyle for as long as he chooses.

Let's just hope those senior immigration judges don't end up with anyone else on their consciences.

The Cost of Being a Soft Touch

Many of the costs which mass immigration of the unproductive inflicts on the host society are subtle; but it was revealed this week that they are varied and often unexpected indeed.

Firstly, it was revealed that illegal immigrants in Calais - who have not even reached Britain or claimed asylum - are being offered 'resettlement grants' of £1,700 to return home voluntarily:

Illegal immigrants queuing to enter Britain are being offered 'bribes' worth £1,700 to return home instead.

The British and French Governments are funding the Global Calais Project which targets those staying in squalid makeshift camps near Calais.

The immigrants - many of whom have paid people smugglers to help them reach the UK - are told they will be put on a flight home and given help worth 2,000 euros if they agree to go voluntarily.

The UK taxpayer's contribution, likely to run to millions of pounds, is to help the migrants set up a small business once they return to their homeland.

It also emerged last night that the Government is reconsidering funding joint flights with the French to take failed migrants home.

Last year the French pulled out of a plan to introduce charter flights to repatriate illegal Afghan migrants, citing humanitarian reasons.

The Home Office already funds payments worth £4,000 for failed asylum seekers living in the UK who agree to go home. But inducements are now on offer to people who have not even reached the UK.

Officials insist that any cash payments made to the migrants come from the French Government. However, the UK pays millions every year to the International Organisation for Migration, which is running the scheme. Last year the Home Office gave it almost £20million.

That's bad enough, but it gets worse; it emerged on the same day that failed asylum seekers who had no right at all to be in Britain were being paid thousands of pounds to leave voluntarily and cover their expenses - including starting up a business once they returned home:

Failed asylum seekers living in Britain can already benefit from generous 'resettlement' grants worth thousands of pounds each.

The value of the support packages - described as 'bribes' by critics - can be as much as £4,000.

The deal includes money for housing, childcare, school fees for any children and even help setting up a business.

Ministers insist it provides good value as the total cost of forcibly removing a bogus refugee can be as much as £11,000.

But the programme has cost the taxpayer well in excess of £30million. In part, this is down to the nature of the businesses opened by its beneficiaries.

A 35-year-old Iranian was given money to open an ostrich farm, an Albanian was given cash to open a vineyard while a Zimbabwean was paid hundreds of pounds to open a beauty salon.

The hope is that setting up migrants with fledgling businesses will give the failed migrants a chance to settle and prosper when they return to their homelands, rather than leaving them rootless and ready to return to Britain.

A few days earlier, it was reported that the government has paid out over £500,000 in compensation in one year to foreign prisoners awaiting deportation - for detaining them past the end of their sentence:

Foreign criminals have been awarded compensation of £500,000 for being kept in custody beyond their release date.

The prisoners were held while the Government considered whether to deport them.

Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, told MPs that between April 2008 and June this year the UK Border Agency paid out £498,897.21, but did not disclose how many prisoners were involved.

His written parliamentary answer was published on the day Parliament rose for the summer recess.

Dominic Grieve, shadow justice secretary, said: “The public will rightly be shocked to learn that not only are the Government failing to deport foreign prisoners but taxpayers are also paying the price for the Government’s incompetence”.

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said: “Our priority is to protect the public and we believe foreign lawbreakers who have committed serious offences should be sent home at the earliest opportunity and last year removed nearly 5,400 foreign criminals.

"We do not apologise for our tough system, but where the courts tell us that we have detained a criminal for too long, we are bound to accept their decision.”

Tough system. Simply boggles the mind, doesn't it?

If the system was so tough, many of these individuals would not be here in the first place, and they certainly wouldn't be able to claim compensation for being (rightfully) detained as their deportation was arranged.

Perhaps if they were not allowed so many appeals at the taxpayers' expense, it could all be sorted out a lot more quickly.

What we need is a government that is actually in touch with reality - and I can't see that happening.

Jamaican Lesbian Fights Deportation

A lesbian drug dealer is claiming that deporting her to her native Jamaica would breach her human rights. We, of course, are paying for the privilege of exploring her right to stay here:

A drug dealer is appealing against her deportation on the grounds it will violate her human rights as a lesbian.

The Jamaican argues she will be persecuted for her homosexuality if she is returned to her home country at the end of her sentence.

She had a boyfriend before her conviction for supplying class-A drugs, but has since had several same-sex lovers in prison.

Yesterday the Court of Appeal heard that the woman, called A for legal reasons, wants to stay in the UK where she says she has found love with a fellow inmate.

But the Home Office refuses to accept the relationship is genuine and said it was just a ruse to get her deportation order returned.

They argue her same-sex relations were merely the result of the lack of male alternatives - similar to one of the lesbian flings depicted in prison dramas such as Bad Girls. Her case is set to cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds.

A, who is 24, was introduced to drugs by a former boyfriend, but since her conviction in 2005 she claims to have had at least six lesbian lovers.

She says in Jamaica she faces the threat of criminal gangs who would set out to kill her because of her homosexuality.

Her legal case is that deporting her would violate her rights to life, freedom of expression, a private life and freedom from discrimination.

But the Home Office believes her alleged relationship is 'part and parcel of a campaign to be allowed to stay in the UK'.

They claim that as A's alleged girlfriend is also Jamaican, there is nothing stopping the couple returning to the Caribbean and setting up home there together.

The Court of Appeal was told that A met the woman she says she loves while they were both inmates at Downview, in Surrey.

Carine Patry Hoskins, for the Home Office, said that it 'did not accept' that the relationship was genuine.

She added that it was little surprise that A had been a lesbian when in prison. 'If she wanted to be sexually active, there was no other option,' she said. 'There was no other choice but celibacy.'

A, who is fighting her case using legal aid, said she was 'lost and frightened' when she left Jamaica as a teenager, but is now more confident-about who she is.

