Thanks to all readers who enquired after my welfare. I am OK but heavily snowed under with work. Therefore, I regret that the site will probably not be updated any time before the new year at the earliest.
It may also be time for a change in tactic. It is all very well sharing ideas amongst ourselves but we are rather preaching to the converted. What may be more effective would be to preach to those who oppose us.
It is my recommendation that you spend time leaving comments on those websites of those who encourage extremism. Let them know the truth about what is really happening in the world and do your best to counter their lies. Places like MPACUK are full of half-truths and complete fabrications which should be exposed. Of course they will not allow you to have a free say - they could not allow that - but flooding their servers with hundreds of comments exposing their lies and countering their propaganda would do more than this site could ever do.
Please take on this new tactic and spread it around to your friends. Good Luck.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Thanks to all readers who enquired after my welfare. I am OK but heavily snowed under with work. Therefore, I regret that the site will probably not be updated any time before the new year at the earliest.
Friday, December 01, 2006
The Home Office has revealed that its staff do not have to declare whether they are members of radical Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir. This information came to light after newspapers discovered that a senior IT worker was a leading figure in the group.
Yet one more thing the Government is failing on.
Hat Tip: USS Neverdock
Can anyone decipher what MPACUK are trying to say. They have taken an article from the BBC about a local council that was reprimanded for badly handling the sale of a piece of land. A bid was put in to build a mosque on it but the council decided to make it into sheltered homes for the elderly. An investigation was launched after claims that the decision was racially motivated. The investigation concluded that it was not.
However, MPACUK have this on their front page:
Local Government Ombudsman Anne Seex investigated a claim that the decision was taken in response to racially motivated opposition in the area. ("If you don't like it leave? Hello, isn't exactly freedom to practice reliugion part of Democracy and sets us differant from the dictators in the world?)Besides the poor spelling and grammar, and ignoring the fact that there is a clear attempt to give the impression that the case was indeed racially motivated when the article states that it wasn't; what is the author trying to say in the brackets?
At least they got the headline correct:
Silly Muslim's Playing the “Victim Mentality” AgainThey may have been trying sarcasm but in this case they got it spot on.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Right on cue the Islamic Human Rights Commission springs into action to decry the extradition of two terror suspects to the USA. Their statement reads:
The Islamic Human Rights Commission is deeply concerned about the ramifications of today’s High Court decision to extradite British citizens Babar Ahmad and Harun Rashid Aswat to the US.Notice that the press release is trying to cast doubt on the case against the two men because they are not being tried in Britain. This is just a transparent ploy. They are not being tried in Britain because they did not commit crimes in Britain; they committed crimes in the USA that's why the USA wants to extradite them. The IHRC is well aware of this, but lying is what some Muslim groups do best.
The decision highlights the manifest injustice of the Extradition Treaty whereby innocent British citizens can be extradited to the US on the flimsiest of evidence. To date, not a shred of evidence has been produced against these men which would warrant charges being brought against them in the UK.
In light of claims of the highest level of intelligence-sharing, IHRC finds it puzzling why evidence against the men, if it does exist, has not been passed on to British authorities in order to charge them in Britain.
Two British Muslims have been told that they should be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges there. The ruling, from the High Court, could also affect the case of Abu Hamza, who is also facing extradition to the US.
The two men, Babar Ahmad and Haroon Rashid Aswat, are alleged to have carried out weapons training and to have preached incitement to a group of American Muslims. They argued against their extradition on the basis that the US might send them to Guantanamo Bay, but the judge ruled that there was no evidence that America would breach an agreement they had come to with Britain that they would not do so.
Here are some statements about the revelations that some criminal cases are being tried by Islamic courts in Britain, and not by the British criminal justice system. (They are all from this article)
Dr Patrick Sookhdeo of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity said:
Sharia courts now operate in most larger cities, with different sectarian and ethnic groups operating their own courts that cater to their specific needs according to their tradition. The Government has not been straight about this. It has it’s own sharia advisers and it has already introduced measures that are compliant with sharia law. Muslim communities are creating their own infrastructure based on sharia law. A Muslim community can now function within its own society on every level.Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, head of the Hijaz College Islamic University in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, said:
We no longer have the bobby on the beat who will give somebody a slap on the wrist. So I think there is a case to be made under which the elders sit together and reprimand people, trying to get them to change.The Tory spokesman for homeland security Patrick Mercer said:
This is complete nonsense. If you want to live under sharia law you should go to a country where it holds sway.
The Mirror is reporting that Tony Blair has held meetings with Islamic leaders to discuss the possibilities of banning the full face veil in certain areas, like school, hospitals and courtrooms.
The news comes a day after a BBC poll revealed large support for the proposals.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
A poll for the BBC has revealed that there is support for banning veils in Britain. Only one third said that they would support a complete ban in public places. However, when asked about specific places the numbers shot up.
61% support a ban in airports and passport control, 53% support it in courtrooms and classrooms.
