George Galloway Banned from Canada (II)

After my post yesterday about George Galloway being banned from Canada, I get the impression that some people find it hypocritical to be against the British Government's treatment of Geert Wilders, but supportive of the Canadian Government's policy on Galloway.

This is simply not true - the two positions are actually very different. George Galloway is a terrorist supporter. He has given his own cash to an organisation which is banned in Canada as a terrorist group, and incited hundreds if not thousands of other people to do the same. An organisation responsible for hundreds of deaths directly, and many thousands more indirectly.

Galloway incites, or at the very least is sympathetic to, violence against NATO troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world. He is a mouthpiece and a shill for some of the worst forces in the 'pro-Palestine' movement, and supports groups which have unashamed connections with religious bigotry, pan-Islamism and Arab nationalism.

Galloway embraces Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh إسماعيل هنية on his recent trip to Gaza.

Yes, Galloway is an elected British MP, but being an elected official in an EU country is the only thing which Galloway and Wilders have in common.

If this is not the case, why does Wilders receive hundreds of death threats every year and Galloway none?

Galloway has been banned from Canada because he is potentially quite dangerous, or at least his rhetoric is. Wilders was banned because of the potential actions of other groups against what he was saying and his right to say it, not in favour.

For all the student union types calling this a Zionist conspiracy - does that mean you're saying Wilders' ban from the UK was an Islamic conspiracy? No? Thought not.

There is a far greater case for asserting the latter point of view, however, culminating in a British peer, whose only loyalty should be to the British Crown and its subjects, threatening to lead a group of 10,000 Muslims on Parliament - all because he was himself a Muslim and disagreed with Wilders.

No thought was given for the ancient liberties of the country which took him in and raised him to its upper echelons.

Galloway has far more in common with Nazir Ahmed than Geert Wilders - both men use the grievances of Muslims as a stick to beat Western Civilisation, our culture, our values, Israel, America and Britain.

Wilders stands as one of the last defences of the West and its ancient liberties and values - Galloway is very much on the opposite side of the line. Wilders also only presumes to speak for himself and those who vote for his party - Galloway pretends the entire civilised world is behind him, and was most recently seen debasing my flag to chants of 'Allahuakbar' from thugs and terrorists.

Therefore, I applaud Canada's decision, and I don't feel this is at all in conflict with my wish to see Geert Wilders speak here. Jason Kenny, Canada's Immigration Minister, said:

“I’m sure Galloway has a large Rolodex of friends in regimes elsewhere in the world willing to roll out the red carpet for him. Canada, however, won’t be one of them.

We’re going to uphold the law, not give special treatment to a street-corner Cromwell who brags about giving ‘financial support’ to Hamas, a terrorist organization banned in Canada.”

That's the way to do it! Are you taking notes, Jacqui Smith?

I am also grateful to the Canadian immigration authorities for introducing me to the word 'infandous', meaning 'too odious to be expressed or mentioned'.

It surely is the perfect word to sum up George Galloway.

Apt Headline: 'Lord Ahmed's shame at jail sentence for texting while driving'

It was indeed a moment the entire nation can be ashamed of; 'Lord' Nazir Ahmed's ridiculous 12 week jail sentence for killing a man, automatically reduced to 6 weeks, reduced to 20 days, reduced to 16 and a suspended sentence on appeal.

However, I think he sees things slightly differently than I do - he feels shame that he actually received a jail sentence at all.

This interview, in the much-maligned Mail on Sunday, opens with a snivelling run down of the events that saw Ahmed jailed, and just how bad he must feel. This simpering opening concludes:

'It is 6.20pm on Christmas Day 2007 – the moment when the Labour peer’s life changed for ever and 28-year-old Slovakian Martyn Gombar’s life ended.'

I don't personally feel that there's a comparison to be made between the two. But then, it's quite clear where the sympathy of the Mail's editors/owners lies:

'That Lord Ahmed had most recently been lauded for securing the release of British teacher Gillian Gibbons, jailed in the Sudan for calling a teddy bear Mohammed, only added irony to the interest.

On February 25, Lord Ahmed was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison. His solicitors spoke of their respect for the court’s decision but launched an immediate appeal against the sentence.'

Excuse me? Gillian Gibbons was released on 3rd December 2007 - is that really the last significant thing that occurred in Ahmed's career?

Oh no, that's right - the last significant thing to occur in his career was a mere 13 days before he was sentenced, when he ensured a Dutch politician was banned from the United Kingdom for disagreeing with him.

How did he do this? By threatening to lead 10,000 Muslims on Parliament, of course. What else would a good, moderate Muslim committed to democracy, free speech and other British values do in his position? Oddly, his respect for this country and its ways seems to correlate with his solicitor's respect for his sentence - actions speak louder than words.

If I'd written the article, the above passage would read:

'That 'Lord' Ahmed is now in prison is deliciously ironic; for it's where, in my opinion, he should be after his treasonous remarks and intentions during the Geert Wilders fiasco'.

