Farage

While France is still suffering the shock of Wednesday’s murders, most politicians uttered the usual statements of condolence etc., but none addressed the elephant in the room.

Most people love or loathe Nigel Farage. He was pilloried by all other UK political leaders on Wednesday for mentioning the presence of a fifth column within Western societies.  Why?  I too believe there is there is a small minority of people living in UK (and other Western countries) who are hell bent on destroying the culture and traditions of their host countries.  

They do this in the name of Islam and of course this reflects on the Islamic population. Rather unfairly all Muslims are tarred with the same brush - but the Muslim population cannot continue to stick their heads in the sand and neither can our political leaders. 'It’s nothing to do with me because I’m peace-loving’ isn’t good enough anymore. Every Muslim needs to become involved in rooting out the minority of radicals in their midst and reporting them to our authorities.

Some years ago Scotland’s football supporters gained a reputation for drunken and loutish behaviour.  They weren’t welcomed at matches overseas. Did the Scots who didn’t have an interest in football say ‘It’s nothing to do with me’?  No. They accepted responsibility as a nation/culture and pressurised politicians into action.  Today, because of intense action, supporters of Scotland’s football team are welcomed all over the world. 

Attitudes can be changed if our leaders accept there is a problem.  For too long we’ve been over-tolerant with those who abuse our country.  We’ve allowed the problem to be buried as we’re only too aware that if it was mentioned we would be labelled racist.  Strangely enough, since the exposure of the 1400 young girls who were groomed for sex in north of England towns, the racist labellers have been rather quiet.  No official heads have rolled as yet for that atrocity and that is, to say the least, shocking.

A change is attitude has to come from all peace and law abiding citizens, not just those directly or indirectly affected by this vile violence.

On the news last night I heard mention of our intelligence services and how poorly funded they are in comparison with other public services.  This needs to be addressed with immediate effect. They work hard, very hard, but with the threats of violence increasing rapidly more manpower has to be employed.  The Westminster government is happy to give the police service more funding to root out stupid remarks made by silly people on social networking websites but are failing to address our basic security.

I have no answers to this serious problem. Our freedoms have been gradually reduced in recent years to suit our reputation as being a tolerant society. Has our tolerance level reduced to soft-heartedness?  Many of my generation were brought up to believe in firmness and fairness. Maybe a return to such values are now impossible.

H/T to Frank for the video.

Tweet

Ban The Burqa

At long last a Muslim speaks out.  I agree with him, do you?

I’ve also found an interview Taj Hargay had with David Frost three years ago.  He was of a similar opinion then although the article writer alleges he was not an imam.  Does that matter?

It’s quite concerning how the radical feminist lobbies are progressing in the UK.  Back in the 60s I supported the calls for equality between the sexes but I had no idea then that, a few decades later, men would become so invisible in society.  

We are government mainly by men, but women now dominate society. Earlier today I read that 47% of babies today are born out of wedlock.  There is a noticeable absence of fathers in many children’s lives.

I digress.  Recently the European Court of Human Rights upheld France’s burqa ban, accepting Paris’s argument that it encouraged citizens to ‘live together’.  The case was brought by an unnamed 24 year old French citizen of Pakistani origin, who wears both the burqa, covering her entire head and body, and the niqab, leaving only her eyes uncovered.

She was represented by solicitors from Birmingham.  Why? Are there no human rights lawyers in France?

Belgium introduced a similar ban in 2011.

What are we afraid of? Ban the burqa. It’s everyone’s right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and any legislation should also include the necessity for the removal of face coverings, scarves, veils, turbans, helmets etc for security checks.  

Tweet

Is Tony Blair Trying To Rewrite History?

Tony Blair says "There's a problem within Islam."  He should know. He helped create it. 

He permitted preachers of Islam to live here and freely expound their messages of hate against 'non-believers'. Anyone who spoke out about this was denounced as a bigot.

Conflict in the Middle East is helping radical groups get a foothold, Blair said, and the “seeds of future fanaticism and terror… are being sown”. source

Are being sown?  They were sown some time ago under Blair's government.  He goes on to say, "Despite long and hard conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq we should not be wary of intervention."

Many times I've said our intervention in the affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan will come to haunt us in the future.  Sadly the future is now the present and we have a divided society.

In his article Blair refuses to acknowledge he was one of the prime movers in changing the demography of these islands so rapidly and with little thought for the people living here or for those who, legally, wanted to live in Britain.  Humans need time to adapt to change but were given no time or platform to voice their concerns. What we have now is a diverse society (Blair's aim), but also a very divided one.

Why divided?  There was no control over the number of immigrants and the amount of work available. That left many without income and in desperate circumstances. People felt alienated in a foreign land and without the support of a job, easily drifted into the wrong company. They couldn't integrate because they had no contact with anyone other than those in a similar situation.

