The law in this country must apply to all its citizens, not just one group or another. For reasons we can all guess at the Police and CPS repeatedly shy away from prosecuting Muslim extremists who carry placards calling for the death of all jews or even worse slogans.
The latest example is Anjem Choudary who said anyone insulting Islam would be "subject to capital punishment".
I accept there is a legitimate debate to be had about where the boundaries of free speech should be drawn, but with the law as it stands such utterances are clear breaches of it.
Sooner or later a Christian is going to stand outside a Mosque carrying a similar banner. I think we can all guess what the reaction will be of both local muslims and the Police.
65 comments:
I do not support the BNP in any way, though I do think in ther present form they get a harsh press, but why is Griffin being prosecuted in Crown Court with the chance of a seven year sentence, for voicing what seemed inane views on islam (no caps as I don't believe in it so see no reason why I should respect it)while there are muslim (no caps again, same reason) extremists [sic] (I prefer just muslims because muslims are by definition all extremists) can say and do what they like with impunity.
We must sort this out as it feeds parties like the BNP and ultimately will see them rise and grow stronger, as they are now...unless of course that is the plan?
My Soshlist Worker chums with whom I exchange a `merry quip` ahem…. or two in occasion at Finsbury Park Tube, have in the past shouted, `racist racist Na Na na ` at me when I refuse to sign their anti `Islamophobia ` leaflet. Nearby is Finsbury Park Mosque with its well known history of violence and extremism. In 2003 following a ricin plot raid a stash of weapons and bomb making materials were found. There followed a clean out with the mad mullahs ejected and replaced with supposed moderates. The problem is that the population of Islington has not changed and as none of this would have been possible without the authorities and the Muslim community turning a blind eye, we cannot know what is actually going on. Evidence of continued extremist (or beardy nutter) activity was clear after the foiled bombing plot in which several Islington Students were involved.
My own feeling is that the police are probably doing just about enough to make it awkward to restart terrorism in the Mosque itself ,and as such activities can easily be moved they probably have been. The college would be my guess.
Nonetheless the building is viewed with fear by non Muslim residents and insulting Mohammed in its environs would be a bit like insulting the IRA in the wrong part of Belfast. Or using the N word in the wrong part of Brixton.
These three examples are different ways in which free speech can be prescribed for good and bad reasons but physical threat is involved in all of them.
If I could bear to stay and have burger spat in my face I would like to ask the ridiculous Soshlist Workers if they would like to hurl similar abuse along the road at the Muslim `worshippers` . They would reply they have no inclination but as Islam is often racist, sexist and belligerent why this exception? One reason is that they, like me would be far to scared of what might happen if one exercised ones right to free speech in this way.
Iain I agree there is a real debate about boundaries to free speech but actual physical intimidation is more important than politeness if we are going to locate the debate on this planet. The one has a habit of slithering quietly into the other
I'm not not sure who is the more repulsive - Anjem Choudary or Sir Ian Blair.
I suspect the weasels in the Police have managed to convince themselves that Choudary did not actually incite people to murder - by saying that those who use such words "will be subject to capital punishment" he was merely making a prediction of what someone else might choose to do. Ergo our Anjem is as pure as the driven snow.
Total bilge, of course, but since when has that stopped our ridiculous police force?
The point about Christianity is it lets God do the revenge part, and its followers are doing their best to save everyone else from it coming to that via the sacrifice of Christ. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” - not sure if Islam has an equivalent text. ( Yes I know that's not the way things have always happened – after all no one expects the Spanish Inquisition – but I think most Christians today would argue that those practices should be rejected and were very much in error. )
Let us not forget that that under this government (run by many failed lawyers) we are all equal under the law. It's just that some are more equal than others...
It needs to be sooner rather than later.
I am sick to the pit of my stomach reading constantly about our pathetic police forces consistantly choosing soft targets to punish and prosecute.
It needs to stop and it needs to stop now now, either prosecute all or none.
As for this disgusting new piece of adjustment to legislation to make other acts punishable by on the spot fines for things like mugging and assaulting/obstructing a police officer W.T.F.?
Is there anything in this nation this degenerate Gov. doesn't see as another potential revenue stream?
I like the fact he made that remark at a protest against the pope's comments about islam being linked to violence.
It's a shame religous extremists don't do irony, they'd be great at it.
I have to say I am sorely tempted to organise a demo outside the East London Mosque complaining about the disrespect shown to the principle of free speech by some Muslims.
Of course I'd probably get arrested for breach of the peace, but if so, it would simply highlight the double standards which are prevalent.
I agree with you Iain.
It would be good to hear what the Tories are going to do about this sort of thing.
There is a widespread perception that our Police & Court system is institutionally racist against the White population of this Country
1. If a Muslim is prosecuted for concealing terrorist information, a British Jury will all too often find any excuse to acquit the Muslim
but
2. If a Christian exercises his Right of Free Speech publicly and is beaten up by the Muslims :
a. the Police will arrest the Christian (but not the Muslims) for a Breach of the Peace; and
b. the Magistrates are all too eager to convict the Christians, with the confident expectation that on appeal the Judges would uphold the conviction
The problem for young Moslems in the UK seems to be one of identity. Moslems in most parts of the world seem a quite content lot, but here in the UK they appear for the most part barking.
They go on one of their rants with little attempt to connect their outpourrings to any factual reality. As the Pope said there is a disconnect between their cult and Reason.
If Reason is not yet permitted to assist in helping the Moslem problem, one of forced to consider which aspect of Unreason might give a clue as to why they are so insecure.
It seems to be an issue of identity. They cannot resolve their beliefs with the world that they are encountering every day. There might be two possible approaches to this - modify and adapt their culture and beliefs to fit into the changing world - or to stop the world's progress and force it to comply with their ancient customs.