She says she had homosexual and heterosexual relationships before being imprisoned, but had become 'more socially confident' behind bars, and as a result, had confirmed in her mind her lesbianism.

She is challenging her deportation notice, served earlier this year. Her barrister, S Chelvan, said that as a lesbian she would be in danger if returned to Jamaica.

He also attacked the Home Office for withdrawing two concessions it had made to A before her asylum appeal was heard.

Mr Chelvan said officials had agreed that if it was found she was a lesbian then she would be 'at risk' in Jamaica, and had also accepted she was in a lesbian relationship.

He said the Home Office's behaviour was a 'public disgrace' and had 'undermined public confidence' in the immigration system.

The Home Office conceded that A's case will have to be remitted to an appeal tribunal to decide whether she will be at risk if returned to Jamaica, but still disputes her claim to be involved in a lesbian relationship.

Britain to Build a Prison in Nigeria

Another story which, whilst being almost unbelievable, demonstrates the folly of Britain's current immigration policies.

The British government wishes to spend up to £1 million of taxpayers' money building a prison for 400 inmates - in Nigeria.

This will allow us, allegedly, to deport Nigerian criminals currently serving their sentences here. Of course, human rights legislation decrees that Nigerian jails are too harsh for us to deport their nationals to.

No one seems to have thought of the potential downside - creating a two-tier prison system in Nigeria might show Nigerians (well, the few who don't already know) just how soft Britain is, and they might come here to commit crimes to gain access to the comfortable jail - which will be, as ours are, a veritable luxury hotel compared to the life of a poverty-stricken African.

Here is the full story:

British taxpayers are to provide £1million for a comfortable jail in Nigeria to take convicts whose crimes were committed in the UK.

The prison would house 400 Nigerian inmates incarcerated in our own packed prisons who cannot be forcibly sent home to complete their punishments.

Jails there are considered so rough that any prisoner the UK tried to deport could oppose their removal on human rights grounds.

But the Government hopes that by spending as much as £1million turning a rundown Nigerian prison into something approaching British standards, the convicts could be repatriated.

Lin Homer, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency, told MPs the deal would save taxpayers' money, because the UK would no longer have to pay the £30,000-a-year cost of keeping inmates in our own jails.

'We are in negotiations with Nigeria to help them establish better prison conditions,' she said.

'It's about helping them generate a structure that can cope with the prisoners. It would be well worth the money to do so.'

But Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'It's an absolute scandal that British taxpayers may foot the bill for a Nigerian prison.

'The Government should not even entertain this nonsense proposal, particularly at a time when our own prison service is so desperately in need of funds.

'If Nigerians are here illegally and are going to be deported, we should be sending them home immediately.'

Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, said: 'This should not mean in the long term we build prisons all around the world instead of sorting out our own deportation processes.'

Ministers have been frantically searching for a solution to the UK's chronic prisoner overcrowding crisis since 2005, when the number of foreign criminals soared past 11,000 - the equivalent of more than one in every eight inmates.

Prisoners have been offered cash windfalls - which some say are bribes - if they returned home voluntarily.

But this is the first time the Government has announced firm plans to provide funding for a jail overseas.

The idea had been suggested in relation to Jamaica, but never got off the ground.

It would require Nigeria to change its laws so prisoners could be sent back without their consent.

Now, one has to wonder - did it ever occur to Miss Homer that, if her department were fit for purpose, such a ridiculous measure would not be needed to save taxpayers money?

Who is responsible for allowing all these Nigerian criminals into the country in the first place, and not deporting them before things have deteriorated to the point that they receive a custodial sentence here?

Also, on what planet is the Nigerian government going to change its laws so that we can deport these people, unless we at the very least pay to keep them whilst they are serving their sentences (ad more likely offer huge bribes in the way of 'aid')?

This is simply another disgusting attempt by the government to mask its gross incompetence with confidence.

It does not add up when the facts and reality are examined.

Human Trafficking in the Muslim World

One of the major themes of The Lambeth Walk is the lack of respect which traditional Islamic values hold for human life and liberty.

Mohammed himself was a warlord and a slaver (among other deeply unpleasant things); slavery has always been a part of Islam, a method of controlling and striking fear into the infidel or Muslims from different sects and ethnic groups whilst simultaneously serving the Ummah economically.

Slavery was only officially abolished in Saudi Arabia in the 1960s; it is still widely practiced there, and throughout the Muslim world in a variety of forms, which include bride kidnapping and indentured labour. Just recently, the Saudi royal family was found to have trafficked staff working for a pittance in a Brussels hotel.

It comes as little surprise, then, to find that several Muslim countries lead the world in slavery's modern cousin, human trafficking, both as sources and destination countries.

Here is the full report from Israel National News:

Muslim countries in the Middle East and north-central Africa lead the world in human trafficking, according to a new U.S. State Department report. Of the 17 countries that were given the "Tier 3" listing reserved for the worst offenders, nine were Muslim countries or countries with a large Muslim population from these two regions. Tier 3 countries are defined as those “whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum standards" of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 and "are not making significant efforts to do so.”

The Middle Eastern countries with Tier 3 status are Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Syria. The north-central African countries are Mauritania, Chad, Sudan, Niger and Eritrea, all of which have very large Muslim populations.

Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Lebanon are on the Tier 2 Watchlist – one step above Tier 3.

There is then a brief description of the case of a young girl trafficked from northern Egypt to serve a wealthy Egyptian couple living in California:

Shyima Hall, 19, was photographed for the State Department report in the windowless garage where she was kept for two years. Shyima was 10 when a wealthy Egyptian couple brought her from a poor village in northern Egypt to work in their home in California. She used to wake before dawn and often worked past midnight ironing clothes, mopping the marble floors and dusting the family's crystal. She sometimes worked up to 20 hours a day and earned $45 a month.

The article continues:

The data in the report indicates that Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa are continuing their centuries-old practice of human trafficking. Historians estimate that between 9 and 14 million black Africans were brought to the Americas in the Atlantic slave trade and between 11 and 18 million black African slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert between the Muslim conquests in the 7th century and 1900.