As one Muslim spokeswoman said:
At the end of the day this is an item of cloth. We need to be taking a common sense view. If security is at stake, such as at an airport, then yes, of course, the veil should be removed. If it proves difficult in performing a task such as in a school, then it is up to the individual who is wearing the veil whether they want to work there or not.So, we should not expect any complaints when legislation on this is put forward? Don't believe it for a second.
A Government quango, Acas, has sent an advice pamphlet to businesses warning of the dangers of Christmas parties. Apparently, businesses may be sued if the music at such events is aimed at the younger members of the firm. And having a rally with an alcoholic prize could offend Muslim workers.
What's more, Christmas trees are only allowed because they are "not inherently religious" and therefore it is "difficult to argue that they cause offence to non-Christians".
How about the offence to Christians of not being allowed to celebrate Christmas as they used to? How about the offence to non-Muslims of not being able to win alcoholic beverages because of the minority Muslims in their office? Yet again we see multiculturalism exposed as imposing the will of the minority on the majority. Except in this case, the minority probably do not care. Many will say this is political correctness gone mad; but the very notion of being politically correct is crazy.
Yesterday, the BBC produced an article about Islamic Law in Britain which tried to compare it to Jewish laws. The Telegraph has the same report but properly written, devoid of any spurious comparisons.
No one has any problems with Islamic or Jewish law being used for purely civil cases. After all, nobody is forced to go to those courts. The problem here, and this the BBC did not make clear, is that Islamic courts in Britain seem to be judging criminal cases too.
One example is a case involving the stabbing of a Somali youth. The suspects were also Somali and the case was judged not by a British Court but by an Islamic one. This is the big problem. We cannot have two different legal systems for dealing with crime. The Government needs to investigate and act on this before we start seeing one handed people walking around. Just one more thing to add to the long list of things the government needs to do.
After Abu Hamza's failed appeal The Sun is reporting that he is spending plenty of time with other terror suspects in prison.
Hamza's cell is 4 away from Dhiren Barot, the man sentenced to 40 years in prison for plotting to kill thousands of people in the UK and US. The two men are apparently spending lots of time together and with the other terrorists. A source told the newspaper:
He and Hamza are very close. They’re allowed together for Friday prayers and get the chance to speak with all of the other terror suspects. There’s nothing the prison can do to stop them.What this basically means, is that terror suspects in prison get plenty of opportunity to plot more attacks for when they are released. Prisons will have to get tougher as more terrorists are put in them; and they have to get tougher very quickly.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
USS Neverdock has flagged up this article from the BBC discussing religious courts.
The article compares the Jewish courts in Britain to Sharia ones. The comparison is, of course, wrong. Before moving on to point out the differences, it might be a good opportunity to ask people to stop comparing Jews to Muslims. This is a favourite tactic because it gains sympathy for Muslims as well as attempting to hide their own anti-Semitism.
Anyway, the main difference between Jewish courts and Muslim ones is simple; Jews only want their courts to deal with civil cases while lots of Muslims want their courts to deal with criminal cases.
Abu Hamza has to overturn his convictions for inciting hatred and murder. He had tried to claim that he was unable to receive a fair trial but the judge said:
There is no reason to believe that the jury were not able to consider and resolve the relevant issues objectively and impartially.
An emergency meeting was held by the police with members of the Jewish and Muslim communities in Croydon. The meeting was held after police found bomb making equipment near a Synagogue there, and following a BBC investigation in which one source said that members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, working from Croydon mosque, had plans to attack the synagogue.
Monday, November 27, 2006
An article on MPACUK's website has the following headline:
If Zionists Can Fight In Israel - Should We?The article asks the following question:
If Zionists are legally allowed to fight for Israel every year in the IDF, allowed to kill innocent Palestinian children, be welcomed back as war heroes and bring back the hatred they have fostered, should Muslims then be allowed to serve with Palestinian fighters?The difference between serving with the Israeli army and fighting with Palestinian terrorists is obvious to anyone who is able to use their brain to think beyond the propaganda spewed forth by both terrorists and terrorist lovers (the left) alike.
However, leaving aside the many lies contained within the question, doesn't the article imply that British Muslims should become terrorists? Isn't it, in effect, an article rallying terrorists for war?
Perhaps not overtly. But given the other articles on the site, and the target audience, it certainly seems to be encouraging terrorism against Israel. This is exactly the kind of thing that is so dangerous. It is incitement to a specific audience that can be spun as a harmless question to others.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
This is the question posed by MPACUK. An odd question really when you hear that Islamic Jihad fired three rockets into Israel just hours after the ceasefire began. They have rejected the ceasefire and so have Hamas. But then Palestinian terrorists are not responsible for their actions.
In the coming days and weeks you can be sure that any breach of the ceasefire from Palestinian terrorists will be ignored, not only by Muslim groups but also by so-called human rights groups. Only Israel will be held accountable for breaching the agreement. After all, anything and everything bad that happens in that region (if not the world) is Israel's fault. So it was probably Israel who fired the rockets at themselves and somehow arranged for Islamic Jihad to take responsibility. Isn't that what happened on 9/11?