I am sympathetic with this as they are clearly having great difficulty in coping. Their aggression is only one aspect to this, and there seems little point in dealing with it in too legalistic a way, as that would be counterproductive to the totality of the problem which is one of adjustment.
I wouldn't worry that the rest of the community will be attracted to their religion, as it is clearly not coping with the world and shows itself in a very bad light. In fact the more they rant the more they show that they are in the wrong place, and have no message tranquillity and spiritual beauty to offer.
many within their own community must be aware of this. Pushing them into silence will not help the process of change that will inevitably take place over time.
Suggest we all visit and contribute here:-
http://www.humanism.org.uk/
and here:-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/
Support the work of these eminently sensible organisations and we just might neutralize the influence of the crazy, religious fundamentalists that cause us all so much grief (Blair, Kelly, etc.)
TAPESTRY I like your attempt to understand but misguided appeasement can itself be an evil.
`Moslems in most parts of the world seem a quite content lot, but here in the UK`
That is nonsense.I don`t want to get into Muslim bashing worldwide because it doesn`t help but this statement hardly inspires confidence that you know who to appease and who to resist .
Shotgun's point about the Nick Griffin trial is quite right. The law must apply equally to everybody or we don't have a rule of law at all. The decision to retry Griffin because the jury didn't do as desired first time merely emphasises how disgraceful the government's behaviour has been.
This is a case where, like Voltaire, one may disagree with everything he says & defend, to the death, his right to say it.
So, yet another cop out from Ian Blair - quel surprise.
Since the 'majority' is highly unlikely to riot in the streets and burn effigies of Mohammed, expect an exodus to extreme right parties. Maybe not for people who are more politically aware but for those who already feel disenfranchised like those in Barking.
The BNP must be rubbing their grubby little hands with glee.
shotgun - No. I don't capitalise islam and muslims, either. In any event, I've given up using both words in favour of a word that drives them nuts: mohammedanism and mohammedans.
It was explained to me very courteously years ago, when I was in an islamic country, that mohammedans are offended by this nomenclature as they do not worship mohammed. mohammed was their prophet. They worship allah.
So it infuriates them to hear themselves referred to as mohammedans. This is now my adjective of choice when referring to them.
And yes, Ian Blair and the Met are institutionally racist against indigenous British people. And there is one law for us, and one law for the aggressive individuals from more primitive areas of the world.
Vervet 12.16
A reply worthy of a lib dem. We're above it all.
Vervet
Just had a look at the http://www.humanism.org.uk/ site and it's for non-religious people.
So, does that mean no easter eggs and christmas prezzies? Conkers to tht my friend.
I reckon we should set up an online petition for a huge complaint to the Racial Equality Commision or do you have to be a non white anything but christian to complain?
newmania said: "`Moslems in most parts of the world seem a quite content lot, but here in the UK`"
What??
You mean like the mohammedans in southern Thailand, with armed militias committing murder and rape? The mohammedans in the Philippines, with guerillas committing murder and rape? The mohammedans in Russia? The mohammedans in Indonesia? The mohammedans in the banlieus of France? Sweden, which is enjoying its new Swedish traditions of "honour killings" and rape?
Oh, you must mean Canada, where they've just arrested a group of 21, who were planning to blow up major targets in the United States? No? Oh, Australia? Where gangs of "youths" go on rampages on Sydney's beaches,committing violence against sheilas for having the temerity to wear bikinis on the beach; and committing mayhem runningthrough neighbourhoods, burning cars and smashing the windows of houses, etc.?
I'm trying to think of where this "contented lot" of mohammedans might be. India where they blow up markets and ancient monuments?
These are the most violent, disagreeable, aggressive, discontented people on Planet Earth.
Was the Porkie Scatching campaign to harsh for you to post?
I find getting on a train or bus with my heart in my mouth harsh but hey, I don't count for much.I mean I'm a white christian.
PS tomy last post - I see that Newmania was actually quoting, and responding to, a comment by Tapestry. So my apologies to him; and Tapestry, please read your own name where I wrote Newmania. My post above actually applies to you and your depressing lack of information about the world outside the UK.
But wait a minute! Perhaps you were thinking of sleepy ol' Belgium ... No ... a bunch of malcontents went on a burning and smashing rampage through Brussels last week.
So, it must be the contented mohammedans in Germany then. But wait a minute! Just this week they threatened to burn down Dreden's beautiful old opera house if the Germans used it for - uh - putting on an opera.
Maybe there's a contented mohmmedan somewhere in Brazil. It's a big country.
Thank you all for pointing out the obvious weaknesses in my thought processes. I talk of the Moslems I know and meet and work with, rather than the ones who go terrorist campaigning. They are simple hard-working, pleasant people.
I don't really associate terror with Moslems as a whole. The terrorists are a deluded bunch of dangerous extremists, who are a major threat. If we only respond to terrorists though and don't acknowledge the good in simple ordinary Moslems, we will help the extremists to whip up a bigger divide. In fact the extremists are gradually destroying the religion they claim to be promoting.
We shouldn't play their game, but look to the strategy of building bridges with the majority of Moslems who are not terrorists, or even interested in what terrorists do in their religion's name. There is no point in creating martyrs by reacting too strongly. We are vulnerable and need the cooperation of Moslem communities if we are to defeat this curse.
Verity , I accept your apology . I `m afraid you are unlikely to catch me saying anything quite so dim witted . I take it from your compendious knowledge of Islamic aggression world wide you do not consider yourself a woman that `thinks small`
A virtuoso performance though ,I always enjoy your contributions …………………………….for one reason or another
Shotgun: Not every muslim is an extremist! Although Islam is a religion of 'fundamentals' (i.e. non-negotiable truths) there are plenty of practicing muslims who manage to follow their religion without resorting to 'extremism' or sympathies with it! In fct I would say the majority do - especially the educated ones.