The nonsense continues:

'Lord Ahmed’s lawyers persuaded the court that his community work would be ‘irreparably and permanently damaged’ if he remained in prison.'

You can read some more about how ridiculous this statement is and the potentially dangerous precedents it sets here. However, from what I've read about some British prisons and their extensive 'Muslim communities', I would have thought Ahmed felt right at home. Maybe he just doesn't like preaching to the already converted, so to speak?

The article continues:

'Justice Hallett found that he was ‘neither legally nor morally guilty for Mr Gombar’s death’.
But, however relieved he may be to be home, guilty is what Lord Ahmed feels. Speaking for the first time about the crash, court case and his time in prison he admits:

‘That man’s death is a burden I will carry for the rest of my life. It is a terrible thing that happened. I didn’t know it at the time, but Mr Gombar was over the legal alcohol limit, which may have been why his car had spun out of control and why he was standing there like he was.

‘His car had been clipped by two other vehicles before I hit him. But, of course, I regret everything from that night. I am so sorry that he died in such a way.’ '

...I shouldn’t have been texting when I was. It was wrong, wholly wrong. That’s why I pleaded guilty when the charge was read out in court. I am filled with remorse and regret, of course I am.
‘It was a couple of weeks after I had returned from the Sudan after rescuing Gillian Gibbons, and I was getting a lot of calls and texts from journalists. The texts were between me and a journalist.'

So sorry that, in the space of two paragraphs, you try to exonerate yourself and pin the blame firmly elsewhere? All I can hear above are excuses.

If Gombar had collided with Ahmed's car and then died, his blood-alcohol limit would be relevant, and I'd have a degree of empathy with the man.

But it's not, and I don't. Whatever led Gombar to spin out of control had already occurred; his car was a road hazard, the sort of thing that any safe, responsible driver must attempt to be prepared for, especially on a motorway when the speeds used leave very little margin for error.

But, Ahmed continues his whining. The police investigation stretched over 14 months, during which he was interviewed a grand total of four times. Again, I get the distinct impression that I'm supposed to feel sorry for him at this point. I wonder how many terrorists and anti-semites had to miss their tour of Parliament due to this unforgivable inconvenience?

He continues, still in 'poor me' mode:

‘I found out that I was being charged last October when a journalist called to ask for my reaction to my files being sent to the Crown Prosecution Service,’ he says.
‘The circuit judge who heard the case [initially at Sheffield Magistrates Court] asked for a probation report. It recommended a 12-month ban and financial penalty.’

The night before sentencing, Lord Ahmed met his legal team: ‘I asked my QC, “What if the judge sends me to the cells?” He replied, “If that happens, then tomorrow’s the day I lose faith in the British judicial system.” ’

Isn't it curious how two independent minds can have a completely opposite impression of the same event? I lost faith in British justice (well, even more so) when he only got 12 weeks, and I knew that only meant 6 anyway.

'The next day, Lord Ahmed arrived at Sheffield Crown Court with a train ticket to London in his pocket. He planned to go straight to the House of Lords after sentencing. ‘I saw my grandchildren off to school that morning,’ he recalls.
‘I said goodbye to my wife and told her I would call her that evening when I got to London.’

But, while Mr Justice Wilkie accepted that Lord Ahmed was blameless in the collision, the matter under consideration was, he concluded, no less grave.
‘By reason of the prolonged, deliberate, repeated and highly dangerous driving for which you have pleaded guilty,’ he said, ‘only an immediate custodial sentence can be justified.’ '

Ah well, I'm sure he claimed the ticket on his expenses anyway. Who does this man think he is? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him because he's so cocky and arrogant that he thinks sentencing is a foregone conclusion for someone like him? The fact that he was so confident he would get away with it does him no favours.

Although it's quite long, I will reproduce here his experiences after sentencing and arrival at prison:

Recalling that moment now, Lord Ahmed admits: ‘I nearly crumbled. I was devastated. I turned to the Group 4 security guard, who cuffed me and led me down to the cells. I was told to hand over my watch, my wallet, my tie, my belt, empty my pockets and take the laces out of my shoes.

‘I just stood there looking through the officers as they spoke to me. I had been a magistrate myself for eight years. I had been to prison before in that capacity, working with young offenders.

'My maiden speech to the House of Lords in 1998 was about Muslim prisoners, prison conditions and rehabilitation. Now here I was, in handcuffs.’

Lord Ahmed describes the journey from court to prison as ‘the most terrifying journey of all’.
He says: ‘I was loaded into a bus, split up inside with steel cages. You can’t stretch out your legs and you have a window but you can’t see the other inmates on the bus. You just hear them.

'They were glorying in their crimes, shouting about what they had done, the acts of violence they had committed or the drugs they had taken. They swore loudly and vilely, words I would not repeat.’

Hang on a moment; his maiden speech to the Lords was about prison conditions and reform, rehabilitation and Muslim prisoners. In my book, a criminal is a criminal - black, white, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. There should be no special treatment for any particular group. But more than that, Ahmed's attitude concerns me; he acknowledges that the people who had been jailed deserved to be, yet he was once a lobbyist for what amounts to releasing them and absolving them of any blame for their actions.