The BBC has reached new lows. We are already used to them refusing to use the word "terrorist" but this time they have gone even further.
In this report, detailing the ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian terror groups, they continually refer to Hamas terrorists as..."activists"!?
Hours before the truce, at least one Hamas activist was killed in an Israel air strike on Gaza.What do we expect next? Hamas heroes? This is outrageously biased reporting.
Hamas said that three other activists were killed in clashes with Israeli troops elsewhere in Gaza.
(If they stealth edit this piece, here is a screen-shot of the original article)
Friday, November 24, 2006
A lot of attention this week has been on Asghar Bukhari and the revelations that he sent money to Holocaust denier David Irving to support his quest for "Truth". Explanations have been coming thick and fast varying from being "over idealistic" to not knowing who Irving was.
None of the excuses are credible, in fact by Asghar's own admission he was anti-Semitic. He wrote:
we saw the whole issue as a pretty simple equation: Jewish people had robbed Palestinian people of their land, not content with that, they massacred them, oppressed them brutally, and even went so far as murdering their children. Then anyone who spoke out against these Jews and what they were doing was silenced by being smeared as anti Semitic. That’s the understanding I myself had when I was growing up.Bukhari should have simply accepted that he was indeed anti-Semitic but has since changed his views. His refusal to admit the obvious implies that he hasn't really changed his mind at all; something evidenced by his site and organisation.
A teaching assistant who refused to remove her veil when teaching has been sacked. The whole episode made major news because it came during the debate over veils in general. Aisha Azmi had been suspended on full pay but has now been dismissed.
This site reported on her links to the extremist group Tablighi Jamaat. And it then turned out that she'd been told to wear the veil by one of their preachers.
One can expect her to take legal action against the school; after all she won't be paying the costs of any court cases.
The revelations about MPACUK's founder and David Irving must have truly hit a nerve. Now, almost a week after the story came to light it is Bukhari's turn to try and defend himself. In a long article he discusses anti-Semitism and Zionism. Some highlights:
To this day I believe that any pro-Muslim or pro-Palestinian person charged with anti-Semitism is almost definitely innocent. If ever I heard that they were calling someone anti-Semitic, I no longer believed it, and I still don’t....
More charges were to follow. A picture of a monster with horns on his head under an American flag was deemed “anti-Semitic.” It was obtained after typing words like “Zionist power” into a Google image search. I can’t believe MPAC pulled the picture due to the pro-Israeli blog’s complaining about it. How can a monster with a flag be anti-Semitic? The Zionists are monsters (they kill kids), and they have influence in America (AIPAC), what’s the problem?This is a completely pathetic argument. Depicting a person with horns is a classic piece of anti-Semitic imagery and, by his own admission, Bukhari knew this. Using such an image could only mean that he either didn't care that it invoked anti-Semitism or was purposely trying to do so; neither option is particularly pleasant.
I realise that maybe 60 years ago some German may have used monsters to depict Jews, did that mean we could no longer use monsters to depict Zionists?
They accused us of using an article from a Holocaust denier’s website. The article was actually written by the Guardian Newspaper, reproduced on Irving’s website. Is that somehow altered because it appeared on Irving’s site?No, but it begs the question of why you were surfing Irving's website and using articles from it.
At the end of his long article is this classic line:
Please note I wrote this not because of any pressure from the Irving smear, because I don’t care what these Zionists think of me. But after reading a Blog by a sincere non-Muslim who seemed to stick is neck out for MPAC (conscientious blogger at Lenin's Tomb) I thought the least I can do is tell him and others like him where I am coming from, and why I made any of the mistakes I made in the past and may make in the future in my journey to freedom with my people.Come off it Asghar. For a start the only reason he was writing that article was because of the "Irving smear", so it is in response to "what these Zionists" think of you. But, the fact is that for the last week MPACUK has been desperately trying to deal with this revelation. It hasn't worked.
There is no way you didn't know who David Irving was, and your letter to him talking about "the Truth" heavily implies that you knew exactly what he was about. There's an old adage, "when you find yourself in a hole, the first this to do is stop digging".
Thursday, November 23, 2006
John Ware, an investigator and producer for BBC's Panorama has penned an essay about the Muslim Council of Britain. In it he describes the sort of mixed messages that the MCB gives and how it doesn't act to moderate Muslims in this country. It is well worth reading.
Just a couple of snippets:
The MCB has done little to disabuse British Muslims of these fantasies. Rather, they [the MCB] seem to see their job as fostering grievance...
When the MCB is this angry, it comes out fighting, and its style is to make highly personalised attacks about the integrity of its detractors. Often they are accused of harbouring secret agendas, usually Zionist, as I and others have learned. While preaching moderation, the MCB is also good at keeping young Muslims angry.
A Muslim man was sentenced to two months in prison for killing a swan during the fasting month of Ramadan. He said, "I am a Muslim, I am fasting, I needed to eat". Swans are considered property of the Queen and it is illegal to kill them.