There are even Sufi muslims for example, which follow a religion of peace, resulting in tranced pacifists, whirling dervishes and brandy drinking Muslim monks who live in monestaries in Albania! They are quite amazing people - and can drink like fish - but very know about them!
However, despite the fact that I have a lot of muslim freinds, and would deefend their freedom of religion (to the point where it doesn't resort to violence), I do however not think that Islam is a religion of peace - and people who think/say it is are deluded.
Not even Muslims realy believe this - but they wouldn't really say so!
Islam is inextricerably linked with violence, and violence, supression and the sword was the context in which it was born. Despite the many good things about Islam, and its massive contribution to science, art and literature (Islamic scientists were well ahead of us on issues such as the earth being round, and astronomy etc), it has failed to advance beyond that primitive medievalism of te crusades, and it remains incompatible with the values of the enlightenment.
In the west, Christianity/Judaism might clash with the enlightenment at times, but they have some common ground - for example, the ability to exist within a secular society (Isreal is largely secular for example - and there are many Israeli Christians and Muslims).
Islam expressed in a fudamentalist way can never exist within a secular society as it demands that secular soceity be refomred and come under sharia (Koranic) law. Unlike Christianity/Judaism, the law of the Koran is not just a law which governs personal behaviour, but is a law which dicates how a state/government/society should aslo function! Iran/the Taliban are perfect examples of this principle in action!
The Koran has no concept of 'render unto Ceasar that which is Ceaser's, and render unto God that which is God's'. To the muslim, all is Allah's and all must come under his remit - as outlined by the prophet in the Koran!
However, UK Muslims should be prosecuted for this kind of activity - and so should anyone who says something like this about anyone. The law must be the law for all, or else it is not the law at all! Sadly, there is need to 'put these people in their place' on this matter (we will not tolerate a theocratic islamic state any more than we would have tolerated Hitler), and show them that this kind of crap will not be tolerated. When a few get locked up, the message will spread!
But we need to accept that probably the vast majority of UK muslims do not support blowing-up trains, even if a large section of its dissalousioned youth have sympathies!
Flavious: we don't have police forces anymore - we have police services'! They don't exist to use the 'force' of law, thet now exist to 'serve' the community by acting a brake on the rougue elements of society without actually stopping them!
Verity: By seeking to be deliberately offensive you are contributing nothing of value, and you shold grow up madam!
Tapestry, you are correct - these poor sods are torn bewteen two very strong and competing cultures. But a spell inside should help them decide which side is in charge!
The government needs to adopt a carot and stick approac - there has been too much carrot lately, and no where near enough stick.
Finally, it is down to Muslim leaders to sort this out - or else people WILL sadly start taking the law into their own hands.
tapestry said...
The problem for young Moslems in the UK seems to be one of identity. Moslems in most parts of the world seem a quite content lot, but here in the UK they appear for the most part barking.
Where in the world are muslims content without threat of censure or violence or criminality?
Unless you're going to advocate a Hitlerian Final Solution, to the 'problem' of Muslims in the UK, anyway,
No, we are advocating one rule of law for all; a simple concept that is currently not the case in the UK. Just look at the replies here and these are probably some of the brightest amongst the general public.
I fail to capitalise muslim or islam, not out of pettiness to offend, but because i am not muslim and do not believe their religion is anything but heretical, and therefore I have no need to respect them as muslims or their religious beliefs, and won't.
Would a staunch Republican respect and revere the Queen simply because she is the Queen? Same difference.
Adrian Yalland said...
Shotgun: Not every muslim is an extremist! Although Islam is a religion of 'fundamentals' (i.e. non-negotiable truths) there are plenty of practicing muslims who manage to follow their religion without resorting to 'extremism'
Exactly my point Adrian...and if they are not fundamentalist, then they are not muslim.
I do however not think that Islam is a religion of peace - and people who think/say it is are deluded.
Not even Muslims realy believe this - but they wouldn't really say so!
Again the whole point, and they again would not really be muslim.
As I said, and I stand by it and you have proven the point, there is no such thing other than extremists as a muslim. You may be a lapsed muslim, you may be a non-practising muslim, but if you are not a fundamentalist, you are not a muslim.
conservative bookman asks how being deliberately offensive helps "exactly". Hello? I must have signed up for some assignment "to help" in my sleep or something, because I have no memory of it. I'm not trying to "help". What am I, a Girl Guide?
Perennial judge and knower-of-all-things Adrian Yalland adds his two cents' worth: "Verity: By seeking to be deliberately offensive you are contributing nothing of value, and you shold grow up madam!" And you have elevated yourself as a judge over me why exactly? Too bad your authoritarianism manqué is based on ignorance.
Neither of you is especially subtle-minded. It's the lack of respect, despite the intimidation, that gets them down. They are accustomed to forcing their will on people. Hadn't you noticed? They have told the BBC how to refer to mohammed. The police raiding homes housing possible murdering terrorists are wearing covers over their shoes so as not to offend. WTF?
I'm not going to rehearse all the crimes against humanity they commit worldwide. But if you believe "a tiny minority" are committing all this murder and mayhem without a huge amount of support among the faithful, you are naive.
And it's your conciliatory opinion that I should be careful not offend these individuals? I will wait until I see mohammedans understanding that people have a right to live their lives as they choose, and to believe in a god of their choosing before I treat them with any courtesy and frankly, that will be a cold day in hell.
They're stuck in the theist Dark Ages. They also did not make "impressive contributions" to science and the arts. The science and physics came out of India and passed through the Middle East on its way to Europe, where we knew how to utilise it. They did the astronomy bit. What else was there to do at night in the desert? (Before we invented electric lights and batteries for torches, printing presses, electronic media, I mean.)
