Western Resistance

« Apologies | | Pakistan: Former Minister Claims That The US Will Launch "Imminent Attack" »

July 6, 2008

UK: Going To The Dogs Over Muslim Sensitivities?

For legal reasons - British readers are urged not to read this article and are requested to totally ignore it. Please enjoy some bunnies instead.

On Jews, Muslims and Hitler

In an article in the Independent, Peter Oborne argues that Islamophobia is the new British disease. He follows the line that Muslims are being demonized, and states that "Surveys show Muslims have the highest rate of unemployment, the poorest health, the most disability and fewest educational qualifications of any faith group in the country. This means they are vulnerable, rendering them open to ignorant and hostile commentary from mainstream figures."

If Muslims are poorly educated and unable to find good jobs - it is their own fault, and not the fault of Britain. Recent mass immigration from Poland has proved that even without language skills, there are jobs available in Britain for those who are wiling to work. Muslims' health issues are similarly of their own making - after all in Britain even illegal immigrants have access to full free-on-the-point-of-delivery healthcare. And I wonder what these surveys class as disability - work-related accidents, or even congenital disabilities, caused by inbreeding, a by-product of arranged marriage customs?

Oborne finishes off his politically correct hand-wringing with a call for collective guilt on the part of the British public and establishment: "We should all feel ashamed about the way we treat Muslims, in the media, in our politics, and on our streets. We do not treat Muslims with the tolerance, decency and fairness that we often like to boast is the British way. We urgently need to change our public culture."

Oborne's comments about the victimization of Muslims in Britain tally with how many Muslims view their situation. Recently, Labour MP for Dewsbury Shahid Malik trotted out a mantra that has been used by Dr Muhammed Abdul Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), and Osama Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB): the presumption that Muslims in modern Britain feel like Jews under Hitler.

Currently, Jews in Britain are FOUR TIMES more likely to suffer physical attacks than Muslims, and it is a sad fact that some of these attacks upon Jews are carried out by Muslims. It is now a popular myth - originally invented by Bernard Lewis - that Muslim anti-Semitism originated with the foundation of Israel, and that before the advent of Zionism Muslims treated Jews well.

Though many liberals in the UK adhere to Lewis' dogma - even, it seems, in the biased reporting of Palestinian issues by the BBC - Islamic anti-Semitism has a long history. I am currently reading Dr Andrew Bostom's seminal work "The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism" for the purposes of writing a review. The book, containing a plethora of documentation, some of it translated for the first time, thoroughly explodes Bernard Lewis' theory.

Peter Oborne in his emotive cascade of rhetoric maintains that there is no difference between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. He states that "there is no social, political or cultural protection for Muslims: as far as the British political, media and literary establishment is concerned the normal rules of engagement are suspended."

Shahid Malik, as reported by Reuters and the leftist Independent, maintains that it is now "legitimate" for the media and society at large to target Muslims. He states: "I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe. I don't mean to equate that with the Holocaust but in the way that it was legitimate almost - and still is in some parts - to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way. Somehow there's a message out there that it's OK to target people as long as it's Muslims. And you don't have to worry about the facts, and people will turn a blind eye."

There is a reason for there to be a similarity between Malik's and Oborne's perspectives. Malik features in a Channel 4 documentary to be aired on Monday night, the third anniversary of the 7/7 attacks of 2005, in which 52 innocent Londoners were blown to bits by a team of four Muslim suicide bombers. The documentary is made by Peter Oborne and is called, emotively, "It Shouldn't Happen to a Muslim."

The Independent states that an "ICM survey found that 51 per cent of Britons blame Islam to some degree for the 2005 attacks". Mohammed Sidique Khan - leader of the 7/7 bombers - claimed on video that he was bombing London because he thought Muslims were under attack, and because he was annoyed with the attitudes of Muslim preachers who gave in to kaffir values.

So no wonder half of Britons thought Islam was to blame for 7/7. I am surprised that, as Khan carried out his bombings to support what he perceived to be "true Islam", the figure was not higher. The ICM survey, commissioned to coincide with the documentary, also stated that ONE QUARTER OF MUSLIMS feel that Islamic values are not compatible with British values. Does Peter Oborne expect the British public to feel guilty that some Muslims believe British culture is incompatible with their ideology?