Can it be that these people are good enough to mix with the public in the street, yet not good enough to keep Ahmed company at lock-up? Maybe serving 12 weeks would have done him some good, by penetrating the nonsensical liberal fuzz which surrounds his brain.

He goes on:

'Forty-five minutes later, Lord Ahmed arrived at HMP Marshgate, known locally as Doncatraz. It is a remand facility built to house Category A offenders.

‘I was taken to a small room where a guard told me, “You’re not allowed to wear a suit. Only the governor and lawyers wear suits.”

Then they put on their gloves and I was told to strip. I was handed a tracksuit to wear and my photograph was taken. What few possessions I had were put in a bag and sealed.
My money was taken and I was told it would be banked for me. I’m diabetic and, bearing in mind I had been up since eight in the morning, I asked about my medication and was told I could see a nurse.

‘I was given a small bar of soap, a packet of Polos, a toothbrush, toothpaste and a packet of crisps. Then I was taken to my cell.

‘By then, my fear had really accelerated. There was a toilet in the corner and a powerful smell of urine, a bed with a dirty towel on it and a chair. There was a small window with bars on it.

'The moment I stepped out of my cell, I was afraid. I asked a guard if I could use the bathroom and take a shower. They watched me throughout.
‘Lockdown was at six o’clock and the cells are locked until eight in the morning. That was a long, long night.’ '

I imagine Martyn Gombar's widow has had a few long nights since some egotistical moron wiped out her husband with his Jaguar, to be honest.

Why was that again? Oh yes, because the poor chap was just so popular and full of his own importance after coming back from Sudan that he would have needed surgery to remove him from his mobile phone.

Ahmed then goes into some detail about being transferred to an open prison, HMP Moorlands, and what life was like there. There is also more whining about how sorry he apparently is. But his true colours are revealed once more near the end of the article:

'But his mood is not one of celebration. Lord Ahmed is aware of the criticism that continues to be levelled at him: ‘People have said that my sentence was suspended because of who I am. But that’s not true. I feel my sentence was a custodial one because of who I am.
‘One police officer told me he didn’t think they would be pressing charges were it not for the fact that I was Lord Ahmed.’

It is not possible to escape the fact that his reputation as a standard bearer for British Muslims and as a political force has been tarnished.'

Right, so despite being so full of guilt, he thinks he was only punished for the crime he committed and pleaded guilty to because of 'who he is'. The maximum possible sentence for dangerous driving is two years in prison. He was sentenced to 12 weeks, in reality more like 6.

Just the other day a man got 6 months for riding his motorbike at over 100mph with his 14 year old son on the back. Reckless and foolish, yes - but no one died.

As for 'who Ahmed is' - I doubt anyone could think as highly of him as he clearly does himself. I only know who he is for negative reasons, and they go far beyond this car crash.

Incidentally, does the Mail not think that threatening to lead 10,000 Muslims on Parliament if a controversial speaker he did not agree with was invited, when he'd been responsible for several controversial invitations in the past himself might have tarnished his reputation?

In fact, that entire article does not mention said incident once, even though it was initially reported by Mail columnist Melanie Phillips.

Sickeningly, Ahmed ends by thanking his supporters, claiming he got over 25,000 messages of support 'from all communities'.

I'll bet. I wonder how many he got condemning his actions and the leniency of the sentence?

The Mail insists that he received no payment for the article; perhaps they just donated it to a charity for the worthy cause of equipping Jihadists around the world?

Lord Ahmed is Free on Friday (II)

As of today, renegade Peer and official bad driver Lord Ahmed of Rotherham is out of jail.

A miscarriage of justice if ever there was one. Liberty, Mine sums up the situation very succinctly here.

To cheer us all up at this miserable time, I tracked down these pictures of Ahmed sweeping up whilst he was actually in the clink.

Taken from Jailhouselawyer's Blog, originally from The Sun I believe:

Another ray of hope; he may be kicked out of the House of Lords over this, and he's already been expelled from the Labour Party.

According to the JHL blog, the sly so-and-so has been in HMP Moorlands, an open prison, since 26th February when he was transferred from tougher HMP Doncaster.

I suppose, to quote Marge Simpson, that some people simply can't afford justice, and Mr Gomabr's widow falls into that category.

Lord Ahmed is Free on Friday

The BBC news site has revealed that 'Lord' Nazir Ahmed will be freed from prison tomorrow.

Three judges ruled on his appeal this afternoon; it was decided that although the jail term was justified, 'in this instance exceptional action can be taken' and the sentence will be suspended for 12 months.

Ahmed was due to be released on 20th March after killing a man in a car accident.

British justice at its finest.

6 Weeks for a Life: Weekly News Round Up, 22nd - 28th February 2009

A selection of telling headlines from the UK this week.


1) Nazir Ahmed, the controversial Muslim Labour peer, was jailed for just 12 weeks for the death of Slovakian Martyn Gombar in a car crash. Despite only being ordered to serve half the given sentence, his lawyer Steve Smith still thinks it's too much.