An Australian newspaper reports that when told by the police that killing swans is illegal because they belong to the Queen, he retorted:
I hate the Queen, I hate this country.Now, this statement makes this story worthy of this site. It means that his criminal act was not just spurred on by his hunger but also by his hatred for the country he lives in.
A huge wave of indignation has spread over the decision by British Airways to ban Christian workers from wearing a visible cross.
97 MPs from all parties have signed a parliamentary motion condemning BA's "deplorable" ban.
Christian student leaders have called it an act of "secular fundamentalism".
UN human rights chiefs are to raise the issue at an international meeting marking the 25th anniversary of the UN declaration against religious discrimination.
Something to bear in mind is that BA would, if they could, ban all religious items from all workers. The point here is that all religious minorities are protected by laws and any act against them would spark far more outcry. Only the majority can be treated this way without a problem. Or at least, they could have been up until now.
So said the terrorist who murdered Christopher Stokes in Jordan, and wounded 5 others. He told the court that all British people are enemies of Islam, for two reasons.
Firstly "because they are fighting the Prophet and his soldiers since (the) Balfour Declaration". This was the statement in 1917 by the British Government in support of establishing a Jewish homeland in, what was then, Palestine. That statement did not delineate the borders of the future state of Israel. If Muslim objection to Israel was only against the occupation of the West Bank then the British would not be responsible. But, as we know, the objection is to the very existence of a state for Jews, thus the Balfour Declaration, giving support for such an existence, makes us a target.
Secondly, we are targets because "The British people ... insulted the honorable Quran and women who wear the head cover". We dared discuss veils and therefore are targets.
Although left-wing liberals try and insist that terrorism is due to war in Iraq or the poor economic situation of Muslims, the statements from the terrorists show that these are not the reasons. The cause of Islamic terrorism is simply that they hate the West and all it stands for.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
The revelations that MPACUK founder, Asghar Bukhari, gave money to Holocaust denier David Irving and encouraged others to do so too, has really caused a stir in Muslim groups; everyone is rushing to defend him. Just to remind you, he told Irving:
You may feel like you are on your own but rest assured many people are with you in your fight for the Truth.He also offered to send a copy of a book written by Paul Findley who, Bukhari said, "has suffered like you in trying to expose certain falsehoods perpetrated by the Jews".
The context is not clear, but it certainly seems to be talking about a big lie spread by Jews and that heavily implies Holocaust denial. Anyway, Inayat Bunglawala from the MCB has written a letter, published on MPACUK's website, to defend Bukhari. It reads:
This story has mysteriously surfaced at this time in a clear attempt to try and discredit Asghar Bukhari and MPACUK. Asghar's donation of sixty pounds to David Irving over six years ago may be regarded as perhaps overly idealistic and indeed naive. However, it is disgraceful - though not unexpected, of course - that the usual suspects have tried to use this incident in an attempt to portray Asghar as an anti-semite. I know that Asghar is a staunch critic - and rightly so - of Zionism and the bloody and repressive policies of the Israeli government, but also that he has absolutely no truck whatsoever with anti-semitism or any other form of racial prejudice. I hope MPAC will not be deterred by this episode and continue to focus on encouraging British Muslims to play their full role in the mainstream of British society and not allow themselves to be marginalised through inaction and passivity.Just two points to pick up, Inayat. What is special about "this time"? Is MPACUK having an election? The timing doesn't appear to be significant in any way; but then, any time that this was revealed would be a "clear attempt to discredit Bukhari".
Also, you may want to consider why being anti-Zionist is not also being anti-Semitic. It is one thing to oppose some particular tactics and laws of the Israeli government, but it is another to be anti-Zionist. Zionism is the idea of establishing a Jewish homeland. Anti-Zionism is the idea that Jews are not entitled to establish a homeland, even in principle. That is anti-Semitic in its purest form. Why should Palestinians have the right for a Palestinian state but Jews do not have the same right?
Please, Mr Bunglawala, try and explain how it is possible to deny Jews the right to a state of their own but still claim not to be anti-Semitic.
Hidden at the end of this article from the BBC is a report that one of the men on trial for plotting to blow up targets in Britain, had given money to terrorists.
The report's headline and opening paragraph are regarding one of the defendants' claim that he was tortured in Pakistan. Yet, at the end of the article is this:
In November 2001 he left Luton and moved to live in Pakistan. The court heard that just before leaving he took out two loans, for a total of £21,000.Since the defendant gave no testimony regarding the alleged torture but did admit to funding terrorism, shouldn't the article be focusing on that? But then again, it's the BBC.
Mr O'Connor said Mr Amin told Abbey National that one of the loans was for "home improvements" and he asked his client: "Did you knowingly act dishonestly?"
"Yes," Mr Amin replied.
"What were you intending to do with the money?" asked Mr O'Connor.
"[It was] for the cause, and for myself."
"The cause?" asked his lawyer.
"The Afghan jihad. I was thinking I could give it to the fighters or to the refugees."