In case anyone has developed selective amnesia, this is what Mohammed Sidique Khan said. The video was released while his body lay in 52 bags (one for each of his cell's victims?) in a drawer at Westminster Coroner's Court.

""Until we feel security, you will be our targets - not until you have stopped the bombing, gassing, imprisonment, and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight. We are at war, and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.........Jihad is an obligation, on every single one of us, men and women, and by staying at home, you are turning your backs on Jihad, which is a major sin, it's a Kabira gona (clears throat). If you have any doubts or reservations about this and the other Jihad ayas, then I strongly suggest you research them, check the Islamic history - the books are very widely available - look to the classical scholars. See what sort of lives they led."

"Our so-called scholars today are content with their Toyotas and semi-detached houses. They seem to think their responsibilities lie with pleasing the khuffar instead of Allah, so they tell us ludicrous things, like "you must obey the law of the land". So how na- how on earth did we conquer lands in the past if we were to obey by this, this law? By Allah, these scholars will be brought to account, and if they fear the British government more than they fear Allah, then they must desist in doing talks, lectures, and passive fatwas and they need to stay at home where they are useless, and leave the job to the real men, the true inheritors of the Prophets."

Shehzad Tanweer, Khan's comrade-in-murder, said in his farewell video that Britain had "openly declared war on Islam and the foreigners in the crusade against the Muslims...We love death the way you love life."

Britain must feel guilty for the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, and must accept that if Britain had a different foreign policy and had different attitudes towards Islam, then there would be no threat from Islamic radicalism or Islamic terror. That was the message openly trotted out by hijab-wearing Rajnaara Akhtar on the first anniversary of the 7/7 attacks.

Anas Altikriti wrote at the same time: "We will not stand for our country and people being terrorised nor will we stand for our government terrorising any other peoples." This individual - who argued back in 2004 that the British media was antagonising Muslims - was between 2004 and 2005 the president of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB).

The MAB (like the Muslim Council of Britain) was co-founded by Kemal el-Helbawy, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group founded in 1927 in Egypt. Altikriti now heads the Cordoba Foundation. This group, founded in 2005 claims that it exists to uphold better relations between cultures. Strange then, that it is called Cordoba - a direct reference to the Muslim colony established in Spain following the violent invasion by Tariq bin Zayid in 711 AD.

Back in August 2006, an open letter was published in several newspapers in Britain. This letter, signed by numerous Muslim groups, including the MAB and MCB, blamed British political policy for attacks: "It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad."

It would be foolish to deny that Islamophobia exists. But Islamophobia literally means "fear of Islam" - not hostility against individual Muslims. The actions of Islamists are to be feared - including their political actions as well as their terrorist actions.

The radicalization of Muslims in Britain has been left - for the most part - to the Muslim community to address. And that policy has done nothing to assist young Muslims to become "integrated" into British society. Many of the older generation of Muslims in Britain are from Bangladesh and Pakistan, and many of these "elders" encourage their offspring to engage in arranged marriages, often with first cousins from their home villages. Such practices are inextricably linked to honor violence.

It is known that Mohammed SIdique Khan was rejected by his father when he married a woman of his own choice, rather than the imported arranged bride chosen by his family. If his father had not been so stuck in his "alien" ways, and had accepted his bride, it is possible that Khan would never have been drawn into radicalism.

There are currently vast ghettos in most large cities where Muslim communities exist, where Urdu and Bangla are spoken more frequently than English. These communities are in some cases - despite the protestations of leftists - "no-go areas" for non-Muslims. Multiculturalism has encouraged migrants to feel "separate" and "different" and has done nothing to help individuals from such communities to become assimilated or integrated into British society. And yet if one draws attention to these "no-go areas" the term "Islamophobe" is thrown around as a weapon. When a bishop (Michael Nazir-Ali) mentions that such "no-go areas" exist, he gets death threats from Muslims.

Christian preachers are actively told by a Muslim police support officer that they must not do missionary work in a "Muslim area". So for some individuals in the police, no-go areas do exist. But for Britain's liberals and leftists, even drawing attention to such truths is an act of "Islamophobia".