Iran: The report says that “Iran is a source, transit, and destination for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and involuntary servitude. Iranian women are trafficked internally for the purpose of forced prostitution and forced marriage. Iranian and Afghan children living in Iran are trafficked internally for the purpose of forced marriage, commercial sexual exploitation, and involuntary servitude as beggars or laborers to pay debts, provide income, or support drug addiction of their families. Iranian women and girls are also trafficked to Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom for commercial sexual exploitation.”

The State Department report noted that “the Government of Iran does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, and is not making significant efforts to do so. Lack of access to Iran by U.S. Government officials impedes the collection of information on the country’s human trafficking problem and the government’s efforts to curb it.”

Saudi Arabia, the report says, “is a destination country for men and women trafficked for the purposes of involuntary servitude and, to a lesser extent, commercial sexual exploitation. Men and women from Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Sudan, Ethiopia, and many other countries voluntarily travel to Saudi Arabia as domestic servants or other low-skilled laborers, but some subsequently face conditions indicative of involuntary servitude, including restrictions on movement, withholding of passports, threats, physical or sexual abuse, and non-payment of wages.

“Some Saudi men have also used legally contracted ‘temporary marriages’ in countries such as Mauritania, Yemen, and Indonesia as a means by which to sexually exploit migrant workers. Females as young as seven years old are led to believe they are being wed in earnest, but upon arrival in Saudi Arabia subsequently become their husbands’ sexual slaves, are forced into domestic labor and, in some cases, prostitution. The Government of Saudi Arabia does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making discernible efforts to do so.”

Syria is “principally a destination country for women and children trafficked for the purposes of domestic servitude and commercial sexual exploitation. Women from Iraq, Eastern Europe, former Soviet states, Somalia, and Morocco are recruited as cabaret dancers and subsequently forced into prostitution after their employers confiscate their passports and confine them to their work premises. A significant number of women and children in the large Iraqi refugee community in Syria are forced into sexual exploitation by criminal gangs or, in some cases, their families. Some desperate Iraqi families reportedly abandon their girls at the border with the expectation that traffickers on the Syrian side would arrange forged documents for the children and ‘work’ in a nightclub or brothel. Iraqi families arrange for young girls to work in clubs and to be “married,” often multiple times, to men for the sole purpose of prostitution.”

In Kuwait, the majority of trafficking victims are from among the over 500,000 foreign women recruited for domestic service work. “Men and women migrate from Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh in search of work in the domestic and sanitation industries. Although they migrate willingly to Kuwait, upon arrival some are subjected to conditions of forced labor from their ‘sponsors’ and labor agents, such as withholding of passports, confinement, physical sexual abuse and threats of such abuse or other serious harm, and non-payment of wages with the intent of compelling their continued service.”

“Adult female migrant workers are particularly vulnerable, and consequently are often victims of sexual exploitation and forced prostitution. There have been instances of domestic workers who have fled from their employers, lured by the promise of well-paying service industry jobs, and being coerced into prostitution. In other cases, the terms of employment in Kuwait are wholly different from those agreed to in their home countries. The Government of Kuwait does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making sufficient efforts to do so.”

What Obama did not mention
The report has four tiers altogether: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 2 Watchlist and Tier 3. Israel is in Tier 2, the second-best listing. It should be noted, however, that statistics regarding trafficking in Israel are largely provided by powerful organizations inside Israel which have been accused of exaggerating the severity of the situation there for political reasons.

U.S. President Barack Obama, himself a descendant of black Africans, did not mention the subject of Muslim human trafficking in his recent speech to the Arab world in Cairo. He did mention, however, that “for centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation,” but did so in the context of talking about Palestinian suffering.

North Africa and Middle East: Tier 3 countries are shaded maroon.

Africa: Tier 3 countries are shaded maroon.

Norwegian Human Rights Service Accused of Exploiting Muslim Girls

A Muslim author living in Norway has vociferously criticised the country's Human Rights Service (HRS) for its attitude towards young Muslim girls and social and cultural issues pertaining to their role in Norwegian society.

Amal Aden says that criticism of certain cultural practices is tantamount to a 'campaign to exterminate Islam'.

From Islam in Europe:

Human Rights Service exploits immigrant girls in order to reach their political goals, says author Amal Aden. HRS denies doing anything wrong.

Both the Ministry of Children and Equality and the Ministry of Labor and Social Inclusion held meetings this week regarding the criticism against the organization. Children and Equality minister Anniken Huitfeldt (Labor) is taking the complaints of unethical methods very seriously, reports Klassekampen.

Author Amal Aden is very critical of Human Rights Service. She accuses the organization of turning to reprehensible methods against young Muslim girls. Pressure, threats, manipulation, illegal phone taps and paying sources are some of what the Human Rights Service uses in its work, according to Aden.

"They told me: You'll be our weapon in our war to exterminate Islam," Aden told Klassekampen. In the book "See us" (se oss), which was published last year, she confronted violence and abuse of children, khat and welfare abuse in Somali communities.

Spokesperson Hege Storhaug of Human Rights Service denies all of Aden's claims. In an email to the newspaper Storhaug wrote that the claims are incorrect and that the organization can't control whether somebody accuses them without reason.

She says further that HRS was not invited to a meeting in the ministry. the organization was not informed either of the issue in any other way, she writes.

Aden claims that Hege Storhaug and the organization uses unethical methods in its work. This includes pressuring her to do illegal things.

This includes:

* Young immigrant girls were offered a thousand kroner to say they've been circumcised, or threatened to wear a hijab.

* Hege Storhaug said she had audio recordings of Aden, and threatened that this will be used against her.

* Aden was pressured to get confidential material from the child welfare department.