Later he said he gave £12,000 to a man in Pakistan who had connections with both "the resistance" in Afghanistan, and to refugees from the US-led invasion.
On Monday a rally took place in London against Islamophobia. It was addressed by the likes of Ken Livingstone and Abdul Bari. But, like the rallies last month, this one is not being reported by any media outlet.
The British Muslim Initiative has a press release about the event. It declares that there were representatives from across the board, although the only name given was of the Mayor of London.
Once again, if anyone can find out who was there, what was said and how many people turned up, please let us know.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Some of you may remember the loyal fan who had started his own site to pay tribute to this one (see here if you don't). Well, he doesn't post much, but the revelations about MPACUK's founder supporting Holocaust denier David Irving seem to have annoyed him sufficiently to react.
Here is the article from this site and here is the article on his. Notice that the two titles are the same, quite unimaginative. Anyway, here are some points that "utbah" might want to consider.
First off, you should have provided a link to the original article. Besides being very impolite not to, it also denies the reader the opportunity to see exactly what was said and in its original context.
Secondly, your accusations of Islamophobia are wrong for the simple reason that nothing said on this site about Muslims is untrue. This site never tarnishes all Muslims for the actions of a few - it points to the actions of that minority and asks why the "silent majority" do not become vocal.
Thirdly, if you had bothered to read the article properly you would have seen that at no point was it mentioned that supporting Palestinians was the same as denying the Holocaust. What was said was that denying the Holocaust does support the Palestinian cause of destroying Israel. Just because A implies B does not mean that B implies A.
While it may be true that more Palestinians have died than Israelis that doesn't indicate that the two sides are morally equivalent. While Israel takes steps to reduce civilian casualties (remember how they phoned terrorists to warn them, how they dropped leaflets on Lebanese villages to warn them); Palestinian terrorists set out deliberately to kill civilians.
Lastly, name-calling is never a good way to win an argument.
Rival gangs of Muslims are facing off in Wandsworth Prison. According to a report the situation is "potentially explosive" with one group pressuring the other to adopt a more militant lifestyle and become potential terrorists.
It also turns out that Muslims are going to religious services because they can get drugs and illegal mobile phones there.
Add this to the long list of things the government needs to deal with in order to stop terrorism.
John Reid said last night in an interview that terrorism was linked to Iraq and Afghanistan:
Of course, they were not the cause of the problem, that predates Iraq and Afghanistan. It goes far deeper than that. But I do believe that foreign policy is sometimes a motivating factor in the radicalisation of young Muslims and the potential recruitment to terror. It is better to be frank about it. To say it isn't a cause isn't to say it has nothing to do with the whole process.No doubt, the left-wingers will jump on this as an admission that we are responsible for terrorism and it is all our fault. This is a favourite mantra of the left. However, it just isn't true. As Dr Reid points out, terrorism aimed at Britain started long before the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. We are facing attack for having the sheer temerity to be non-Islamic.
We are, obviously, at more risk of terrorism because of Iraq; the evil men of this world are using it as a tool to encourage more young men to kill themselves. Yet, that doesn't mean we should stop what we are doing.
In WWII when we fought for freedom and democracy against the Nazis, that too put us in more danger. To argue that we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan to rot in order to save ourselves is both short-sighted and racist. It is short-sighted because we will still be attacked in the future, just as America was attacked on 9/11 by an Al Qaeda that had plenty of time and space to plan and prepare.
It is also racist because it is saying that we aren't prepared to risk getting attacked in order to help them. This is another thing that the left is famous for. They spend all their time demanding freedoms and fighting racism but are as guilty as anyone else, if not more so. They prefer to see others die and suffer rather than putting ourselves into danger. And they push for limits on freedoms all the time.
Think about the banning of the Burqa in Holland. The left are up in arms about it being made illegal to wear that item of clothing in public. But who was it who pushed for it to be illegal to smoke in public? That ban is also an "affront" to civil liberties. Wouldn't it be nice if all the left-wingers could stop and think about their own duplicity, just for a minute.
A rally is due to be held in London to protest against Islamophobia and to defend the right of freedom of religion. It is being organised by human rights and Muslim groups - another example of the left-wing and radical Islam alliance.
Most likely, the event will descend into anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. The only religion likely to have freedom demanded for is Islam and terrorism will be defended as legitimate "resistance" against the evil Zionist pigs committing genocide against the poor, innocent and helpless Palestinian people.
Here's a tip for the Muslim community; if you want to stop Islamophobia try reassuring the rest of Britain that you do not support terrorism. For every march you go on to support terrorism, Islamophobia will increase. It isn't mindless hatred of Muslims, it is fear that you too want to kill us all - and you haven't given any indication that you don't.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Rival Muslim gangs are at a stand-off in Wandsworth Prison. The Independent monitoring board said that after the appointment of a new Imam there was now a schism among the Muslim inmates with evidence that some prisoners are pressuring others to "adopt more militant lifestyles and belief systems".