Racism is an evil - but so is too is dishonesty. The leftists and liberals who throw out the term "Islamophobe" as a condemnation understand little about Islam as it is practiced in Britain today. It escapes the consciousness of such appeasers that one third of British mosques are currently run by imams of Deobandi persuasion. The senior leaders of Afghanistan's Taliban were all educated at madrassas, such as the Haqqania in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province. Deobandis support the oppression of women, and the Taliban still kills people who educate girl children, but Britain's liberals who condemn Islamophobia conveniently ignore such harsh truths.

In Scotland, Osma Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain has suggested that Muslims in Britain suffer in the same way that Jews suffered under Hitler. In 2006 he said: "Hitler was a product of German society, where anti-Semitic attitudes had existed unchecked for decades. We have got to listen and learn from what happened there and be vigilant. I am not talking about large numbers of people being rounded up, but we could be looking at situations where Muslims are routinely assaulted in the streets."

Around the same time, Osama Saeed urged Muslims to refuse to cooperate with the police. In Tayside in Dundee, the police had set up a Special Branch community unit to tackle extremism. Now, Tayside police have become embroiled in a controversy involving dogs and Muslims.

Going To the Dogs?

Britain is well-known as a nation of dog-lovers. But for Muslims in Britain and beyond, the issue of dogs has been a source of contention. In Iran in February this year, a 70-year old man was sentenced to 30 lashes and a prison term for the "crime" of walking his dog.

Mohammed, founder of Islam, had "issues" with dogs. In the Hadiths of Imam Muslim, "Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered to kill dogs, and he sent (men) to the corners of Medina that they should be killed." Later, this order was modified so that working dogs should be spared.

The police rely upon sniffer dogs in the hunt for explosives and drugs. They also rely upon dogs for the apprehension of some criminals. In Tayside, the police recently used a cute six-week old German Shepherd puppy called Rebel in some of its promotional material.

Little Rebel was posed inside a policeman's hat, in a promotional flier distributed around Tayside. The flier was to be displayed in store windows. The police force was not prepared for the reaction that ensued.

The story was reported in the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Fox News, Metro the Scotsman and Press Association.

The picture of Rebel was used because he had been born as part of a puppy-breeding program to raise police dogs. He had a attracted a lot of visitors to Tayside Police website when his pictures were posted , along with a "puppy diary. It was assumed that his photogenic features along with his fame would be welcomed by the public. The press reports suggested that Muslims have complained about the canine image, and that some Muslim store owners have refused to display the fliers.
The issue was highlighted by a Dundee city councillor, Mohammed Asif, who also heads Tayside Joint Police Board. Asif was the one who suggested that some Muslims "might" find the image offensive. All reports that Muslims are offended stem from this councillor, who is getting a publicity boost from the press reporting. He claimed that some shopkeepers would not display the postcard."

Asif said: "My concern was that it's not welcomed by all communities. With the dog on the cards, it was probably a waste of resources going to these communities. People who have shops just won't put up the postcard. But the police have said to me that it was simply an oversight and they did not seek to offend or upset. The police should have understood.
"Since then the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part and that if they had seen it was going to cause upset they would not have done it."

Osama Saeed has suggested that Asif was misinterpreted. He argued: ""It does not appear to me that Mohammed Asif has mentioned anywhere that Muslims as a faith group would find this offensive. This seems to be a complaint based on culture rather than religion. There isn't any Islamic basis for taking issue with a simple picture of a little puppy."

Following Mohammed Asif's comments, Tayside Police has apologized for its "oversight" and a spokesman stated that "did not seek advice from the force's diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused." The comments pages under the Daily Mal and Telegraph reports are almost universally angry. One writer to the Telegraph stated simply: "WHAT THE FUCK?????"

The issue of Muslims being offended by dogs has been in the British media again. On June 27, the Express newspaper reported that a document by Britain's Transport Department has suggested that police sniffer dogs must not come in contact with passengers, after Muslims complained that contact with dogs was "unacceptable".