* She was forced to go 'undercover' to get data, including by pretending that she was going to circumcise her children

* She was also encouraged to pretend that she was 'returning' to Islam to get material from the mosque communities. She says she's never left her religion and that she saw it as insulting that it was taken for granted that she wanted to 'exterminate Islam'.

Aden told Klassekampen: I know I don't look like a Muslim on the outside, because I don't cover myself. But inside I'm Muslim. I see it as very insulting when it's taken for granted that I've left Islam.

"I wrote the book 'Se oss' in order to help Somali children and women. Not to harm the Somali community. On the contrary. I am fond of my community. But sadly there are those who misinterpreted my book as if I oppose my community and my religion."

Klassekampen says that they've tried getting an interview from Hege Storhaug of HRS, but that they only got an email in which she says that the assertions are incorrect and that the organization can't control whether somebody accuses them without reason. She points out the extent to which it is too easy to make such accusations in the media. Nothing is verified before the newspaper is printed.

It's therefore becomes interesting to see who will use this wrong information in the future, from political and economic motives. As regarding those who give information to HRS, they do not want to comment, other then stressing that they uphold the Norwegian press standards, for example in contacts with sources, and they always put basic decency first. For this reason they can neither confirm not deny eventual source information related to working with Amal Aden.

It should also be noticed that it's interesting whether the government or ministry receives such serious information, which is afterward published in the media, without HRS being invited to meet with the authorities or being informed in any other way. They've experienced that before and it strongly reminds them of methods used in countries to which Norway doesn't want to be compared.

HRS welcomes the authorities to visit their office, so they can show documentation which paints a diametrically opposite picture of HRS' work methods and ethical standards.

Tehran is Burning (II)

Despite the authorities banning gatherings and protests, yesterday hundreds of thousands of Iranians marched on the capital in support of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who officially lost the election.

It is being reported that seven or eight people are dead after riot police and militias loyal to the regime opened fire on the largest protest.

Now, however, the mullahs have declared that some of the votes will be re-counted.

From the Telegraph:

Iran's Council of Guardians has said it is ready to recount votes from last week's disputed election in the wake of clashes at mass protests that have led to the deaths of at least eight people.

In a statement released through state media, the powerful committee of 12 clerics said the move may lead to changes in the candidates' tally.

A spokesman said it was "ready to recount the disputed ballot boxes claimed by some candidates, in the presence of their representatives".

"It is possible that there may be some changes in the tally after the recount," Abbasali Kadkhodai, a spokesman, was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

But a senior reformist ally of the defeated candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the former prime minister, and Mehdi Karoubi said they wanted a rerun rather than a recount of "a few ballot boxes".

The council was asked to formally cancel the result by Mr Mousavi.

He has promised not to give up the struggle despite President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being declared the winner with 63 per cent of the vote at the weekend.

The result has triggered three days on unrest in Tehran and elsewhere in the country.

Seven people have died in clashes in the capital after an "unauthorised gathering" following a mass rally over alleged election fraud.

Reports on state radio said they were killed in shooting after several people in the west of the capital "tried to attack a military location" on Monday evening.

Tehran is Burning

Hopeful as some were that reform could take place, it was apparently not to be.

Incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared victory in the Iranian presidential elections yesterday, and today held a huge victory rally attended by tens of thousands of people. The official results from the Iranian Interior Ministry and a video of the rally can be seen below:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 62.6%
Mir Hossein Mousavi: 33.8%
Mohsen Rezai: 1.7%
Mehdi Karroubi 0.9%
Turnout: 85%



This is not the full story, however.

Tehran is burning. Many were hoping that reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi would win. High turnout, believed to be up to 85%, fuelled speculation that it would be a much tighter race than it appears if you believe the official figures.

Many in Iran, especially educated women and young people (the majority of the population) yearn for change.

They yearn for the freedom to say what they like, uncover their hair in public without being beaten and arrested, and to live in peace with the wider world.

The results belie this, however. They have endorsed a collision course with Israel and potentially the United States, a strict application of Islam and Sharia law, and a continuation of the status quo with regard to women's rights.

Clearly, all is not as it seems. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets after the victory declaration, demanding a re-count and claiming that the election was rigged. This sparked a massive security clamp down in Tehran, with streets being sealed off and mass arrests being authorised.

The British government issued a few weak noises; concerns expressed about how the ballots were counted, duly noted - now it's up to the, er, Iranian authorites to call for an investigation.

To top it all off, here is what Jimmy Carter, who was the Unites States' worst mistake until 2008, had to say:

It does not really matter who wins and becomes president since he is sure that the Supreme Leader will listen and take advice from the opposition.

Sweet Jesus, the stupidity and wilful blindness of some people will never cease to amaze me.

According to the excellent blog antimullah.com, the following things have happened in Iran as of Sunday evening:

1. Former President Hashem Rafsanjani has been arrested and taken to be held at the house of Supreme Ruler Ali Khamenei, where he was forced to resign as the head of the Expediency Council and Council of Experts. He is being held there until further notice to be at the pleasure of the Supreme Ruler.

Rafsanjani not only spent money to oppose Ahmadi-Nejad's re-"selection" but also made a big mistake of threatening the Supreme Ruler with the fact that the councils headed by Rafsanjani were the ones who had to declare the eligibility of the Supreme Ruler and could remove him from office with a quick vote.

He is not expected to emerge alive from his detention.

2. Mir Hossein Moussavi is reported to also be under arrest when he was taken at a press conference and being held hostage to prevent his supporters from pouring into the streets. His life for their remaining out of the streets. His wife Zahra Rahnevard, co-campaigner and head of the Al-Zahra College was also arrested.

Rapidly fired employees of the Ministry of Interior, responsible for the voting results, reportedly told Moussavi he had won by a large margin and to be prepared to take office, two things happened:

a) Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, nicknamed the "crocodile", leader of the fervent, apocalypse preaching Hojatieh 12th Imam followers and Ahmadi-Nejad's mentor, promptly issued a "fatwah" to reverse the vote count results and accord Moussavi's votes to Ahmadi-Nejad and vice versa. A fatwah is a must be obeyed religious decree for devout Moslems.

b) Former Tehran mayor Karbassi, head of the Election Committee was quickly arrested.