This is the same prison which has seen a surge in Muslim inmates and plans to convert a chapel into a Mosque. The article goes on to say that people are attending religious services in order to get hold of drugs and mobile phones. The report said:
We believe it is essential that there are adequate numbers of officers present at all religious services to discourage illegal activities.An interesting plan; Muslims are attracted to the mosque, which is about to be extended, in order to get hold of contraband, and once there they are pressured to become more militant. Something needs to be done about this. But it will probably be just one more thing on the long list of things the government should be doing to stop terrorism.
A British Muslim is facing an extradition hearing to the US. He has been charged with raising funds for Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
Syed Talha Ahsan set up and ran a website for this purpose along with fellow terrorist Babar Ahmad. Ahmad has already been ordered to be extradited but is appealing. The website contained "a declaration of war against American forces in Saudi Arabia following the Gulf War and the incitement of homicidal violence against Israel", according to the prosecution.
The defending lawyer said:
Absolutely every piece of conduct has taken place in the UK. Nobody says that Mr Ahsan went to the US. The fact of the matter is all the conduct takes place here and this is an entirely artificial basis on which the law has been construed.In other words, they agree that he incited violence against American troops and Israelis. But that is OK because he did so in Britain and, while the US would deal with such incitement, in Britain those things are acceptable. Apparently.
Once again Ken Livingstone has spoken about the "demonisation" of Muslims and compared it to that of Jews. He said:
Over recent weeks we have seen a demonisation of Muslims only comparable to the demonisation of Jews from the end of the 19th century.Of course, Mr Livingstone doesn't understand the very big difference between the two. Jews were demonised for being Jews. They had done nothing wrong, in fact they had made major impacts on the economies and cultures of their hosts. They had brought benefits with them. All the accusations against Jews were baseless lies designed specifically to demonise.
However, Muslims are not facing that. Muslims around the world, including Britain, are killing innocent civilians in the name of their religion; and many more and planning to do so. Muslims are not being demonised by anyone other than their own co-religionists who choose to kill and maim in the name of their god.
When people discuss Muslims it is because the climate is such that people are unsure as to what any given Muslim is thinking. And this can all be solved by Muslims taking to the streets to protest against terrorism. Just as they very loudly and clearly said "not in our name" to the war in Iraq, let them do the same to terrorism, and before you know it everything will calm down.
A report by Manchester University found that "terrorist hotbeds" in the UK do not exist. In their study they found that Muslim terrorists are as likely to come from areas with small Muslim populations as large ones. The report says:
The assumption that 'Muslim terrorists' are most likely to reside in places with high proportions of Muslims is unfounded and should not be used to inform debate or strategies to tackle terrorism.What this really means, is that radicalisation of Muslims is not a localised problem, but it something that is going on anywhere where there are Muslim people living. Essentially, what the report says is that those attempting to radicalise Muslim youth can do so anywhere, and are doing so anywhere. Just remember the cyber Mosque and Omar Bakri's internet recruitment.
The Oxford Research Group, a global security think tank, has released a study into terrorism. They claim that there is every chance that the war against terrorism (read Islamic terrorism) could last 30 years. In other words, the war will last until a new generation or two of Muslims have grown up and seen that terrorism doesn't pay; assuming, of course, that we can send that message.
The group also claim that the election of Democrats in the US will make little difference. The report points out that leaving troops in Iraq is like a magnet to terrorists and withdrawing them will only make Iraq into a a country full of terrorists operating without restraint.
The author said:
Most people believe that the recent elections mark the beginning of the end of the Bush era, but that does not apply to the war on terror. In reality there will be little change until the United States faces up to the need for a fundamental rethink of its policies. So far, even with the election results, there is no real sign of that.
So much for the Democrats saving the day.
The Sun is reporting that Abu Hamza lied to his followers about how he lost his hands. He told them that they had been blow off when he was trying to defuse a landmine. In fact, he had messed up during terrorist training and blew them off himself.
The revelations come from a British spy sent to infiltrate Al Qaeda. The spy said that he went to the terror training camp and was told the story. Later, when he met Hamza, he was asked not to reveal the truth. It seems his followers weren't quite ready for the full gory (bad pun) of jihad.
Over the weekend Israel planned to launch an air strike against the home of a leading Palestinian terrorist in the Gaza Strip. They telephoned him to warn him of the coming strike and give him time to evacuate the building. Instead, he went to the local mosque and gathered a large number of civilians to act as human shields; Israel called off the attack.
So, next time the left-wing anti-Semites tell you that Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinian people remember this incident. Remember how Israeli policy is to give telephone warnings and how they try and avoid civilian casualties.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
The Observer is reporting that Asghar Bukhari, a founder member of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, sent money and support to Holocaust denier David Irving. He wrote a letter to Irving saying:
You may feel like you are on your own but rest assured many people are with you in your fight for the Truth.He sent him a cheque for £60 and urged other Muslims to send money and to place links to Irving's website on their webpages. MPACUK have responded by saying:
Twisting an innocent gesture of support (even if gravely mistaken) into more than it is, is just another Islamaphobic attack aimed at undermining and harming the brave individuals who support the Palestinian cause and the cause of British Muslims.You will note that denying the Holocaust is supporting the Palestinian cause. This is because the Palestinian cause is the total destruction of Israel and denying the Holocaust is a way to remove the legitimacy of Israel making that destruction easier. Of course, wiping Israel off the map will involve another genocide of another 6 million Jews.