British Transport Police emply snifer dogs at railway stations to sniff out explosives. Following explosions on underground trains on 7/7 2005, and attempted bombings of London underground trains on June 21, 2005, as well as attempted bomb attacks upon German trains in 2006, the police have a duty to protect citizens from potential bombings.

The report by the Transport Department, a government body, stated that Muslim passengers had complained when they came in contact with sniffer dogs that were employed in a trial that was carried out on all passengers on trains from Brighton. The report also stated that another trial, which took place on the Heathrow Express platform, where all potential train passengers were subjected to body scanners was found to be "unacceptable" to Muslim females.

Fortunately for public security, the British Transport Police is not going to change its methodology. A spokesperson said: "We are obviously aware of, and sensitive to, cultural sensitivities. BTP officers do have the power to stop and search anyone under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. This also covers the use of dog handlers and dogs, which are used to indicate any substance they have been trained to detect."

In another British news report, a recommendation has been made by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). This body is compriseid of senior police chiefs from across the country. It has stated that when raids take place in Muslim mosques and Muslim homes, sniffer dogs will be obliged to wear "bootees" so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities.

The Acpo recommendation states: "We are trying to ensure that police forces are aware of sensitivities that people can have with the dogs to make sure they are not going against any religious or cultural element within people’s homes. It is being addressed and forces are working towards doing it."

Betrayals By The Establishment

We are living in Britain in a society that is hypocritical and contradictory. We have an established church, which means that Parliament's upper house (the House of Lords) has 26 bishops who have seats. These 26 bishops are chosen by the Prime MInister. SImilarly, the person in the role of Archbishop of Canterbury, titular head of the global Anglican church, is chosen not for his spiritual virtues but for his closeness to the views of the prime minister who selects him.

The Anglican church is thus implicitly part of Britain's political constitution. Dr Rowan Williams is the current Archbishop of Canterbury. He was chosen by Tony Blair, who headed the same Labour government that has been undermining all of Britain's traditional values. In February 2008 Williams shocked the nation with his suggestion that sharia law in Britain was "inevitable".
Last week, Britain's most senior judge took a walk in Rowan Williams' shoes, apparently oblivious to the hostility that the Archbishop's comments evoked. The Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Travers, was speaking as a guest at the East London Mosque, whose chairman is Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the current head of the Muslim COuncil of Britain. The Chief Justice claimed that sharia law could play a role in British law, for example in cases of mediation.

The Chief Justice had gained most of his knowledge on Sharia law from a short trip to Oman. He claimed that there was "widespread misunderstanding" about sharia, and stated: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution." The full speech can be viewed on video.

Phillips did not support the introduction of amputations or stonings, but he seemed totally oblivious to the fact that in sharia, a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man. As such, it is in total opposition to a basic principle of British law. A witness testimony is judged on its merits, not upon the ender of the person presenting it.

The Chief Justice said: "It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law." His comments elicited mixed reactions.

Charles Moore, writing in the Telegraph noted that Ed Husain, author of The Islamist had become radicalized after visiting the East London Mosque. Moore also stated: "Sharia also traditionally insists on a second-class status of citizenship for Jews and Christians. All four main schools of sharia say that the penalty for apostasy - abandoning the faith - is death."

Following on the heels of Lord Phillips of Worth Travers' speech a senior British barrister, Stephen Hockman QC, argued that there was an "inevitability" of sharia law being used in Britain.

Matthew Parris, writing in the Times, presents a cogent argument for there being only one set of laws in Britain - the argument of equality under the law.
If those who administer the law in Britain argue for the democratically-derived principles and statutes of law to be undermined in a vain attempt to appease a minority of less than 3 percent of the population, there is a severe problem.

Women have argued for their rights in Britain, sometimes with acts of vandalism during the time of the Suffragettes. But no acts of terrorism were committed by these campaigners. Homosexuals were prevented by law from expressing their sexuality until 1967, and there was never "gay terrorism" to achieve equal rights. Jews in Britain were banned for five hundred years until the 17th century and Oliver Cromwell removed sanctions against them.