3. Former Reformist President Khatami's brother, Seyed Mohammad, was also arrested though his more prominent brother is still said to be at liberty.

4. For now reports of 'ayatollah' Mehdi Kahrubi, himself a candidate, having been arrested appear to be unfounded.

5. All reformist newspapers have been invaded and taken over by enforcement agents. Dozens of journalists at those locations have been arrested though Moussavi's Ghalam (pen) reportedly has restarted publishing. Though Kahroubi's "Etemad Melli" (National Confidence) remains shuttered.

The sound of democracy in action, nicht wahr?

I genuinely hope something can be salvaged from the struggle for freedom and the loosening of the grip of the mullahs, but I am not hopeful.

Change must come one day, however; women in this country comprise half of all graduates, and applications such as facebook and blogger are changing how young Iranians see the world - and Iran's place in it.

The mullahs will not give up their grip on power lightly; they have shown what they are capable of when their status quo is under threat, and they will crack down ruthlessly on any dissenters.

But, sometimes change has its own momentum; here are images from Tehran over the past two days.

Britain 'Wrong' to Freeze Assets of Hate Preacher Qatada

Jordanian cleric Abu Qatada has been living in Britain since 1993. In that time, he has claimed tens of thousands of pounds in benefits for his wife and five children.

After the 11th September 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States, Qatada was identified as one of al-Qaeda's top men in Europe, and he was added to a list of known terror suspects, meaning his assets were frozen throughout the European Union.

Qatada is currently being held in HMP Belmarsh as the British government struggle in vain through the forests of red tape they created to deport him to Jordan - a move he is fighting, because presumably he won't be kept in the style to which we've let him become accustomed.

Obviously these appeals cost the taxpayer thousands of pounds.

The Law Lords have ruled that he can be deported, but he is struggling on in the European Court of Human Rights, a body which has already awarded him £2,500 in compensation because his detention is 'unlawful'.

Well, if they get their way he will be able to access that cash soon - because the European Court of First Instance has just ruled that putting him on the terror list and freezing his assets in the first place was illegal:

EU judges overruled the Government and the United Nations yesterday by unfreezing the assets of Al Qaeda 'ambassador' Abu Qatada.

The verdict, reached on human rights grounds by the EU's Court of First Instance, paves the way for the fanatic to receive a compensation payout controversially awarded against the British Government earlier this year.

The latest case goes back to October 2001, in the wake of 9/11, when Qatada was put on an EU list of terrorist suspects whose money and other assets in Europe are blocked.

The UN Security Council's sanctions committee had named him as associated with Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

All member states are instructed to freeze 'the funds and other financial assets controlled directly or indirectly by such persons or entities'.

When Qatada was awarded £2,500 by the European Court of Human Rights for being 'unlawfully detained' in Belmarsh high security prison, South East London, he could not lay his hands on the cash.

But now the Court of First Instance, which is linked to the European Court of Justice, has said that putting him on the terror list breached his 'fundamental rights'.

It's a real shame that the rest of us don't have the right to live in a country capable of controlling who is allowed in and who must leave.

Amnesty's Human Rights Report 2009

Amnesty International has released its individual country reports which reveal the 'state of the world's human rights'. The reports for several Western countries are ridiculously critical, particularly concerning the area of migration, admission and treatment of refugees and the right of a sovereign nation to decide whom may settle and whom may not.

I thought I would use this opportunity to highlight the outrageous approach this organisation has to border control, a nation's primary line of defence against those who wish to harm it in any way, either physically or by absorbing resources they are simply not entitled to.

A few examples are used to condemn Western countries, when the simple fact is if other countries had better human rights records, we would not be obliged to take any refugees at all. If Germany, Denmark and Holland et al are so brutal and terrible, why do the immigrants keep coming, by any means?

The reports highlight examples, but they make no suggestions as to rectifying the situation. For example, if the Belgian government wishes to deport someone and they won't come quietly, what is wrong with restraining them?

Why should the Belgian government, elected by the Belgian people, not be able to decide who it hosts within its own borders, on its own territory?

Why should Germany harbour the Third World's military deserters? Why should the Netherlands not detain people who enter illegally and make it deliberately difficult to ascertain their identity?

The following examples show everything that is wrong with the thought processes of the average Westerner; however, if you go to Amnesty's site, the reports on China, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are worth a look.

Germany

In an accelerated asylum procedure at Frankfurt Airport on 14 May, immigration authorities forcibly returned Eritrean nationals Yonas Haile Mehari and Petros Aforki Mulugeta after their asylum claims were rejected as manifestly unfounded. Both men were arrested upon arrival in Eritrea. On 20 July they were transferred to Adi Abeto prison. On 30 July, Petros Aforki Mulugeta was transferred to Wia prison. Yonas Haile Mehari, classified as a military deserter by the authorities, was transferred to his military unit where he was at risk of torture and other ill-treatment.

Amnesty International criticized the government’s discriminatory approach on the admission of Iraqi refugees. The Minister of Interior had provoked controversy in April when he announced that only Iraqi Christians would be admitted. After a public debate the policy was modified to apply to religious minorities in general and other vulnerable Iraqi refugees.

All public institutions, including those that provide social services, are required by law to report the identity of any irregular migrant to the authorities. This provision restricts migrants’ access to health care and access to judicial remedies in case of violation of their labour rights, and children’s access to education.

To conclude:

Germany again referred to diplomatic assurances as appropriate means in deportation cases where individuals may be at risk of serious human rights abuses, in violation of its obligations under international law. Irregular migrants continued to be deprived of their economic, social and cultural rights.