By writing this article is Blair trying to rewrite history or is he in cahoots with David Cameron and attempting to justify our - soon to be - involvement in Syria?

Tweet

Enough Political Platitudes, Time For Action

The horrors of Wednesday afternoon in Woolwich will stay in the minds of many for years.  It will be perpetually in the thoughts of the family of Drummer Lee Rigby for the rest of their lives and I can't even begin to imagine the pain and torment they must be going through today and for many future years.  None would have given a thought that their son/husband/father/brother/uncle would not have been safe while serving in his own country.

Drummer Lee Rigby leaves behind a wife and a two year old son. His murder was a hellish tragedy.

But how many of you felt the media were goulish in their reporting?  The repeated pictures of the murderers were disgusting and must have been extremely upsetting for Drummer Rigby's family.

The wall-to-wall reporting on the BBC and Sky only fuelled the murderers' desire for publicity and they've certainly had that.  Every detail of their lives is being reported and too much information being divulged; all in is an attempt to instil more fear into the public's minds.

Our politicians' and media's reaction to this horrific crime has been to over-react and it's this image which has been whirling round the world. Why did the PM need to call a COBRA meeting twice and create more fear?  Terrorism gets its momentum from such fearful responses. From the PM trying his best - and failing miserably - to appear statesman-like on the street outside No 10, to the knee-jerk suggestion that soldiers openly wear their uniforms outside barracks, was an insult to the intelligence of our military. In the 80s our service personnel were instructed not to wear uniform outside military areas unless absolutely necessary as they were targets for terrorists. The same ruling should stand today.  To suggest otherwise is asking far too much from our military and politicians are shunting the responsibility of their poor decisions in the past on to the shoulders of today's HM Forces.

One of the murderers was born in England, but surely we shouldn't be surprised that a couple of young, converted radical Islamists decided they would do what the Islamic extremist Parviz Khan attempted to do in 2008; kidnap and behead a British soldier. This terrorist was sentenced and shut away for life only this month and perhaps the publicity from that motivated these individuals, who knows? Richard Littlejohn has his opinion and you don't need to be a Daily Mail reader to agree with much of his article.

The BBC had two interviews yesterday which caught my attention, Apart from the continual 'It's nothing to do with Muslims' and 'Muslims have been betrayed', the two interviewees gave an insight into Britain's Muslim world. Both men were Muslims themselves and were interviewed at different times of day.  One was from the Quilliam Foundation and the other from Centri; two organisations  involved in counter-extremism and they supplied a similar message: much more needs to be done to rid the country of Muslims who preach extreme Islam and both admitted there are still mosques and imams who do this openly, without protest from their Muslim community or the wider population.

The Centi speaker said our politicians are afraid or refusing to really tackle the groups and organisations that call for actions like this horrible crime. He was passionate in his plea for politicians to stop pandering to the Muslim leaders who insist that all is well within their communities and recognise that past attempts to bring radicalisation to a halt has failed. We need different tactics and more honest communication between the parties.  If one side insists there are no problems yet the other side has the evidence there is, then surely it's the responsibility of the other side to ensure their evidence is accepted by the other party? We adhere to a Human Rights Act which protects criminals and will, eventually, be the straw that breaks society in these islands. Other countries deport villains yet we spend millions every year going through the court system, only to have another judge say no to the deportation of many whose aim is to pit one section of society against another.

None of this will be of help to the family of Drummer Lee Rigby.  He wasn't even wearing uniform but a Help for Heroes T-shirt. His killers had a plan and it worked.
His family and himself would also have had plans. These have now been torn apart because our political leaders refuse to acknowledge there are on-going problems within the Muslim community. We pride ourselves on being a tolerant society, but there's responsible tolerance and ignorant tolerance. We need to see much more responsible tolerance in this country. There is no place in this country for preachers of hate and murder, yet they walk the streets. The British style of toleration is not responsible and an incorrect ideology.

RIP Drummer Lee Rigby.  I do hope your murder results in serious action instead of wall-to-wall talk. You deserve nothing less and a whole lot more.

Tweet

Here We Go Again

Gaddafi is dead or is he? Cries of liberation ring through the streets yet there were those who had a good life in Gaddafi's Libya.  Meanwhile Libya's interm rulers have announced that the body of Colonel Gaddafi has been buried.  His remains were taken to a secret location in the desert and only four witnesses were present.  The secrecy and mystery about his death have many in the Middle East - and a few here - questioning if what has been done is right.

Yesterday the Libyans, who have ignored the water shortages and tribal conflict, were shocked by the interm government's declaration that Sharia Law would dominate.  Certainly the US and Britain didn't expect this and I shouldn't think France - having been part of the 'destroy Gaddafi' project - did either.