Currently Muslims in Britain are equal under the law. They have the right to vote, the right to life and property and everything else that citizenship entails. No other minority is demanding a special legal code. Chinese Buddhists, Indian Hindus and Sikhs have migrated to Britain, and none are demanding that Britain's laws and status quo be abandoned to suit their particular demands. Admittedly many Muslims, such as the eminently reasonable and genuinely moderate Muslim MP Khalid Mahmood have argued that they do not wish for sharia law.

Yet the main problem here is that the powers-that-be do not listen to the people. They do not even listen to the majority of Muslims. They listen to the so-called spokespeople of Islam to decide how they should act. And those spokespeople have their own agenda - often one that is based upon pure Islamism.

As a result the MCB had acted as unelected advisers to Tony Blair's government, even though many of its leaders were influenced by Islamist Syed Ala Maududi. This man argued for setting up an Islamic state, no matter the cost in human life. Maududi wrote: "In Jihad a man takes away life and gives it away solely in the cause of Allah." The MCB and MAB were co-founded by a Muslim Brotherhood member.

In Britain's contradictory society, there is contradictory attitude towards Muslims. Most people in Britain would hate to be seen as racist. Though there are many Muslims who complain that they are oppressed, there seem to be far more non-Muslims who are trying to think for Muslims. Such an attitude is highly patronising, and is of itself "Islamophobic". Instead of accepting Muslims as any other member of society, these liberal do-gooders decide to become champions of the oppressed, as if Muslims are an enfeebled species whose needs must be met by "noblesse oblige". The superior beneficiary of privilege must become a benefactor for the inferior, and become a mouthpiece for the mute.

The combined forces of the Islamists who masquerade as Muslim spokespeople and the fanatical bleeding-heart liberals and leftists are destroying social cohesion as effectively as would the serried ranks of the Waffen SS. The British police should uphold the law without favor. Yet in Tayside they bow down to the demands of self-appointed Muslim "representative" Mohammed Asif.

In an environment controlled by leftists, belonging to a minority is a source of kudos, a political badge of honor. Only the members of minority groups can fully understand how atrocious and oppressive Britain's society is. As a result, Muslims can dishonestly compare themselves to Jews facing extermination under Hitler's regime and senior establishment figures acquiesce to such nonsense.

The British police used to be accused of racism, and I personally witnessed police racist abuse in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1999 a major inquiry found the police to be "institutionally racist". Instead of merely addressing racism, the police have now gone to ridiculous lengths. It appears that the police are more concerned with appearing politically correct than they are concerned with combating crime.

In 2002 a former TV presenter was arrested "on suspicion of inciting racial hatred". Robin Page's "crime" had been to publicly say "If you are a black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you." Mr Page fought for five years to clear his name. He won $4,000 compensation in January this year from Gloucestershire police.

In Luton, Bedfordshire, a police officer was forced to resign in January 2008 for playing a practical joke on a Muslim friend and colleague. During a Christmas party, he had given the Muslim police officer a bottle of wine and a pack of bacon. The Muslim recipient of the gifts had found the prank amusing and did not complain, but administrators refused to see the humor.

In May this year, an 18-year old car driver was told to remove a St George's flag from inside the back of his car. Ben Smith was told by a policeman that the flag (England's national flag) could be considered racist against immigrants. The police officer said that Mr Smith faced a fine if he did not comply.

Liberals Who Shill For Islamism

The problem of zealous politically correct policing derives specifically from an attempt to redress an imbalance. The pendulum has swung from one unpleasant position to another, instead of resting at a median point where existing rules against discrimination were upheld sensibly. It is neither the duty of the police nor of the judiciary to redefine the law. Only parliament can change the law. Sadly parliament introduced the Human Rights Act in 1998 which has made British law of secondary importance to the terms of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Judges have interpreted this legislation to mean that Afghan terrorists cannot be deported to their home country lest they be tortured upon their return.

Abu Qatada, regarded as Al Qaeda's "ambassador in Europe" arrived illegally in Britain in 1988. He has been convicted in absentia by a Jordanian court on charges of terrorism. But last month Qatada was freed from the jail where he awaited deportation and he was allowed to remain in Britain. He will receive benefits courtesy of the British tax-payer. Similarly, Yasser al-Siri walks around Maida Vale in West London. He was convicted in Egypt of plotting a bomb attack that killed a six year old girl. Yet he remains free in Britain.