France

The UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern at reports of overcrowding and inadequate hygiene, food and medical care for irregular migrants and asylum-seekers – including unaccompanied minors – held in detention. It called on France to review its detention policy and improve living conditions in detention centres, especially those in the Overseas Departments and Territories.

In April, the government agency that determines the status of refugees (OFPRA) reported that the rate of recognition of asylum claims reached almost 30 per cent in 2007, one of the highest rates in recent years.

On 3 July, a bill was presented by several members of parliament to amend the right of appeal before the National Court on Asylum for asylum-seekers whose claims were being examined under the accelerated procedure. Under the new proposal asylum-seekers who were appealing against an accelerated decision could not be forcibly returned to their country of origin while their appeal was still in progress. The bill was not supported by the government.

There was also concern over a death in police custody:

On 9 May Abdelhakim Ajimi died during arrest in Grasse. Police officers arrested and restrained Abdelhakim Ajimi after an altercation in a bank where he was trying to withdraw money. A judicial investigation into the incident was opened and was still in progress at the end of the year. According to the autopsy report, Abdelhakim Ajimi died as a result of asphyxiation caused by the restraint techniques used against him. Several witnesses to the event reported an excessive use of force by the police. The officers involved remained on active duty at the end of the year.

To conclude:

Individuals having their asylum claim examined under the accelerated procedure remained at risk of forcible deportation while waiting for a decision. Despite the risk of serious human rights violations, France forcibly returned one man to Algeria and attempted to return another. New legislation authorizing indefinitely renewable “preventive detention” and a decree authorizing police to collect broad personal information on individuals believed to be a possible threat to public order, undermined the principle of the presumption of innocence.

Finland

The strict application of the “Dublin II” EU regulations saw asylum-seekers returned to the EU member state in which they first arrived for determination of their asylum claim, even when those states were less likely to provide some form of protection than Finland. The total number of “Dublin returns” from Finland increased from 320 in 2007 to at least 430 in 2008.

At least 22 asylum-seeking children were detained, including seven who were unaccompanied.

To conclude:

Asylum-seekers were sent back to EU countries where they were less likely to be offered some form of protection than if their claim had been considered in Finland.

Belgium

On 26 April, Ebenizer Sontsa, a rejected asylum-seeker from Cameroon, was forcibly restrained by several law enforcement officials during an attempted deportation from Brussels Airport. Following protests by other passengers at his treatment, the deportation was abandoned and he was returned to the immigration detention centre of Merksplas where he made a complaint of ill-treatment. A new deportation was scheduled for 9 May, but on 1 May Ebenizer Sontsa committed suicide. In December, the Public Prosecutor closed the investigation into Ebenizer Sontsa’s death.

On 24 January the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the conditions of detention of two rejected Palestinian asylum-seekers who were held in the transit zone of Brussels Airport in February 2003 for 11 days amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court also ruled that the repeated detention of the two men, in spite of judicial decisions ordering their release, constituted a violation of their right to liberty. The CERD expressed concern at the detention of asylum-seekers and the conditions of their detention.

Sweden

Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El Zari were awarded around 3,160,000 Swedish kronor (€307,000) in compensation for the grave violations they suffered during and as a result of their unlawful deportation from Sweden to Egypt in December 2001. Both men were tortured while held incommunicado in Egypt. They had been denied access to a full and fair asylum determination process in Sweden, and were deported on the strength of worthless “diplomatic assurances” given by the Egyptian authorities.

Mohammed El Zari was released from prison in Egypt in October 2003, without ever having been charged. Ahmed Agiza remained in prison in Egypt, following an unfair trial before a military court. The Swedish government did not make a final decision on the appeals brought by both men against the rejection of their applications for residence permits in Sweden.

In June the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) called on Sweden to investigate in depth the reasons for the deportation of Mohammed El Zari and Ahmed Agiza and, if appropriate, prosecute those responsible.

In June the CAT expressed concern that the detention of asylum-seekers before deportation was common, and regretted that Swedish law provides “no absolute limit on the length of time that an asylum-seeker can be detained”.

Most new applications from Iraqi asylum-seekers were rejected after the Migration Board and the Migration Court of Appeal decided that there was no internal armed conflict in Iraq. Previously, the majority of asylum-seekers from Iraq had received some form of protection.

In February, the authorities in Sweden and Iraq reached an agreement on the forcible return to Iraq of rejected asylum-seekers. Prior to this, only Iraqi nationals who agreed to be returned were accepted by the Iraqi authorities.

The Swedish authorities continued to reject applications from Eritrean asylum-seekers. This exposed them to the risk of being returned to Eritrea, despite the UNHCR’s recommendation that all states should halt forcible returns to Eritrea. At least one Eritrean national was forcibly returned from Sweden to Eritrea, in April.

Denmark

In November, new legislation imposed further restrictions on the “tolerated residency” status given to foreign nationals against whom an expulsion order has been made but cannot be carried out. This includes people whose return to their country of origin has been ruled to be unsafe by the Refugee Appeals Board. In November there were believed to be 18 people with a “tolerated residency” status, including the Tunisian national referred to as S.C. The new legislation required these people to live in designated centres for asylum-seekers and to report daily to the police, in all but exceptional cases. The legislation increased to one year the maximum period of imprisonment which can be imposed for failure to comply with these requirements.

At least 11 Iraqis were forcibly returned to Iraq, contrary to the recommendations of the UNHCR, the UN refugee agency.

Some asylum-seekers who had been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment did not receive adequate medical treatment in Denmark.

United Kingdom

In March, 60 rejected asylum-seekers were forcibly returned to Erbil in northern Iraq; in October, it was reported that a further 50 Iraqis had been returned to northern Iraq.

In March, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) gave its decision on an important test-case concerning humanitarian protection for asylum-seekers who have fled armed conflicts. The AIT ruled that, although there was an internal armed conflict in Iraq, the appellants in the case would not, just by virtue of being civilians, face a “serious and individual threat” if returned, and therefore were not entitled to protection under EU legislation known as the Qualification Directive. This decision would, if followed, result in even more Iraqi asylum-seekers being denied protection in the UK. By the end of the year an appeal against this decision was pending.