You think you know reasonable Muslims and yes, you probably do in many senses. We all do. But - where their religion is concerned, there is always a point beyond which they cannot go in the cause of civilised debate. They are brainwashed from birth. That is why all but a very few of them (my hat is off to the wonderful Irshad Manjit) cannot contemplate a reformation.
Appeasement is repellent. And it's the first sign of dhimmitude.
All this talk about Muslim behavior misses the proverbial elephant in the kitchen.
There is a WAR going on right now against Islamic fascism.
The enemy has been oganising its political part of the operation for many years before 9/11.
Spys and agitaters are in the media the colledges the institutions and above all local and national government.
They were in the 1914-1918 war the 1939-1945 war and all through the cold war. What makes any of you think they are not now.
The point is, its ALL ORGANISED.
ALL OF IT.
Verity, the Egyptians had electric lighting 3000 years ago.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_lights_fd1.htm
URL for evidence that Pharoahs used electric lighting from batteries.
Just watching BBC news at 10pm for wales, and there is an article just been headlined saying, "Police are investigating a race hate crime when a pigs head is left outside of a mosque, ON THE HOLIEST DAY OF THE YEAR"
What did they mean by saying, clearly, 'the holiest day of the year'? Holier than Christmas? Easter? Shrove Tuesday? etc. etc. etc.
Typical BBC leftie liberal PC arseholes that may have just given another few thousand votes to the BBC. Why did they not quantify their statement by saying, "...holiest day of the year for muslims..." This is the kind of rubbish that feeds ethnic hatred, and while I don't agree or condone with it, I can to a degree understand.
The sooner we get rid of the BBC as it is and make them work for their money by scrapping the licence fee the better. Come on Iain, Cameron will gain tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of votes if he announces that Tory policy is to phase out the licence fee and make the BBC self sustaining (like farmers?) within five years.
What I would really like to know is how that Izzadeen and the other schmuck get to collect benefits. When I was unemployed I had to show proof that I was looking for work or have my benefits taken away. I had to prove I was ready to work and wasn't even allowed to take a course that would have helped me get work because that would mean I wasn't available for work. How do they get away with it?
And with our taxes?
And why hasn't anybody reported them to the DSS? Why hasn't one of the papers reported them? Why hasn't the Opposition said something about this and why hasn't the Government done something about it?
Just watching ITV news...they describe it as, "...one of the holiest days in the muslim calendar."
That's fair enough and well done ITV, even if you're reporting was OTT for such a trivial matter; you would believe the mosque had been burnt down with them all in it.
That has long puzzled me, lady finchley.
Captain Hook's got seven children, I believe and he is banned from re-entering the country. Yet his fat wife and his seven children are receiving a total of around £2,000 a month from the working British who get up on cold winter mornings and get ready and actually go to a job. As Captain Hook is no longer in the country to fiddle it, how are his "wife" and children managing to keep public housing and go to the Post Office to pick up their weekly pay-out? Why didn't they get shipped off the minute he was banned from the country? Although I'm sure there's a friendly imam who knows the ropes helping them ...
What are all these cousins of cousins, all of them married to each other, doing on our benefit system, given that they bring no benefit to Britain but are a drain on it? How are they getting benefits?
Maybe Tony and John intend to employ them all in the new mega-casinos as money launderers?
Tapestry- Many of the bombers are, we are told, simple hard working people to all outside appearances. Perhaps these `simple` folk are not as simple as you patronisingly suggest. The more serious problem with what you say is the supposition of a `dove` Muslim group . This is not born out by the revolting and threatening behaviour of the British Council of Muslims who quite disgracefully were allowed to threaten further bombing unless we consult them on our foreign policy.
Conservative Bookman
(There are some; how do you think the police keep arresting 'plotters'? I assume they're not all innocent, and that their must be people on the inside?).
On the other hand the 80 or so similar plots we gather are being monitored could not proceed without the tacit support of this so called peaceful majority
Adrian- . . .
. Verity is asserting her right to react with an emotional moral outrage where it is merited and not only where it is politically acceptable .I approve , vaguely , but could hardly participate.
Actually I am pretty much in agreement with your summary, somewhat to my surprise, it is tougher than it looks at first glance. On the minor point about there being common ground between Christianity and the enlightenment I disagree but this is a rather difficult subject for another time
SHOT GUN- No Christianity has within all the elements required for a fascist theocratic state were they emphasised differently. It is my belief that Islamic aggression is not an historical or doctrinal phenomenon but is in fact a very modern cultural war .There is a tendency in the West to assume that only we can jettison and reinterpret old ideas as we, in the 20th century .I would go no further than being sceptical of the value of overly static Western interpretations of what we see in the Arab world at the moment.
VERITY- I I am on your side more or less , people that are quick to become emotional about trees but embarrassed about anger in reaction to slaughter are fairly odious . I am suspicious myself of all claims to be engaged in a fight for abstract good or whatever grandiose world issue is currently appealing . Provided our security is provided for I care only to a very limited extent what evil people happen to be doing whatever they do in the world. I take your indignation at face value but could not share it .
I do not see that there is significant military threat and cannot elevate the entire resistance to the level of a new threat to the West on a par with the Warsaw pact . Historian Andrew Roberts has suggested in his new book precisely such a level of serious ness and ./…….well some people are just enjoying themselves a bit to much for me to keep a straight face. I am more likely to become angry about the level of taxation on me than the evils of militant Islam World wide .(unless it effects me or mine )
Shotgun: I think we agree - almost. Islam is a religion of fundamentals (a bit like evangelical Christianity and orthodox Judaism - which could easily become as 'theocratic' as Islam is) in that the holy book is taken literally! However, there are 'liberal Muslims' (just as there are liberal Christians and liberal Jews) who do regard themselves as Muslim, but just don;t take everything written in the Koran as 'literal' or in context for today - but who other Muslims might not see as non-Muslim because they are not 'literal'. However, I do see a difference between fundamentalism and 'extremism' - at least I understand extremism as being the acting out (or support) of acts of violence/suppression etc. Whilst many Muslims could be classifed as this, and whilst what is generally accepted as 'Islam' might also be categorised as this, I don't think that this description fits every muslim (at least not every muslim I know anyway).