N.B> British readers - do NOT read the next two paragraphs

British readers are asked not to read this link as it contains the name of a suspected terrorist who has recently been released from Belmarsh jail where he has remained since 2001. One of this suspected terrorist's associates was deported to France in 2006. I have frequently written of this man, as have many British newspapers. But now, if I disclose his name to British readers (this site is registered in the United States) I could be found guilty of contempt of court, even though one British website has named him.

Last week this Algerian individual, who has been awaiting deportation for seven years, was freed. The judge, Mr Justice Mitting, has ordered that this man can only be identified by the British press as "U", even though the government's Home Office has described him as a "leading organizer and facilitator of terrorist activity."

Sadly we already have one High Court judge in Britain (Mr Justice Eady) who has used Britain's 1998 Human Rights Act to completely redefine the parameters of what constitutes libel. As a result of David Eady's zeal, in 2004, George Galloway won a libel case. The case was won not because a report claiming the leftist politician had received money from Saddam Hussein was untrue, but because Galloway had not been offered a chance to comment on the story before it was published.

Currently there seems to be a movement in progress in Britain, where the wrongs of the past are being righted in retrospect. The consequences upon society and social cohesion are devastating. The current government has been in power since May 1997, and it certainly began this process.

Unfortunately the government introduced legislation in 2000 which was intended to counter terrorism and serious crime. Originally this legislation (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act or RIPA) was designed to allow only a few public bodies to investigate the lives and electronic communications of individuals. Now, a total of 792 agencies - comprising individuals who are neither qualified in surveillance nor directly elected - have permission to snoop and share information about individual citizens. Unelected council employees are currently enjoying unprecedented powers to place citizens under surveillance for the most trivial of reasons - such as whether or not a person's dog fouls the sidewalk.

This is the sad reality of Britain today. Muslims may complain that they are being treated like Jews under Hitler, but the regime of political correctness introduced during this Labour government's tenure is a regime of oppression and denial of the basic principles upon which British law was founded. By subjugating British law under the principles of the 1950 ECHR, and preparing to sell out British autonomy to the European Union and its Lisbon Treaty, the British government abuses the constitutional rights of all of its citizens, be they Muslims or non-Muslims.

Servants of the State

Judges in Britain turn existing laws on their heads and rewrite the rules. They are not the only ones. Self-appointed righters of wrongs exist in all spheres of life. Education is no exception. I wrote earlier of how Muslim indoctrination has infiltrated schools in both America and Britain.

The latest example of such indoctrination happened at a Cheshire school on Tuesday July 1 last week. Students in one class at Alsager High School were obliged to partake in a role-playing exercise, where they had to pretend that they were Muslims.

The woman teacher showed the students a movie on Islam before engaging in the role-play. Prayer mats were produced. Two children were made to wear Muslim headgear and the children were made to kneel on the floor to pray to Allah. One parent claimed: "The teacher then asked the class if someone had any water to wash their feet. In essence my child was being forced to behave like a Muslim and pray to Allah."

Two boys refused to "worship" the Muslim deity and were consequently punished with a detention. Five sets of parents complained. One parent, Sharon Luinen, told a local newspaper: "This isn't right, it's taking things too far. I understand that they have to learn about other religions, I can live with that, but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Muslim prayer. Making them pray to Allah, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful."

Cheshire Council has launched an investigation. It appears that the two boys were disciplined for not being "respectful" to prophet Mohammed. The entire class missed a refreshment break while made to perform in this charade. One grandfather of a pupil said: "It's absolutely disgusting, there's no other way of putting it... But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war."

Shahid Malik maintains that "Somehow there's a message out there that it's OK to target people as long as it's Muslims." Peter Oborne blames newspaper columnists such as Polly Toynbee and Rod Liddle, as well as author Martin Amis, for encouraging a climate where Muslims are attacked physically.

There are racist attacks upon Muslims and their mosques, and these must always be challenged and dealt with under the law. But similarly there are also Muslim attacks upon non-Muslims, such as the attacks upon Rabbi Alex Chapper, upon John Payne or Henry Webster, or the murders of Christopher Yates, Kriss Donald, Ross Parker, or Isaiah Young-Sam. These examples are sidelined by the press and media, perhaps fearful that highlighting such cases may initiate a backlash.