Says Mr Smith:

"Lord Ahmed is clearly no danger to the public and in these circumstances the prison authorities can consider early release, if he serves a minimum of 18 days....They know he will not try to escape. His life and career have been wrecked for the sake of 18 days in prison. It's pathetic."

Not a danger to the public! You do have to commend him for trying. I would personally say he's the most dangerous man in the House of Lords, and I think what I wrote here on Wednesday bears that out.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Mr Gombar's widow has a slightly different perspective.

She says:

"I would not be happy with a decision to release Lord Ahmed on a tag. It is one rule for Lords and another for everyone else."


Sadly, I think she'll find that pretty much everyone would have been treated as leniently under the circumstances. I must say my own faith in the justice system (particularly when it comes to individuals like Ahmed) is so low that the only part of this that truly surprises me is that Ahmed is in prison as I write.

Although given the skeletons rattling in Ahmed's cupboard, I'm sure one could be forgiven for thinking it's one rule for Lord Ahmed, and another for everyone else.

After all, we wouldn't want to inflame the passions of Britain's most sensitive minority community - they might storm HMP Doncaster and carry him off astride their shoulders, like some sort of symbolic modern version of the Bastille.



2) Smith's fury as judges free four terror suspects:

Tell me - does Jacqui Smith actually live on the same planet I do? She is the Home Secretary, so she must surely have some idea of British law, and the precedents her immigration judges have previously set?

Four men, three Algerians and a Jordanian, are facing deportation, considered a threat to national security. One of the Algerians, codenamed 'Z', entered Britain in 1992 on a tourist visa, but overstayed.

In 1997, he was arrested in possession of chemicals, radios, rockets, night-vision goggles and bomb-making literature.

What was his next step?

He claimed political asylum, after admitting leading a London branch of the GIA. You see, had he been deported, those dastardly Algerians might not have treated him very well.

But none of this is the issue, according to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission; the issue is, where possible, they like to let people they're probably going to kick out of the country out on bail.

That way, not only can they not sue the Home Office or the UK Border Agency, but most of them simply abscond, saving us the deportation and detention costs. It sort of naturally streamlines the system.

In this case, the government believes the men are so dangerous that there is a risk to the public if they abscond rather than waiting for the outcome of their appeals.

Mr Justice Mitting said the government had failed to prove the men were at risk of disappearing, which, if nothing else provides some light comic relief.

Miss Smith said:

"My top priority is to protect the public. There is a risk that these individuals will abscond if they are not detained."

The problem is, protecting the public begins at the border. Miss Smith and countless numbers of her predecessors had absolutely no idea how many people were wandering into the UK, who they were or what their intentions were. Nor did they much seem to care, spending far more time pontificating about the rights of such people and the inevitability of their arrival, as well as smearing anyone who objected as racist.

As thee sow, so shall thee reap.



3) It emerged this week that Tony Virasami, who killed an ME sufferer his girlfriend wrongly accused of queue-jumping in a supermarket with one blow, was already wearing an electronic tag after being released early from prison.

Had Virasami (pictured above), a heroin addict with a record for violence, been inside serving the sentence handed down, the innocent man in question would still be alive.

I do wish that those who feel criminals deserve compassion would have some thought for prison's primary function, which is to protect the public from dangerous individuals.

Apparently Kevin Tripp, the victim, was standing near a man who had cut in front of Virasami's girlfriend. She then fetched Virasami, pointed at the perpetrator, but he thought she was pointing at Tripp.

The CCTV image above clearly shows the moment Virasami struck.

As Tripp lay dying on the floor after striking his head, it was pointed out to Miss Richardson, Virasami's girlfriend, that she'd identified the wrong man.

Her reply was:

"Yes, let's find the right one."

So a pair of drug addicts, convicted criminals both, have such fragile egos that an innocent man is dead, a young girl left fatherless.


4) A Birmingham-born Muslim, Mohammed Ali, has had his pro-Palestine graffiti mural scrubbed out by police, who feared the house it was painted on might be petrol-bombed (presumably by one of the marauding gangs of Jews who absolutely hate anyone else's right to free speech. Never let it be said that anyone in the UK is out of touch with reality).

Ali said his murals are designed to create unity between communities, and he was deeply troubled that they could be interpreted as divisive or offensive.

But then he would be, wouldn't he? The murals aren't offensive because they express a point of view with which local Muslims are sympathetic; to prove this point, Tariq Khan, a Lib Dem councillor, and Khalid Mahmood MP, Muslims both, duly started screaming about censorship, because the mural reflects the 'feelings of young people about injustices in Gaza'.

I never heard them comment on the Geert Wilders ban, or any other act of censorship undertaken to appease Muslims, however.

Ruth Jacobs, spokeswoman for the Israel Information Centre in Birmingham, said:

"I would not complain about these images because they are part of the right of free speech in this country."

Perhaps when the average Muslim feels the same, we will have genuine 'community harmony'. I will not hold my breath, however. I don't think you need much imagination to picture the type of reactions had a mural been painted from the Israeli perspective.