Australia

In August, the government finalized the abolition of Temporary Protection Visas for asylum-seekers.

In January, the government closed its offshore detention facility on the island nation of Nauru. In May, the UN Committee against Torture expressed concern that the detention facility on Christmas Island was still in use. Despite this, Australia began use of a new high security facility on the Island in December.

In July, the government announced that asylum-seekers would be temporarily detained for identity, health and security checks, but only those who posed a risk to society would remain in detention. At the end of the year, this commitment had not been implemented.

New Zealand

In July, the government tabled an Immigration Bill which had provisions for passenger screening at the point of departure to New Zealand. The Bill would allow withholding of reasons for denial of entry, and would deny the applicant access to judicial review.

Concern was expressed that the passenger screening process outlined in the Bill could expose asylum-seekers to harm if they were denied permission to board an aircraft when they were facing persecution, including possibly torture or death, in their own countries. The Bill also contained provisions that raised concerns about the possibility of prolonged and arbitrary detention.

Netherlands

The State Secretary of Justice announced in September that asylum-seekers from central and southern Iraq would no longer be automatically entitled to protection in the Netherlands. Residence permits previously issued to Iraqis from central and southern Iraq would be withdrawn and each case would be made subject to individual review, to determine whether the individual was a refugee or otherwise in need of international protection.

At least five people were forcibly returned to northern Iraq, at least five to central Iraq and at least one to southern Iraq. Rejected asylum-seekers from Iraq were told that they were expected to return to Iraq, that they had no right to remain in the Netherlands and that they were not entitled to any support from the state, beyond the most basic emergency health care. Many, therefore, were faced with a choice between returning “voluntarily” to Iraq, despite real risks of human rights violations there, or being made forcibly destitute in the Netherlands.

According to government figures, around 4,500 irregular migrants and asylum-seekers were subject to administrative detention in the first half of 2008. They were held in detention centres under a regime designed for remand prisoners. Some were detained for excessive periods, in some cases more than a year. Alternatives to detention were used infrequently, even for people belonging to vulnerable groups, such as unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking or torture.

Not all allegations of ill-treatment in immigration detention were followed by prompt, impartial and thorough investigations.

Although the regimes for immigration detention were under review, few concrete proposals for improvement were made. The supervision and complaints mechanisms were under review, but few measures for improvement were announced, apart from the creation of a mechanism to investigate complaints of ill-treatment by officers of the Transport and Support Service, which is responsible for the transport of detained individuals.

In January the government announced reforms to the policy governing the detention of asylum-seeking families with children, including the introduction of a maximum detention period for families of two weeks prior to expulsion, and the improvement of detention conditions. However, the government indicated it would continue to detain unaccompanied minors in juvenile justice institutions.

Zimbabwe Begins Repatriating White Britons

Five hundred British passport-holders left destitute in Zimbabwe by the disastrous policies of Robert Mugabe are finally getting the help that they deserve from the British government.

The group have had their assets and savings destroyed by hyper-inflation and the man made economic crisis in Zimbabwe. They include former colonial administrators, civil servants and British settlers.

They will be flown home at the expense of the British taxpayer, resettled here, as will as given full state pensions and entitlements. For once, I think this is very good news.

From the Telegraph:

Fred Noble, a 78-year-old Scot, will return to Fife this weekend, 51 years after he and his wife departed with £100 for what was then Britain’s Crown Colony of Southern Rhodesia. He worked for Rhodesian Railways, retiring on a pension with medical aid 13 years ago.

“I helped more people than helped me and I deserve a Christian burial. I don’t want to get ill in Zimbabwe,” said Mr Noble, who lost his wife four years ago and was the second pensioner to apply for “repatriation” at the British Embassy.

Mr Mugabe’s bankrupt regime stopped paying his pension five years ago, leaving Mr Noble dependent on his investments.

When Zimbabwe’s inflation reached more than 230 million per cent, the value of his portfolio plunged to less than a penny.

“We didn’t do anything wrong, we paid taxes, invested for our old age. My wife used to say, 'All this place has is sunshine, we are wasting our lives here’. My sister, Gwen in UK, sent me £1,600 and it’s gone now,” said Mr Noble. “I was second to apply to go and we had two weeks to prepare to leave.”

To fund his new life in Britain, he will sell his 1967 car and a television for about £250. But some prized possessions will stay behind. “I have an elephant-skin waistcoat - I was a dandy you know - and two pairs of handmade shoes, the best Rhodesia produced,” said Mr Noble. “I’ll give them away. I will take photos, the Bible my wife gave me and my Robbie Burns.”

Anne Budden, 83, is leaving the land of her birth because she can no longer bear to be “a burden on my daughters in Zimbabwe”. She added: “Their husbands are nearing retirement age. They keep on saying I should change my mind, but I must go. My hip operation took my last money. Our three pensions, on which we lived well, disappeared about five years ago.”

Mrs Budden, who was widowed two years ago, lives in a rented flat in Harare, paid for by another daughter in Britain. “I have a lovely life, shielded from what is going on outside, with space, nice people, and my own garden, and I will miss that and especially my two daughters in Zimbabwe who protect me from hardship.”

Although she has spent a lifetime in Africa, Mrs Budden has always cherished her attachment to Britain. “I am leaving the country of my birth but going to the land of my ancestors,” she said. “I love the Queen and I have a daughter in the UK.”

She will move to Farnborough, near another friend from Harare who will also leave this weekend. “We need to support each other as we start new lives,” said Mrs Budden.

British diplomats in Harare have quietly identified pensioners with British citizenship and no means of support. But the Embassy declined to comment on the official repatriation scheme.