Verity: By saying you should grow up, I am not being 'authoritarian' or your 'judge' - I am merely pointing out that you sound utterly foolish, immature and rather silly! You can say and do what the hell you want I am just expressing my own freedom of speech and my own moral outrage against someone who deliberately seeks to antagonise others. I see the same trait in my children - but I usually send them to bed!
I do not disagree with your points about outrages conducted in the name of Islam, and neither do I condone putting up with them. I just think that you cannot accuse someone of sticking when you smell bad yourself!
Finally, you point out the Islam has made no contribution to science and art (etc), saying it all came from India. Correct (apart from the bit which ignores the influence of Eygypt). But it came from the part of Inida which is now Afghanisatn, Pakistan and Rajastan - areas which were ruled by the Moghuls - who were all muslims! If you would like to argue this point at some length I'd be happy to give you a history lesson of the Moghul rulers, their contribution to the sciences, and how one even tried to start a new religon based on Sufi Islam and Hinduism!
Finally, I am sorry if you find me a tedious pompous bore (which from your comments I suspect you do) - but your bile leaves me feeling like you should be told to sit in the naughty girl's corner, facing the wall, and not allowed to talk to anyone until you learn some manners. especially when you seem to go out of your way to be som rude so often! It really is not nessecary! You can make great points without being such a complete cow!
newmania: Why the surprise? You really should read my blog rather than going on your (frequently wrong) assumptions about me.
This is part of a blog I posted last week on John Reid being hijacked by a bearded nuisence:...
...But Reid’s point is sound. British Islam is at a crossroads. Muslims must either be part of British society – meaning they must respect the laws of the land, and the prevailing British culture (both of which actually protect their interests), or be part of the growing global movement to ‘Islamacise’ the world – and enforce Islamic law, religion and ways of life all over the globe. I hope, that since the latter will never work – freedom loving people will never tolerate the imposition of Islam against their choice – that Muslims in the UK will choose to become a fully integrated and valued section of UK society and end this self-isolation that has caused such misunderstanding and ‘chippyness’ amongst so many Muslims.
But in order to do this, they need to start tackling the root cause of the problem in the UK, the failure of successive generations to integrate into UK society, and to understand that being British doesn’t mean turning their backs on Islam, but that being a Muslim can make you a better Briton! Previous Governments have probably done the Muslim community no favours be allowing it to believe that it can be a ‘sub culture’ within mainstream UK culture, and that Muslim communities can in effect govern themselves according to their own cultural norms – and that as long as they are vociferous enough, then they can live in the UK with little need to integrate, speak the language, and break-out of their ghettoes. The result of this tolerance of what is in effect a de-facto apartheid, is that a whole generation of people who benefit from what Britain provides them feel no sense of value in, or duty towards the country they live in. Instead, they feel a greater sense of loyalty to the countries of their ancestors – and isolate and call ‘traitor’ anyone from their community who dares to integrate and make a success of their own life.
Therefore, Muslim leaders MUST tackle and defeat the totally unjustified sense of grievance that many young Muslims have about Britain. They must teach their children that Islam and British citizenship are not mutually exclusive – you can be both! They must teach them to be both! They must get the message across that Muslims have a civil and moral duty to be net contributors to British society.
If they don’t, then Muslims will continue to be the subject of growing distrust, prejudice and fear. The end result will be the very thing that Muslims want least – the re-building of the walls of mental and psychological segregation that I have been hoping we were breaking down.
Finally, the ‘views’ of young Muslims in the UK following the Waltham Forest speech seem to be ‘why are you always picking on Muslims – why not Jews, Hindus and Christians’? Well, the answer is that not many Jews, Muslims or Christians have blown up buses and tubes recently! If you don’t want to get stereotyped then sort out your own house! Stand up to the extremists. Marginalise them. Expose them, and stop following every one of your public condemnations of an extremist view or act with the word ‘but’!
The extremists which have dominated our news agenda over the past few years maybe relatively few in numbers, and it may be that their views do not represent the views of the majority of UK Muslims - but they are increasingly becoming the accepted collective and representative face of British Islam. The Muslim community must not allow this to happen – but it can only do this by defeating extremism, and not by saying (in effect) that we are being racists when we wish to defend ourselves, or that many Muslims have a secret admiration for those who kill others by detonating suicide vests on crowded buses and trains!
I have no desire to live in an Islamic state, and I would fight to the death to resist its imposition by force! This, according to the fundamentalists, makes me an enemy of Islam. But I don’t think I am an enemy of Islam any more than an enemy of Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or reason! I am just in favour of freedom and against anything which limits freedom.
The real enemies of Islam are those who distort it for their own political and theological ends - and stereotype Islam as a religion of aggression, suppression of women and of imposition by force. They cause distrust, fear and ultimately strife with those who wish to live in peace with their Muslim neighbours, in mutual respect and tolerance.
But that will not happen unless the Muslim community sorts out it own troublemakers.
If they don’t, it won’t be long before others will.
There should be no limits on free speech, period. If anybody commits a violent act because of something they've heard, that's their fault and their fault alone. We should have none of this soppy "but he incited me!" nonsense.
"It would be good to hear what the Tories are going to do about this sort of thing."
HAHAHAHAHAHA. If only.
"That would be racist!"
Plus they delude themselves into believing they can win over the Muslim electorate.
Newmania - do not assign motives to me that I have not chosen for myself. You write: "Verity is asserting her right to react with an emotional moral outrage."