I think the UK were far too quick in becoming involved with the Libyan conflict.  It was the same with Iraq.  We gave no consideration to the results of our intrusion.  Our involvement in destroying Gaddafi is nothing more than disgraceful, especially since so many of our leaders brought him 'on-side' in recent years. Now we're beginning to see the result of assisting Libyans free themselves from dictatorship with the victors imposing Sharia Law.

When Scotland is independent then I'm sure - I hope it's not naivety - that it will not become involved in the affairs of other countries.

Tweet

Something Doesn't Add Up

Eunice and Owen Johns are members of the Christian Pentecostal Church.  Between August 1992 and January 1995 they were approved as short-term, respite, foster carers by Derby City Council.  They last fostered a child in September 1993 when they did so for one month.[4]  In London's High Court on Monday it was their application, made in January 2007, which they wished clarified. Shortly before the case was to be heard the Equality and Human Rights Commission decided they wanted to take part.

I've no intention of going into the ecclesiastical issues of the case because they have been well covered here (do read the paragraph regarding 'secular' judges), but there are a few points which concern me.

Mr and Mrs Johns attend church services twice every Sunday.  Part of Derby Social Services defence was that when asked about church activities Mrs Johns stated she felt she could not give up going to church.[9]  Nowadays I know few attend church services on Sundays - or any other days - but this ruling would appear to bar any church going person from fostering.

In paragraph [6] it's stated 'They are also recorded as telling Mrs Shaw [social worker] that they would not feel able to take a child to a mosque'. If they weren't Jewish they wouldn't be able to take a Jewish child to a synagogue, so the church service issue doesn't bear scrutiny.

The Johns' specifically wish to foster children up to the age of 10, so why are matters of sexuality relevant to such young children?  Or is it being suggested they should be?  With sex education now being a legal requirement in schools to children from the age of 5, it would seem the latter is the case and I foresee all future foster carers plus those applying to adopt, having to attend compulsory sex education training.

It was my belief that equality laws were supposed to uphold the rights to religious belief yet the High Court ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation 'should take precedence' over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.  Why has it been left to judges to decide whose rights trump those of others when this should have been decided by the Westminster Parliament?  Some say this is yet another sloppily drafted measure which will have far-reaching consequences for freedom of conscience in this country and I can't disagree.

Only last week Michael Gove announced reforms to the adoption regime which will remove barriers that plague the system.  Currently there are 64,000 children in care in England and adoption rates are falling.  Good foster carers are very valuable to our society - it's not a job I would consider.  Years ago short-term foster carers and respite carers were greatly cherished because they were the people who would give love and tender care to a frightened child and often at very short notice.

It must be noted that Derby CC stated (although there was no evidence filed) that it 'has approved foster carers who are very committed Christians who hold to orthodox beliefs - whatever that means - and devout Muslim carers who are similarly committed to their religion, but who in both instances are able to value diversity notwithstanding their strongly held religious beliefs...' [22]

It is my understanding that the Jewish and Muslim faith do not accept homosexuality, so how do Derby CC manage to recruit Muslim foster carers?  Are Muslim foster carers asked to care only for Muslim children?  If so that's surely discrimination.

As far as I'm aware sexuality is not defined by religion any more than the colour of our eyes or hair so why must the two be intertwined unless by individual choice?

The Court judgement appears to criticise the legal submissions, particularly that submitted by Mr and Mrs Johns' lawyer Paul Diamond.  Even so, something doesn't add up.  Is it because the more liberal we are said to have become, the more illiberal we have become?

Tweet

Mischief in Manhattan - Pat Condell

Regardless what you think about the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, it's always worth hearing Pat Condell's straight-forward opinions.


Thanks to Counting Cats

Tweet

Equality Gaza Style

This is a still from a video Not A Sheep published about life in Gaza. Regularly I hear Muslim women say there are no problems concerning equality in their lives. Mind you, in some ways they could be right. Who would you bet on as a future skin cancer patient?

Tweet

The Enemy Within

Watch this to the end and see the incredulity of the news reader.

Thanks to Radio Free Britain

Tweet

The Wrong Decision

Banning Islam4UK is wrong. But what do we expect from a government which is a shambles and operates constantly in crisis mode.

Rather than write the reasons for my opinion, I'm going to be lazy today and suggest you visit the blogger in Aberdeen. He says it far better than me anyway! (The picture has been openly stolen from him too).

It's also wrong that Choudary's receiving police protection in the guise of hourly security checks at his council tax funded East London home. Speak about giving the man and his malice publicity!

Tweet

Choudary's Benefits

Graph courtesy of Guido

It says something about the benefits system when a qualified lawyer is able to work for Islam4UK at the same time as claiming benefits.

Archbishop Cranmer has also posted on this subject and reveals more information.

Tweet

The Price of Labour's Multiculturalism Policy?