5) An episode of the iconic British soap opera 'Eastenders' was broadcast this week which contained only black characters.

There was a mixed reaction, with some saying it's simply for the sake of political correctness,others saying it's just not relevant, and professional race-baiters like the Guardian's Hannah Pool who took more of a 'what took them so long?' line.

I watched the episode, which focused largely on attitudes to black people in Britain and how they've changed, using the Notting Hill race riots of 1958 as a sort of prism.

I must say I largely agree with Tory MP David Davis, who said:

"It did not give a balanced view of race issues. There’s a danger here of winding up non-black people."

Firstly, a lot of the characters spoke of things like 'my history, as a black person'.

As far as I'm concerned that's not a problem; as long as it works both ways, and white Britons are allowed to be proud of their history, too. But let's be honest, that's not generally how it works at all.

The other problem I have is that generally I think mass immigration from the Third World was a huge mistake, and is an ongoing one. That doesn't mean I hate black people, or indeed hate anyone; it simply means I recognise that importing huge numbers of unassimilable immigrants from alien cultures simply does not work, and largely never has done.

However, I recognise that the black people at Notting Hill in 1958 had a right to defend their own from what they saw as unprovoked violence from the 'Teddy Boys'. I do not condone violence.

But I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a black intellectual or white BBC luvvie who thought that ordinary Britons had the right to defend their country and communities from what many saw as an invasion; they were not asked about it and were largely against it.

Controversial? Yes, but in my opinion that was a glaring double standard; just the sort of thing the BBC does best.

Baron Nazir Ahmed of HMP Wormwood Scrubs

The joke that is the British criminal justice system swung into full action again earlier today.

'Lord' Nazir Ahmed (pictured outside Sheffield Magistrates' Court) was sentenced to twelve weeks in prison and a twelve month driving ban for dangerous driving. The sentence is out of a maximum possible two years, and he will serve half the tariff imposed (standard procedure under the Criminal Justice Act of 1991).

It was proven in court that Ahmed was sending and receiving a series of text messages as he sped along the M1 at speeds of up to 60mph and beyond on Christmas Day 2007. The last text message was sent 2 minutes before his Jaguar collided with a broken down Audi, instantly killing 28 year old Slovakian father-of-two Martyn Gombar.

I would like to say I'm surprised by this verdict, and in a sense I am; I thought he would escape jail altogether. The modern justice system seems to pride itself on the fact that the less an individual actually deserves sympathy and understanding, the more of it they must receive.

According the The Times:

'David Cicak, Mr Gombar's cousin, said: “We’re not happy with this. He could be out in six weeks, that’s nothing. [My cousin] left behind two small kids now with only their mother.” '

Quite. Ain't British justice grand, Mr Cicak? Best in the world, don't you know.

In any case, Ahmed is a man who certainly does not deserve sympathy or understanding; he comes across as an arrogant, scheming political chancer who would sell his own grandmother if he thought it would allow him to increase his own power and that of the 'Muslim community' in Great Britain.

I actually think he's been incredibly lucky; not only should he have been made to serve the full two years for the offence as allowed under the law (it would be longer if I had my way, excuses do not raise people from the dead), but by now he should have probably been at the very least expelled from the House of Lords and at most tried for treason for some of the controversies that have surrounded him.

I almost wrote 'dogged' him, but in New Britain that's not really the right word; a country that has lost all confidence in and respect for itself continues to promote such self-serving traitors in any case. It just so happens that this particular self-serving traitor was born in Pakistan and has some rather interesting contacts in the Ummah.

I'm going to say something controversial now (it shouldn't be, but it probably is); Lord Nazir Ahmed is what you get when you promote people to positions of power and influence purely on the basis of how much melanin their skin contains, how exotic their name sounds, or how much you'd like a certain 'community' to think you're very tolerant.

Some people think they can get away with anything; when they're proved right, and all resistance to them is obviously feeble, you create a narcissistic megalomaniac. Ahmed knows his background and his religion act as a crude shield in today's Britain, and from what I can gather he has not stopped exploiting it for a moment.

Let's take a brief look at what Lord Ahmed no doubt sees as his brighter moments. His Wikipedia page is quite telling (although I wouldn't really trust it any more than I'd trust his own wife or mother to give me an unbiased account of him). One of the youngest peers ever created, the first Muslim life peer. Although it is marked 'citation needed', I find this passage interesting:

"As a Muslim peer, much [sic] of his activities relate to the Muslim community, both at home and internationally. Ahmed led one of the first delegations on behalf of the British Government on the Muslim pilgrimage of the Hajj, to Saudi Arabia and has advocated legislation against religious discrimination, international terrorism and forced marriages."

A few points immediately spring to mind; why is a British peer who really owes everything he is and has to Britain's generosity specifically focusing on issues that affect Muslims? Does he not have other constituents? Why the international focus? Is it simply that he can't find enough problems to solve here?