Incorrect.
No "moral outrage" and a void of "emotional". What text were you reading?
Never ascribe thoughts to me, because you're not clever enough and you do not have a wide enough frame of reference.
I'm no more "morally outraged" by these individuals than I am by traffic driving down my street. It's there.
I don't like mohammedans. They operate on a completely different moral code, which is not ours with its 2,000 year history of Christianity. The immigrants want to impose their Dark Ages standards on the host countries all over the world, from Britain to France to Australia, to Canada, to the United States - well, you get the idea. Why the host countries would be according them privileges is a puzzle.
I see on LGF that immigrant Somali cab drivers, who should have their faces in the diesel 10 hours a day thanking their unpleasant diety, are refusing in the US to take passengers coming off flights if the passengers are carrying duty-free liquor.
I think it's time someone explained the facts of life to mohammaden immigrants to all our countries that we haven't been sitting around for 2,500 years waiting for the opinions of some extremely smelly dimwit cab drivers who were lucky enough to worm their way in. (I include the Pakistanis in Britain in this.) I'll bet they were on their knees with bums in the air out of gratitude - to allah, not the United States for inexplicably letting them in.
And now they're imposing standards. Mark it well, sweethearts. It can only get worse.
Iain, that, moving object of shotgun is enough to give anyone a fit of epilepsy as it directly opposes 'Leave your comment' and it is hard to concentrate on the comment box with this aggressive green thing.
The provincial Adrian Yelland of the exlamation marks !!!! Is unstoppable!!
Yelland, you must not ascribe motives to me, because you do not understand the argument. And you do not understand the argument because Tony Blair has given you a lobotomy. You are the horse in the starting gate with its tail swishing and a straw hanging out of its mouth and wondering what all the shouting is about.
Do not try to involve me in your family circumstances - aka your children, over whome you have control and lecturing right - in which I have no interest. Do not refer, when referring to adults on this blog, back to your children. Do not refer, when addressing posts on this blog, to yourself as a father. Hot tip: No one here gives a shit.
Make an argument or not. But for God's sake, stop trying to involve everyone else posting here in your family. Dear God. Give it a rest!
Adrian Yalland -- and Verity:
Have you read VS Naipaul's:'Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey'? (published in 1981) and 'Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples' (published in 1998)?
Sir Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul was born in Trinidad of Hindu parents and was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2001. He now lives in England.
These two books set out why he holds Islam in such contempt. Both were written before 9/11; the first one 10 years before. I read 'Among the Believers' in the mid-'80s, soon after 'escaping' from working in Saudi Arabia, and it rang completely true then -- and even truer now.
When Shelby Steele said in an op-ed piece recently in the Wall Street Journal that, '... the Islamic world long ago fell out of history. Islamic extremism is the saber-rattling of an inferiority complex,' he has it absolutely right. And when, in his books, Naipaul describes Islam as a parasitical culture, he has that absolutely right too: for instance, none of the technology they use to damage Israel or the West is their invention: it all comes from the West--or perhaps Japan.
Islam (especially in the combination 'Islam plus Arabs') is politically, technically and financially bankrupt (for the last, at least it would be if you took the oil away) and hence morally bankrupt too: it cannot deliver at any level except on a sort of fascistic one.
It is perfectly true that most--the vast majority--of Muslims do not go around being suicide bombers.
However a small minority do: while the numbers of suicide bombing Christians, Jews, etc., is effectively nil. If Muslims, and their religion, attracts suspicion and even contempt, then they cannot really be surprised. It is clear that there has to be a flaw in their system/world-view/religion/call-it-what-you-will, to creat this situation. And if they cannot or will not sort this flaw out for themselves--and tout suit at that, then for all the preposterous bending-over-backwards to their sensibilities so far, the flaw will be sorted out for them by the rest of us.
And that they will find REALLY unpleasant.
SHOT GUN- No Christianity has within all the elements required for a fascist theocratic state were they emphasised differently.
This is a very simplistic hypothesis and takes nothing into account about the Christian church in its various guises. Of course Christianity at it's root has the same elements, but some extremely important additions; choice and freedom.
It is my belief that Islamic aggression is not an historical or doctrinal phenomenon but is in fact a very modern cultural war.
Since the time of morehamhead it is totally aggressive and there has been no freedom of choice within islam, not even with apostacy which was and STILL IS pinishable by death.
There is a tendency in the West to assume that only we can jettison and reinterpret old ideas as we, in the 20th century.
And that would be entirely right as we don't consider our holy book and scriptures as the literal word of God and incapable of being wrong or changed; muslims consider the koran the word of theor god and no open to interpretation, and the hadiths as being right and not open to interpretations either. They are stuck in the middle ages because they cannot change or interpret their books. This is why you are wrong about muslims and Christians.
I would go no further than being sceptical of the value of overly static Western interpretations of what we see in the Arab world at the moment.
I am not sceptical at all...how many deaths and suicide bombings will it take to make you less sceptical?
...But Reid’s point is sound. British Islam is at a crossroads. Muslims must either be part of British society – meaning they must respect the laws of the land, and the prevailing British culture
This is why I despise the likes or Reid so much; he is right, but does not practice what he preaches.
Part of the prevailing British culture? British culture is changing to accomodate muslims or whoever, yet ethnic minorities are encouraged to keep their own culture...why are British people not also encouraged?
no longer anonymous said...
There should be no limits on free speech, period. If anybody commits a violent act because of something they've heard, that's their fault and their fault alone. We should have none of this soppy "but he incited me!" nonsense.
I quite agree with this and it is used as an excuse, and now as a law protected excuse.
That's enough of this subject for me; I get too excited and frustrated.