British Muslims are being radicalised on a cyber mosque, according to The People. The website contains inflammatory videos and games, and features extremist speakers who are banned from conventional mosques.
One speaker urged people to kill the Queen saying:
She is a vile woman and she is the enemy of Islam. We should see her as enemy. We hate her. There is no problem for them [terrorists] to target her or to treat her as a complete enemy.Once again, we see that attempts are being made to make normal British Muslims into terrorists. The government needs to crack down on this immediately.
Friday, November 17, 2006
On a tight schedule and no time for a photo of the week. But plenty to talk about this week; the revelations from MI5, the problem of university extremism, radicals working for the government, and Omar Bakri's internet activities.
New guidelines were give to universities to help them deal with the growing problem of Islamic extremism on campus. There have been the usual reactions:
The Federation of Students Islamic Societies said that there was "absolutely no credible evidence" that extremists operated and recruited on campus. However, Professor Anthony Glees form Brunel university said that at least 21 were directly linked to extremism and terrorism. Perhaps the Islamic Societies do not think there is evidence because they have a very different view of what extremism is.
This would be similar to the stance taken by the University and College Union. They said that "radicalism must no be conflated with terrorism". In other words, no one should act until the terrorist has actually gone to the stage of killing or planning to kill someone.
The only moderate voice was from the British Muslim Forum. They said:
We believe that extremism of all forms needs to be tackled, in particular the radicalism of Muslim youths on campus. We fully support any initiative to tackle any form of criminal activity undertaken in the name of Islam.And that is a truly moderate voice. They do not pretend that there is no problem and they do not blame their problems on the government or anyone else. But, more importantly, they recognise that having people kill in their name is not what they want and are prepared to do what is necessary to stop that. All other Muslim organisations do not seem overly bothered by the killing in their name; they give such acts their implicit approval through their silence and inaction.
In the run up to the war we were told that Iraq had links to international terrorism. There was no doubt that this was true because it was widely reported that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers. However, what was disputed was that Iraq had links to Al Qaeda. The authorities, particularly in the US, insisted that it did.
Over the last few years liberals have insisted that Iraq had no such link to Al Qaeda and that the whole war was based on a lie. In fact, the left has had many different claims about the war; it was American Imperialism, bullying, revenge, an oil grab. Pretty much whatever they thought would convince people that the Americans were the bad guys.
However, last night, a British spy who had infiltrated Al Qaeda said that the network had planted evidence of their link to Iraq in order to get America to attack it. The Guardian insists that this is "bound to re-ignite the controversy over the war".
But this isn't true, if anything the controversy is now over. There WAS a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Whether we were tricked into it or not we had good reason for going there. When the Left-wingers start to use this as "evidence" that the war was wrong, remember that it is actually evidence that the war was justified.
The government is issuing guidelines for universities to crack down on Islamic extremism on campus. Mr Rammel, the Higher Education Minister said:
The guidance provides a recognition - that I believe must be faced squarely - that violent extremism in the name of Islam is a real, credible and sustained threat to the UK. And that there is evidence of serious, but not widespread Islamist extremist activity in higher education institutions.The Federation of Student Islamic Societies said that the measures were unnecessary because they will only serve to exaggerate the threat which, he said, is very small.
Yet, A report from Sunday indicated that universities were hotbeds of radicalism. This took many forms, one of which was the inviting of speakers to universities who are allowed in without any vetting. Small measure like actually keeping an eye on Islamic Society activities - their speakers, websites and literature - will go a long way to stamping out radicalism.
And if it is only a tiny minority that need to be addressed than the measures will not affect most people and so no one should be upset by them.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
How serious is the threat of terrorism? How real do you think the official terror warnings are?Now, there is no link on the site to this "recent poll" and searching google news doesn't reveal it. Has anyone heard of this "recent poll"? And besides this, why does the BBC think that any member of the public is in a position to decide how real the threat is and how much MI5 are lying? They are just asking for people to say that the government is evil, and that is precisely what they got:
Terrorism was the cornerstone of the Queen's Speech and the Home Secretary John Reid has said more legislation is needed to counter the threat. The head of MI5 told us last week there are 30 terror plots active in the UK.
But recent polls have shown that there is a problem of trust and many people feel that such threats maybe exaggerated.
How real is the threat of terrorism?
The only organisation I'm scared of is the Government who feel the need to spy on their own citizens and restrict our freedoms in the name of 'counter terrorism'. We are sleepwalking into a facist nation.