About 1,500 other Zimbabwean pensioners have no foreign citizenship, no family and no means of escape. As each penniless Briton departs, a new charity will be able to give more help to those who are left behind. The charity, Zimbabwe: A National Emergency (ZANE), will be their only lifeline.

Pirates, Neo-colonialism and the Netherlands

A couple of interesting news snippets concerning the Netherlands.

First of all, the trial of five Somali pirates captured by the Danes in the Gulf of Aden in February will begin today in Rotterdam. They are being tried by the Dutch because they attacked a Dutch-flagged ship which originated in the Netherlands Antilles.

I have written previously on the lack of wisdom inherent in soft, human-rights-legislation-addled Western nations inviting violent Islamists from a primitive and brutal culture into their midst - and it seems what I predicted has come to pass.

The pirates' lawyer, Willem-Jan Ausma, has said his clients are 'delighted' to be in the Netherlands. Ausma said:

Alleged pirate Yusuf (24) 'intends to send for his wife and children as soon as he is released from prison. He knows he cannot easily be sent back to Somalia. He loves it here in the Netherlands,' the NRC quoted Ausma as saying.

From De Telegraaf via Islam in Europe (where credit must go for the translation):

Arrested Somali pirates who are now in the Netherlands on trial for their deeds say they would like to stay in the Netherlands. "It's a good life here."

Suspected pirate Sayid will stand trial on Monday with four of his countrymen in the first Dutch pirate trial. "I want an education during my imprisonment, and I appeal to the government not to send me back to Somalia. The people who live here respect human rights. I want to live here," he told Volkskrant.

Fellow suspect Farah also thinks the Netherlands is good. "My client feels safe here. He eat well, can play football and watch television. He thinks the toilet in his cell is so fantastic," according to his lawyer Willem-Jan Ausma.

According to De Volkskrant Ausma explained to his client that he could realistically get four years in prison and that he has a chance for a residence permit. "He's naturally delighted. He hopes to do computer training and to have his family come over."

So let's be realistic about this. If you get captured violently attacking ships or taking innocent hostages by a Western power, you face a few years in a prison which is a luxury hotel compared to anything in Somalia.

You then get to bring the wives, kids and extended family over to live on the taxpayer. Of course, you, an upstanding ex-pirate, a man who was happy to kill innocents or leave wounded comrades to die, are going to adapt perfectly to your new society and cause no problems at all.

You'll be delighted to earn minimum wage sweeping the streets or flipping burgers rather than live like a prince on welfare or the fruits of crime - as your religion tells you you may among the infidels.

If you are Dutch, I would encourage you to write to your MP about this unadulterated madness. Does the Netherlands not have enough problems wrought by insane immigration policies and a softly-softly approach to crime?

Treating the captives so well and taking them to Europe may also encourage attacks on Dutch ships and interests once word spreads.

The second story which caught my eye was this from Radio Netherlands:

Almost 119,000 voters on Curaçao, a former Dutch colony in the Caribbean, will get a say in the future of their island this Friday. A referendum offers a choice between 'sí' or 'nò' to a deal brokered between the local Curaçao government and the Netherlands. If the population agrees, the Dutch state will take responsibility for 1.7 billion euros of the Dutch Antilles debt - most of which was built up by Curaçao. But in exchange the Dutch want supervision over state spending and the maintenance of law and order.

The Dutch say the deal is a final offer. But the opposition parties in Curaçao are offended by the agreement made between the governments; they accuse the Netherlands of neo-colonialism.

So the Dutch get to pay off a nice €1.7 billion debt which was accrued by someone else, then pay to regulate the island's government and make sure it doesn't happen again.

Meanwhile, as a reciprocal gesture, Curaçao will continue to send violent colonists to the Netherlands proper, where they will feature heavily and splendidly in the crime statistics, whilst telling the Dutch how bad, evil and racist they are.

Europeans just can't win. You offer to pay off a country's debt and then pay to enforce its law and regulate its spending for it (because it clearly can't do so itself) - that's neo-colonialism.

Of course, it isn't neo-colonialism if they ask you - then it is good and right and just and anyone who disagrees is a monster.

Muslim Doctor Sues Over Work Interfering with Mosque Attendance

From the Telegraph:

Doctor Musarrat Syed-Shah, 31, is alleging religious discrimination and victimisation against four partners from the North Leeds Medical Practice after her partnership agreement was terminated on August 8 last year.

The employment tribunal in Leeds heard that Dr Syed-Shah claims the other doctors were "unhappy" about her attending the weekly prayers.

Michael McDonough, for Dr Syed-Shah, told the tribunal: "They were unhappy with her attending the mosque for Friday prayers and they applied a condition to her which was not applied to anyone else by saying they were not allowed to leave the surgery between sessions."

...Dr Syed-Shah described herself in her evidence as a "devout" Muslim who had been on a pilgrimage to Mecca before taking up the post at the practice and prayed five times a day.
She said she had attended mosques on Fridays throughout her adult life.

On being given the job, Dr Syed-Shah said she requested Fridays off but was told it was not convenient.

However, she believed her sessions could be arranged to allow time in between to visit the mosque for Friday prayers, and said the practice manager, Sharon James, and one of the other partners, Dr Manjit Purewal, agreed there would be no problem with this.

When Dr Purewal later asked her to take on an extra shift on Fridays, meaning she would have to work for more than nine hours without a break and miss prayers, she objected and was accused of not pulling her weight.

Dr Syed-Shah said: "I felt that this was an attack on me by Dr Purewal. He knew that I could not take up an extra surgery on that day."

At a meeting of the partners on August 4, one partner, Dr Marcus Julier, said he did not know prayers were a weekly occurrence and added: "Nobody should have a commitment that is more important than this surgery on any day that they are working at this practice."

Dr Syed-Shah said she was told the next day by partner Dr Elizabeth Martin that she would be "out of a job" if she continued going to Friday prayers.

She said: "I felt bullied and victimised. It seemed clear to me that they were upset about me attending the mosque on Fridays."