You see, if a white English peer was focusing purely on white English issues or constituents it would be racism. Many of these people, especially among the working class, feel alienated and disenfranchised too. So why is Ahmed's obvious bias written as something to be celebrated? Am I suppose to clap him on the back and buy him a (non-alcoholic) beer because he can't get past his own ethnic identity, when I'd be an evil racist in the same position?

I also find his leading a 'British government delegation' on the Hajj fascinating. Why, exactly, and at who's expense? Have the modern British government got themselves confused with medieval tributaries to the Caliphate or some such?

I would be very interested to find a Saudi Christian willing to attempt to lead a Saudi government delegation to Midnight Mass, to promote cultural understanding and good will. When that day comes, I will accept Ahmed's activities as normal.

Seeing as non-Muslims are banned from Mecca, does this really fit in with his position against religious discrimination? Also, his other positions are ambiguous; legislation against forced marriage would quite clearly clash with legislation against religious discrimination. Which point of view would prevail?

I think we already know the answer; just like we know that whilst it's completely insensitive to eat around fasting Muslims during Ramadan, it's not completely insensitive of them to ask you to change your habits to fit in with traditions you and your country do not follow. Etc.

Now, as many of you will know, Ahmed was active in trying to revoke the invitation of Geert Wilders to show Fitna in the House of Lords. Although the invitation was withdrawn and then re-issued, I believe Ahmed's threat to lead 10,000 Muslims on parliament was instrumental in the decision of the Home Secretary to detain and deport Mr Wilders.

But that's odd, isn't it? Because Lord Ahmed seems rather under the impression that free speech and the right to be controversial are there - it's just they only work one way.

For example, on 23rd February 2005, Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for the anti-semite Israel Shamir. Whilst there, Shamir was quoted as saying:

“The Jews like an Empire... This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance... Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.”

The easiness with which Jews change their allegiance, yes. I suppose that the Muslims make no secret of their allegiances to begin with, so there's no cause for confusion. After all, Ahmed is obviously so very loyal to the country and culture which took him in.

Shamir also said that Britain's large Muslim population was important to "turn the tide of Judaic values in Britain".

When challenged about these statements, Ahmed refused point blank to discuss the situation.

When the controversial author Salman Rushdie was knighted in 2007, Ahmed claimed it was a 'disgrace' and that Rushdie 'has blood on his hands'. The full quote:

"It's hypocrisy by Tony Blair who two weeks ago was talking about building bridges to mainstream Muslims, and then he's honouring a man who has insulted the British public and been divisive in community relations."

"This man not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people who were killed around the world. Forgiving and forgetting is one thing, but honouring the man who has blood on his hands, sort of, because of what he did, I think is going a bit too far."

Which is interesting, is it not? It's never those poor, sensitive dears in the Muslim community who want to kill and destroy who are to blame. Always the nasty man who dared to inflame them. I mean, after all, we should just do and say whatever they tell us we can, right? Does that sound so unreasonable?

Who did Salman Rushdie kill? Is it absolutely necessary to go on a murderous rampage because someone wrote a book you don't like? Lord Ahmed doesn't say, but I think his silence speaks volumes.

My favourite quote from his Wiki page is this one:

"...he has worked on the plight of Muslims around the world ranging from the collapse of former Yugoslavia, to the Chechens and Palestinians. He has been on many delegations to the Arab world, the US, Eastern Europe, Africa, the former states of the USSR and the Far East, meeting with heads of state to discuss their respective problems and how he may be able to assist them."

He really is like the Muslim version of Superman, always showing up in a crisis. How could foreign governments resist him, after the problems he's solved here? You see, his formula is so simple anyone can follow it. Got a problem with your Muslim community? Want them to stop perpetrating indiscriminate violence? Give in. Submit.

That's all it takes - a grovelling apology, some special protections under the law, pretending Muslims are eternal victims - abracadabra! Allah will once more be merciful, and your country or region can be as peaceful as Turkish-occupied Cyprus on a Friday afternoon.

I would also, for the record, be very interested to know which lords the British government has dispatched to deal with the grievances of the Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Russians, Georgians and Israelis in these respective strife-torn regions.

So, next controversy. On 25 July 2005 Lord Ahmed, whilst talking with Robert Siegel on National Public Radio said that the suicide bombers of 7/7 had an "identity crisis" and, that "unfortunately, our imams and mosques have not been able to communicate the true message of Islam in the language that these young people can understand."

Lord Ahmed did acknowledge, "the community leaders and religious leaders, who have kept very close contacts with South Asia and the Middle East rather than keeping a good contact with the British society where we live."

With all due respect, prisoner 50987 - sorry, I mean Lord Ahmed - might that be because people such as yourself are specifically employed to keep such allegiances alive? I mean, after all, expecting loyalty and assimilation from these immigrants and their descendants might be racist or something.

It's probably best to just risk the odd suicide-bombing and be done with it. After all, if Lord Ahmed lost his place on the multicultural gravy train, who'd employ him? An ex-convict of 51 years old - maybe it's time for some new anti-discrimination legislation?