Verity:
I am not a Catholic, but I capitalise the word, and I write 'Pope', not 'pope' -- just as I write 'London', not 'london', or 'Labour Party' not 'labour party'.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with respect or lack or it; it's to do with the way the English language treats proper nouns. Full Stop. (or Period, for our American cousins)
Don't be so childish.
Verity. You imagine I care about this `author` you know intimately but I do not. Following `Roland Barthes `Death of the Author. .etc. I am describing text not imputing motive in the irrelevant (in this context) real world. In other words I know what you `meant` as in `meaned` textually better than you do.
You have no idea how wide my `frame of reference` is (ugh) and what I say you said and felt is a truer more intuitive response than yours.
Yalland MP. To be honest you are so irredeemably boring as to defeat all will to respond. Please do not take this as a cue for a further instalment of your unwanted autobiography. If I suspected that your caricature of Pooterish truculence was calculated malice I would have enjoyed it, sadly it isn’t. I have an infinite number of better things to do than look at your blog, and yet another pitiful request is superfluous.
Struggling through the mire, I find the thoughts as unremarkable as ever. The style however is atrocious and if you are not going to take times to cohere your ideas I simply do not have the time to bother with it. It is inconsiderate of you to expect so much unrewarded effort and if an appeal to bourgeois manners is not understood I despair of any common language being found.
EDIT!!! You gabble like a child
Verity: I am reaching for the wooden spoon as I speak! I think the reference to my kids is entirely valid - because you sound like a spoilt brat who has a temper tantrum (or in your case a pointless rant) when she doesn't get her own way! It amuses and disgusts in equal measures!
And how do you know no-one gives a shit. Oh yea, I fogot, Verity is the font of all wisdom and knowledge and has the monopoly on understanding and speaking for everyone else!
The real point is, I agree with lots and lots and lots of what you say, but I find the way you say it, and the way you often seem to be deliberately offensive so off putting. I fear it destracts from the points you are trying to make
By the way - It's YALLAND (with an a) - but I suspect you know that! The Yellands come from Cornwall originally, and I come from Devon. I don't mind, but I thought I would get another tedious reference to my boring and irrelevant family history in - especially for you!
Don't rise to the bait. The principal problem for Moslems is internal. Their religion cannot compete easily with the modern world. Their young people are as attracted to American soap operas and movies as any other youth in the world. The Imams cannot compete. Change is sweeping through Moslem lands as fast or faster than it is through the West. The unease within Islam has spawned terrorism but that is not the core issue. It is all a case of how long it takes Islam to adjust to the mdoern world, and move on.
The threat of violence against the West is real enough but that is only a manifestation of Islamic unease and inability to cope with change. If they can externalise the situation, and accuse others of being the 'problem' that lifts the responsibility to achieve change from their shoulders. Every time we show a willingness to fight back in an argument we have little interest in, we fuel the fire, and supply oxygen to the extremists.
2bor2B: No I haven't, but I wil look it up. Thanks. Have you read 'Islam and Terrorism' by Anwar Shaikh. It seeks to point out from the Koran, history and current activities of Jihadis that Islam advocates permanent hostility between the Muslims and non-Muslim, and assures victory to its adherents in this lethal struggle".
I only have one copy but you are welcome to borrow it.
Shotgun 9.21 I agree wholeheartedly about the UK culture (how it is changing and how that which we consider our traditional culture - or more accurately British regional 'cultures' is being changed to become accepting of ways of life which are at odds with our own post-enlightenment values), and this was the subject of another post of mine where I said the problem is that we have firstly forced, then encouraged, and then not discouraged, the 'ghettoisation' of many Asian communities in the UK, which has lead to whole 'Asian villages' inside our towns and cities. This then gives rise to situations where you might be geographically in the UK, but you could in expereince be in Pakisatan or the Punjab. Whilst this is not an unpleasent experience (I love St. Mary's in Southampton - especially during Diwali or Ramadam - it's so colourful and the Asian supermarkets are great places to shop - and most of the residents are really nice people), it has dangers, as generation of people grow up without ever learning to mix their family culture with wider British culture (i.e. they don't learn to speak English, get an education or becpome self dependent). It is in effect similar to apartheid, or perhaps the segretagtion of communities in Ulster.
The result is they then only ms with their own communities, get educated alongside mostly non-whites, and have few freinds who can introduce them to wider UK culture, and get trapped in relative poverty, become welfare dependent, hostile towards a country they feel offers them nothing, 'homesick' for their ancestoral homelands (tyhe good old days which never were), and in the case of Islamic nutters, decide to try and overthrow the western world!
Essentially, we need a carrot and stick approach. We have to force the communities to integrate better, but we also have to show them the benefits of doing so, working to show how their cultures can be of benefit to UK culture (for example, I wish that the white Brits had the same commitment to hard work and family and self reliance that some in the Asian community exhibit), but how they can benefit from enlightenment values - liberty, freedom of choice etc.
Remember, we brought these people over when we needed them to do the jobs 'white people' wouldn't do. Now we have Polish people to do these jobs for us, we still have a duty (out of self interest if nothing else) to make sure that these communities become contributers to, and benefit from UK society, and that their children integrate and prosper, and that they feel that have a stake in the country of their birth.
I feel that the blame is 50/50, but that we should stop looking at who is to blame, and what we can do to make it better!
As I said, carrot and stick!
Tapestry:Very interesting point! I think you are correct actually.
To be Islamic all you really have to do is acknowledge Mohammed as a genuine prophet, pray pointing towards Mecca & give money to the poor (& a lot are somewhat wayward inthe latter).
By the standards of 632AD this was considerably more moderate than Christianity (& what is theoreticaly required of Christians today).
Christianity is tolerable purely because nobody really believes in it & the same is inevitably happening to Islam.
2br02b - I love VS Naipaul and read "Among The Believers" in the 80s. It was fascinating - mostly, at that time, for the sheer skill of the writer. The religion itself seemed, then, remote. How wrong I was and how prescient Naipaul! I am going to reread it in the light of events today and I'll bet it is illuminating.