This is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab photographed during a school trip to England in 2002 from his native Nigeria.

He is the man whose attempt to blow up an American plane was averted only by luck and courage.

His actions will cause more misery to those who require to travel by air. Longer security queues; the use of laptops is going to be forbidden; no passenger will be able to visit toilets within an hour of landing - we can be sure the list will be lengthened.

This man was on the security lists of the US and the UK. His father, just a few weeks ago, alerted officials about his 'radicalisation'.

Back in the 90s France called Britain 'Londonistan' as they watched this country become the central hub of Islamic terrorism in Europe. Nothing has changed. We have a government which is obsessed with multiculturalism and 'human rights'.

Melanie Phillips tells it as it is. Definitely an article we should all read.

Another site worth reading which discusses military strategy and terrorist threats is here.

Tweet

How Democracy Works (To a Degree)

Switzerland has voted, in a national referendum, to ban the construction of minarets by a majority of 57%.

The Swiss have a democratic system. Where a petition requesting a referendum is lodged with 100,000 signatures or more, it has to be acted upon by the government. This petition was organised by the Swiss Peoples' Party.

The government opposed the ban saying it would harm Switzerland's image, particularly in the Muslim world. In a statement, the government said it accepted the decision.

Presently there are 4 minarets in Switzerland but planning applications for new minarets are almost always refused.

Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.

Wouldn't it have been much more sensible to have sorted this out at the planning stage?

Why did they decide to ban the minarets as it seems to play right into the hands of the extremist clerics? Wouldn't it have been far better to agree with Swiss muslims that their minarets will not be taller than any other religious building in Switzerland? Wouldn't it have been far better to explain to the muslim community that Switzerland is not a dhimmi state and no religious building reigns supreme and come to some consensus from there?

Source

Tweet

Be Warned - Don't Dare Discuss Religion

The Bounty House Hotel, Liverpool is a small boutique hotel with a swimming pool (pictured above) and a sauna. No, this is not an advertisement because I've never stayed there, never even heard of the place until today, but I do know it's owned by a couple called Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang who are practising Christians.

The Vogelenzangs have been charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act - causing harassment, alarm or distress. If convicted they face fines of £2,500 each and a criminal record.

Merseyside Police can confirm that Benjamin Vogelenzang and Sharon Vogelenzang were charged with a religiously-aggravated public order offence on 29 July 2009.

It appears the hotel owners had a conversation with a Muslim woman who was a guest in their hotel. It is understood that among the topics debated was whether Jesus was a minor prophet, as Islam teaches, or whether he was the Son of God, as Christianity teaches.

Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women.

The conversation, on March 20, was reported by the woman to Merseyside Police and the couple were interviewed over the incident. Three months later they were interrogated again before being charged and they appeared in court on 14 August and are now awaiting trial.

Was the woman physically injured? Was her life put at risk?

What a country we have become when police and the judiciary system spend time and taxpayers' money on this politically correct nonsense.

Be warned - don't dare discuss Islam. In fact play it really safe and don't discuss religion.

Source: Telegraph

Tweet

Secret Justice

Britain now has 85 sharia courts at least. The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgements which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts.

Those who comment on the influence of sharia law often count only the five courts in London, Manchester, Bradford Birmingham and Nuneaton that are run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, a body whose rulings are enforced through the state courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act, but the study by academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin estimates there are at least 85 working tribunals. Mr MacEoin said, "among the rulings we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts."

The fact that so many sharia rulings in Britain relate to cases concerning divorce and custody of children is of particular concern, as women are not equal in sharia law and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK.

Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances. A 2004 judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg said it was 'difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values.'

Justice must treat every individual equally and sharia does not do this. Women are treated as inferior to men. To think that we allow this type of 'justice' to be meted out here in UK is beyond belief. When are we going to waken up and smell the coffee?

Tweet

A Call for Islamic Reform in Britain

Dr Taj Hargey writes in today's Times comment section an article which must be of importance to anyone who has an interest in Britain's future.  He is the chair of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford and the Imam of the Summertown Islamic Congregation and describes the "McCarthyite" campaign which the "Muslim heirarchy in Britain" have waged against him.

His article subtitle states "Britain has been taken over by the followers of a distorted faith.  We need a reformation to rescue it."

A must read for all.

Tweet

A GERMAN'S VIEW OF ISLAM

A GERMAN'S VIEW OF ISLAM

This is worth a few minutes. 

   

This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this e-mail is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well known and well respected psychiatrist. 

  

 A German's View of Islam 

 

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'  

 

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. 

 

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. 

 

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. 

 

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. 

 

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. 

 

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. 

 

And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'? 

 

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. 

Peace-loving Germans,Japanese,Chinese,Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. 

 

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life. 

Tweet