When all are equal under the law, giving any one group special treatment only creates resentments and divisions. If one is to follow the arguments of Islamic spokespeople and "kaffir" liberals, the responsibility for improving Britain's racial and religious relations lie in the hands of kaffirs alone.

What is obvious from the actions of people like the Chief Justice and the Archbishop of Canterbury or the teacher at Alsager High School is that sometimes the "cure" for social division is itself a source of further injury.

At present, a bigamist can receive seven years' jail if convicted. Yet the British government recognizes Muslim polygamous marriages and allows welfare payments to a Muslim's multiple wives. Something here is wrong. Such payments suggest that - far from being victims of Nazi-style oppression - Muslims in some cases receive special, privileged , treatment. This aspect of sharia has already been acknowledged and incorporated into Britain's legislation, by the back door.

There are many things wrong with some members of the Muslim communities, such as arranged and forced marriages, honor violence and the desire to become segregated in areas that are off-limits for non-Muslims. If we listen too carefully to the liberals and the leftists who cry out "Islamophobia" at the drop of a hijab, social wrongs in the Muslim community will avoid all criticism - even though Muslims themselves are the main victims of such social ills.

Many of the Muslim "representatives" argue that there is no integration, but these individuals do nothing to counter the cultures of segregation that are being encouraged in mosques and schools by Saudi Arabian Wahhabist literature or the promotion of anti-Western ideology of individuals such as Sayyid Qutb or Maududi.

The British government has recently urged the spending of millions of pounds upon Muslim groups, as a means to combat extremism. Such an approach has no proven success rate, and can be misinterpreted. It seems that extremism is being rewarded, or that Muslims are being bribed to become citizens, instead of demanding that all British citizens must take their responsibilities of citizenship seriously.

Police, educationalists, the media, the judiciary and government must stop trying to manipulate society artificially. Societies do not peacefully change overnight. Current policies of pandering to minorities will only alienate the majority, and in turn the majority can enact its frustrations by further alienating the minorities.

Multiculturalism of the sort promoted by the Labour Party has been a major source of community division. Everyone who lives in Britain should be treated equally, according to the laws and traditions that the society was built upon. No-one has the right to change the rules by which we live by, unless the democratic legislative process is followed. Creating a Utopia may appeal to some idealists, though it is all to easy to create a Dystopia.

The Labour government has relied upon, and still relies upon, others to do its dirty work. It is not the responsibility of imams or community leaders to enforce a sense of civic responsibility. Civic values can only be protected if all politicians, police and judges can show that they uphold such values fairly, without singling out any groups for "special treatment". Currently, these bodies appear to have abandoned their responsibilities wholesale.

While we have epidemics of drunkenness, gun and knife crime growing for a decade, many anti-social youths have avoided being punished under the law. Instead they have been issued with "Antisocial Behavior Orders" (Asbos), a trendy and radical measure introduced by the Labour government in 1998.

All radical solutions, by definition, engender radicalism. And thus they should be avoided at all costs.

_________________

UPDATE

An edited version of this article appears on Family Security Matters.

Adrian Morgan, original author of the piece will be talking on a Spanish radio station (Radio Europa Mediteraneo or REM.FM) on this Thursday at 7.15 pm GMT, on the Maurice Boland Show.
http://www.rem.fm/

and also on WNRP in Pensacola, Florida at 3pm ET this Thursday.
http://www.newsradio1620.com

And on Monday, July 14, he will be talking on KGAB radio in Cheyenne, Wyoming, at 8.00 am MDT.
KGAB-AM

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at July 6, 2008 10:47 AM

Comments

Posted by: seeteufel at July 6, 2008 12:34 PM

Posted by: Benelux at July 6, 2008 7:32 PM

Posted by: Spipou at July 6, 2008 8:41 PM

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at July 7, 2008 6:26 PM

Posted by: Spipou at July 8, 2008 9:54 AM

Posted by: Spipou at July 8, 2008 10:20 AM

Posted by: HawnDawg at August 25, 2008 11:15 PM

Post a comment