Tapestry - mohammedanism is not "trying to cope with the modern world". They are not overwhelmed with our technology. They are in the West for one reason: to colonise it for allah. This is - forgive me - an ignorant perception and tells me that you have read very little about either islam or the people who cleave to this nightmare-ish "religion".
The self-detonators are not frustrated with that old favourite "a clash of cultures". Their actions are to cow the public into submission. (The word islam means submission, just in case you didn't know that.)
Their mission is to convert the entire world, at the point of a sword or the button on a suicide vest if necessary, to submit to their diety. Anything they do in this cause gets them into "paradise" where they get these 72 retread virgins and rivers run with wine. Woo hoo! A drink at last!
Adrian Yalland, I do apologise for spelling your name wrongly. I typed it from memory. I would take it kindly if you would cease and desist from using words like "spoiled brat" and "temper tantrums" and relating everything back to your children and your role of pater familialis. The people who blog here are not in your family and have little interest in your judgements about their personalities and lives, about which you know nothing.
I suggest that people go back and reread shotgun's well-reasoned and informed comments. He has hit the nail on the head. He knows enough about islam to be able to make judgements. He has a wider frame of reference than some others posting on this thread and what he says is correct.
Neil Craig - In your dreams.
Finally, I am surprised at how submissive the British have been in the enforcement of islamic standards on the indigenes. If I were a parent with a child at a state school, I would bring a case that forcing halal meat on my child was against her human rights. Yet the British submit. Fifty-eight million of them taking their orders from 2.5m primitives who cleave to a barbaric "religion". The police are asking permission from the muslims before they raid possible terrorists' houses. They are covering their shoes with little booties so they don't offend terrorists' families.
I amgoing back to using islam and muslim because typing out mohammedanism every time is too long and complicated. (Is it muhammad or mohammed - pause - think - nah! Any muslims reading this post can be assured that my not capitalising the name of their religion or their allah is a studied insult.)
tapestry: Ha ha. You obviously didn't have the patience to read the whole of that lengthy article before you posted that Egyptians having electric lightbulbs 3000 years ago! Read the end and you'll see the author's conclusions were quite different to yours!
tapestry is not the brightest light in the harbour.
If they want to spread their beliefs, they are taking out the wrong kind of advertising. In the Middle East the reality of terrorism is losing support from many Moslems for fundamentalism. Most of the people being killed are Moslems.
Amazing if it was Pakistan's Internal Security who organised the bombing in Mumbai. In the short run, they are getting a lot of young headstrong lads to go around killing, but longterm they are proving to trhe world that their religious ideas are wrong.
As with Labour proving themselves a bunch of losers this week, it's best when your opponents are doing all your hard work for you, to maintain a judicious silence. Let them (fundamentalists) show themselves to be what they are. Obviously actual threats to security must be dealt with efficiently, but we don't need to say anything. They are completely capable of proving themselves to be in the wrong without any input from us at all. We have nothing to prove.
conservative bookman - why is it men who are losing an argument always, always, always start flinging sexual accusations around? Maybe because they feel inadequate, who knows?
Anyway, let us address the issues of this thread on this blog and not use it for making sexual accusations at total strangers.
Of course "not all muslims are scum"! Who said they are? There are, however, a large number of muslim immigrants in the west who are aggressively bent on changing our culture and changing the laws of our country to reflect what allah wants. Or told mo he wanted.
(Has anyone ever considered the point that mo' might have misremembered some of the messages? I mean, he was illiterate. He couldn't take it down verbatim. He was doing this from memory. Has anyone ever posited the notion that he may have got it wrong?)
You say: "Idiots like you increase the numbers who turn scummish,". Well, thank you kindly for ascribing so much power to us, but it simply isn't so.
First, I never called them scum. That is a rather adolescent word and is inadequate. I would rather call them 'of evil intent'. Second, it is the imams and their mates who encourage them to join the self-detonating community. The last thing they are interested in is individual opinions of people from the West; they think our entire civilisation is wrong.
For someone who claims to have lived in islamic countries, you don't seem to know much about the religion.
Well, Verity, what do you say we all write to our MPs and ask about these slobs on benefits?
I have already emailed mine but as he is Labour I imagine he will be an apolgist for them. I shall let you know when I receive his reply.
Verity: Thank you for your apology, but none was needed. It's a strange name and often mis-spelt.
As for the rest of your request, I shall try - but I hope that you will understand that there are times when you do appear (admitedly, perhaps only to me) as quite rude at times. Like many people, I find rudeness unnecessary. I do apologise however if I labour this point too much - one of my many failings I admit!
Newmania: I'll edit if you write something that doesn't require a degree in gibberish (and a master in pompsity) to understand! I mean, what the hell is Pooterish truculence anyway? As for the rest of the post, I find you commenets about as enlightening as a blown lightbulb and as accurate as a dart thrown by David Blunkett.
In short, I thought your comments were....how can I say this.....pompous twoddle?
Perhaps if you stopped making judgements without first aquainting yourself with the facts, I wouldn't feel the need to invite you to become aquainted with them!
And now - back to the blog.....
`Pooterish truculence`
Pooter as in `Diary of Nobody` Adrian. Its about as famous as any comic book in English.You should read it. Don`t you have a blog or something ......?
Newmania: Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that! The last comic I read I think was Astrix and Obelix - and it was in French!
.A book containing comedy, and now you are telling me you speak French , I think .
Can I summarise
I find your politics close to mine barring faddy bits and bobs but we never get far do we.
We get Doh we get ray we get me and me and me and me and me and me...
We never get far.
Newmania eh? .... oh bollocks, I can't be arsed anymore! You are just to obscure for me.
Post a Comment