OK. One more controversy, inexplicably omitted from his wikipedia entry. From the New York City News:

"Three years ago, Lord Ahmed, Labour's first Muslim peer, invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh to Westminster, after meeting him at the Regent's Park mosque.

Abu Rideh, a Palestinian, had been detained in Britain in December 2001 on suspicion of fundraising for groups linked to Al Qaeda.

He is said to have admitted travelling in Afghanistan with large sums of money hidden in a plaster cast on his leg.

He has since been subjected to a control order which places restrictions on his freedom."

Indeed. But, this isn't enough. He has also campaigned for such people to suffer no legal sanctions for the actions they may have undertaken for Al Qaeda abroad, plus be allowed to remain in Britain. He was happy to speak up for several 'British' Muslims released from Guantanamo Bay.

However, he feels that British Jews who fight for the IDF should be tried for 'war crimes'.

I hope these examples adequately demonstrate that this man has no scruples and absolutely no shame. It would be impossible to have shame and support some of the blatant double standards and injustices that he does.

This 'Lord' does not make a good case for promoting people for the purposes of 'diversity' and social engineering. He belongs to the group of immigrants who are here to change the UK to suit them, rather than changing to suit it.

For an example of his exact opposite, please look at Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali. Also an immigrant born in Pakistan, he converted to Christianity and now spends his working life sticking up for the country and culture which took him in, as well as its traditional values.

Nazir Ahmed has got a long six weeks coming up. Maybe he could put it to good use and learn a thing or two.

***UPDATE*** Contributor Dr. D pointed out that Bishop Nazir-Ali was actually born into a Christian family. He's correct. It was his father who converted from Islam. Apologies for the error.

Good Golly: Weekly News Round Up, 1st - 7th February 2009

(Pictured: Collectible 'Golliwog' badges from Robertson's Marmalade).

This week we have a bumper crop of news stories from the UK which show the current priorities of the powers that be and the state of our nation. So, without further ado...

1) I think the biggest 'cultural clash' in the news this week came from Carol Thatcher's use of the term 'Golliwog' to describe a black tennis player.

Thatcher may be banned from the BBC over use of the term 'golliwog'

Unwise, certainly, but it's OK, because several employees of the BBC got so uncontrollably angry that they reported Miss Thatcher behind her back, and she was sacked.

I must remind you that in the modern world this word is considered so absolutely, gratuitously offensive that if a famous person uses it in a private exchange, it must be repeated in the national media no less than 20 times a day until the person concerned has done the decent thing and hurled themselves from Tower Bridge whilst sobbing penance.

To be fair, I think this term is offensive when said directly to another person, and a few years ago it was neutered to become 'golly'. However, that does not seem to be good enough, because there was further uproar when it emerged that 'Golliwog' dolls were on sale at the Queen's Sandringham gift shop. This led to much hand wringing, and the closing of the suitcase in which they sat in the display window, in turn leading to helpful 'before' and 'after' photographs. Just in case we were in any doubt over how that evil racist had tried to cover her tracks or something.

This second revelation led to a storm of controversy, my favourite example of which is the imaginatively titled Facebook group 'WTF?! the queen of england ain't allowed to sell racist toys!'

I would email the moderator and ask them to define 'racist', but seeing as they can't spell, punctuate, string a proper sentence together or bother to look up the actual title of the monarch they are disparaging, there doesn't seem much point.

The 'Golliwog' certainly belongs to another era, but I personally see no cause for seeking out and destroying every last one. I thought it was a real wrench with tradition when Robertson's Jam stopped giving away tokens for Golly badges with each jar, as they'd been doing it for generations. I can't help but feel this situation is less about 'racism' and more about controlling what people do and think. Carol Thatcher's silliness is one thing; but to strike the Golliwog from the face of the earth is quite another. I am as entitled to find the badges a part of our history and culture as anyone else is to find them offensive.

2) To continue our 'The George Orwell Prize for Effectively Controlling Thought Crime' theme, a nurse was suspended this week because she offered to pray for an ill elderly patient. It seems that being a Christian (publicly, at least) is becoming increasingly unacceptable to the authorities here in Britain.

Nurse suspended for offering to pray for elderly patient's recovery

What struck me as particularly odd was the language used to justify the suspension; she was accused of "failing to demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity" and told "you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health."

Is it just me, or are these two statements contradictory? What on earth does 'diversity', Orwellian left-wing speech codes and curbing one's personal compassion have to do with health? Would they say the same thing to a nurse of any other religion?

It seems to me that again, this is not about diversity or respect, but about deconstructing what was once mainstream culture and replacing it with anything else that comes along. Fortunately, the nurse was reinstated, but this still seems rather ominous.

3) Next up, something outrageous tempered with common sense.

'Outrage as police replace Union Jack with Gay Rights flag'

Apparently, it is something called 'Gay History Month'. I prefer plain old February myself. However, some officers serving with London's Metropolitan Police evidently disagree, for they replaced the Union Flag with the rainbow flag of the 'LGBT' movement. It has also emerged that in north Wales, said rainbow flag will fly over the force - sorry, service - HQ all month.

However, when Sir Paul Stevenson, the new Commissioner of the Met, heard that Limehouse nick had come over all PC (OK, pun intended), he immediately ordered that the flag be taken down, an admirable decision for which I laud him. The police should be on the streets enforcing the law, a job they do increasingly poorly, not trying to force a political agenda down the throats of the public.

In spite of this, some Metropolitan Police spokesman was forced to grovel to 'Pink News' (Europe's largest gay news service) that:

"The Met is supporting LGBT History Month through events "aimed at encouraging victims of hate crime to report incidents to police, and to celebrate the contribution made by LGBT people in the Met.
"As part of our activities officers will be attending LGBT venues to encourage people who may suffer or witness hate crime to come forward; holding seminars on safety issues for people in the LGBT community; promoting our LGBT liaison officers for victims to approach as well as participating in other educational and cultural events."

That's odd, because I thought they were paid to prevent crime, arrest criminals and protect the public. Perhaps this revelation explains why the long-suffering tax payers who fund this nonsense are getting such terrible service.

4) 'Lord' Nazir Ahmed's threat to lead 10,000 Muslims on parliament if Geert Wilders was invited to screen Fitna has been ignored, and apparently the invitation has been extended and the screening will go ahead, in the House of Lords.

He hadn't quite finished making a spectacle of himself, however; he called for any British Jews who served with the IDF in the recent Gaza campaign to be arrested upon their return to Britain and tried for 'war crimes'.

Surely if we're going to be completely fair, Nazir Ahmed is then guilty of treason for attempting to subvert parliament? I can't help but notice that when certain individuals with 'links' to Britain were released from Guantanamo Bay (not because their innocence had been established, mind), Ahmed was not one of the many who demanded they be tried for treason. So, if you fight in a civilised Western army when you have dual-citizenship you're a criminal, but if you join a gang of terrorists in an attempt to kill British and allied troops, despite all this country has done for you, you're a poor lamb who's being picked on. Aren't double standards wonderful?

5) A brief note once more from the world of the Metropolitan Police. After the Chinese PM arrived in Britain for trade talks with Gordon Brown, there was a protest outside the Chinese embassy. Protesters concerned about Tibet and human rights issues in China broke through the lines, and were man-handled, despite some being diminutive females.

Unless the Met's 'diversity' commissars specifically asked the officers to help the Chinese feel at home, I can't help but compare this footage of a young Chinese woman being dragged away in a headlock by two policemen to this. It seems those brave boys in blue don't fancy their chances against marauding Muslim crowds screaming 'Kuffar', 'poofs', 'cowards', 'swine' and 'Allahuakbar'. Shame it's their job, really.

6) Peter Mandelson has miraculously clung on to his job yet again after reaching a deal with British workers striking over an Italian company's plans to import its own staff. Quite why the British government needs this individual is beyond me... But the Tories thought up an excellent new poster, 'Mandy Antoinette', then didn't have the guts to use it. Telling. I have added the advert to the sidebar, as it really is very good.

Geert Wilders Progress Report

According to 'Gates of Vienna', (whom I must also thank for the brilliant banner above), Geert Wilders is to appeal his prosecution to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. My favourite quote is:

"Moszkowicz [Wilders' lawyer] will appeal to the Prosecutor General to “nullify the case due to considerations of the law”, which will put the order to prosecute Wilders in the garbage bin."

Um, yeah. Just a few little considerations of the law, like the fact it's an aberration which goes against everything that free Western democracies stand for. Like the fact that if Imams and ordinary Muslims can spew forth their more demented ideas, then Wilders too is free to say what he wants. After all, it's not as if some animals are more equal than others, is it?

I doubt the solicitor will phrase it quite like that, but then that's why I'll never make a lawyer or a diplomat.

The last time I checked on the progress of the petition set up in Mr Wilders' favour, it had nearly 30,000 signatures. Again, I would respectfully urge anyone who stumbles across this post to sign it, even if you disagree with him; after all, isn't the concept of freedom of speech all about differences of opinion?

Now, on a slight variation of the same subject, according to 'Atlas Shrugs', the House of Lords here in Britain has overturned the 'victory' won by Lord Nazir Ahmed (with the implicit threat of violence) to ban* Geert Wilders from screening Fitna to a gathering of Peers of the Realm, and Geert is now free to do so.

Lord Ahmed was apparently boasting of his victory in the Pakistani press, although pending a court victory hopefully he will be sentenced for death by dangerous driving very soon; the last media reports of the case made it sound like a cut and dried guilty verdict, but as Pamela notes, the story simply vanished from the public domain. However, according to his wikipedia profile, he's been referred for sentencing on 25th February, so let's hope they throw the book at him, even if he can't be expelled from the Lords afterwards.

*The less common Islamic definition of 'ban'; i.e. get some of those notoriously sensitive young men on the streets to attack some police/embassies/insert symbol of pride or authority here.

Repeat until a weak hearted Western government bans said offensive cartoon/book/film/ancient liberty for you; then ensure no counter protest can work, with violence if necessary.