Philip Chillag, Lancaster, United Kingdom
Recommended by 356 people
Restricting freedoms? Yes. People can no longer drive their cars into London (because of the exorbitant C-charge). People are forced to pay for a service they do not use and abhor (the BBC). People are forced to recycle their rubbish on pain of a heavy fine (thanks to eco-activists). All these erosions of civil liberties perpetrated by the left-wingers. And who is pushing for a new law that will limit freedom of speech to ensure that the BNP leaders will be convicted next time?
And what has the right wing "fascist" government done? The only example people are actually giving is that they can no longer protest directly outside Parliament. Oh, and ID cards come up a lot, but they haven't been brought in yet and so cannot be the "erosion of civil liberties" that the government has been doing for years.
Both Yorkshire Police and the Metropolitan Police Authority are consulting Muslims today regarding terrorism. In York, about 150 delegates from 43 mosques and other institutions are expected to attend a conference with police chiefs. It will be addressed by Abdul Bari from the MCB and the Deputy High Commissioner for Pakistan, as well as the police.
In London, the Metropolitan Police Authority are launching a series of consultations with members of the Muslim community to gauge their feelings in the current climate. The aim is to improve community relations.
Of course it is a good idea to keep the moderate Muslims on side. However, there are two interesting points. Firstly, Muslims spend loads of time complaining that they are being singled out, yet are happy to have an opportunity to tell the police what to do.
Secondly, does anyone think the police would do something similar for any other community? Will the Jewish community be consulted in this way over rising anti-Semitism? What about consulting the majority Christian communities?
By now everyone is aware that the BBC has banned itself from using the word "terrorist", preferring instead to use descriptive words like "gunman" or "militant". However, event that seems too harsh for them.
Today, Israel opened fire and killed a terrorist in the West Bank. The headline from the BBC reads, "Israelis kill W Bank 'militant' ". Yes those quotation marks again. Let's analyse their use in this context.
The use of the quotation marks is to indicate that the story or phrase is not an objective description but rather one person's point of view. In this case, the source for the story was an Israeli army spokeswoman. She no doubt told the BBC that Israel had killed a terrorist; and the BBC changed that to militant.
If the BBC is unsure about the veracity of the story, shouldn't the whole headline be in quotes? And if they are sure but do not want to make any objective statements, shouldn't they quote the word the spokeswoman actually said?
PS: Someone please take a screenshot of the headline before it changes.
Lord Carlile has told the BBC that he expects a new bill to be presented early next year to "tidy up" some loose ends in the current anti-terror laws. One of the measures it may contain is a proposal to allow suspects to be held for 90 days without charge to give police enough time to collect all the necessary evidence.
Sir Ian Blair and other police chiefs have repeatedly asked for this measure. Sir Ian told reporters that police almost ran out of time before charging suspects over the plot to blow up transatlantic planes.
The law was voted down last time to a compromise of 28 days. If it is necessary then it should be implemented. However, since it is a big step, sufficient safeguards must be put in place, i.e. some evidence should be presented to a judge indicating that new evidence is likely to emerge before an extension is granted.
A Reverend is being targeted by youths simply because he is Christian. His car is regularly attacked by kids between the ages of 7 and 14. The police say they cannot do anything because the children are too young, even when they drove past as the kids were smashing in his windscreen they didn't stop it.
A neighbour said:
They get targeted because they have Christian stickers on their car and sometimes they put leaflets through people's doors. Occasionally other people's cars are damaged but their car gets kicked and egged pretty much constantly.Of course, if these were some minority ethnic group being attacked the police would put a stop to it as quickly as they could. It would also be recorded as a hate-crime and, if it were against Muslims, be flashed across the news as proof of rising Islamophobia. However, these are Christians and Christians are the majority therefore nothing is said and nothing is done. Does multi-culturalism mean equality for all? Yes - but some are more equal than others.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The eagle eyed amongst you will have noticed the news ticker (courtesy of the BBC) that should be ticking away at the top of the page. This is one of the many changes that has been made to the site over the past couple of weeks.
More changes can still be made and some undone. Please e-mail me with any suggestions for changes whether it be in regards to the content, style, links, layout, anything. If you think the site is just perfect as it is please e-mail me with that (otherwise your opinion will not be taken into account).
A site is more than just the publisher it is also the readers so all feedback - good or bad - is desired.
Email to littlebulldogs at hotmail.co.uk (remembering to remove the spaces and use @ instead of "at").
Shujah Ud-Dir-Mahmood, 19, is currently on trial with three other men at the Old Bailey for plotting terror attacks in Britain. He had received weapons training with the others at a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. He told the court:
I got quite depressed when I was there. I used to spend a lot of time on my own, sitting in a ditch. I used to start crying when everyone else went to sleep. I missed my mum a lot.He claims that he tried to leave the terrorist training camp but was prevented from doing so:
I never meant to start any training.I remember Khyam coming up before the end of the camp and I spoke to him about it. I said to him: 'Look, I'm at this camp, we're doing training, we're not being fed well, we're doing night training, what is this c***? I said I wanted to leave. But he said: 'It's not as simple as calling a taxi and saying let's go mate."He said I was going to have to stick it out and I couldn't just go like that.Yet, on his return to Britain he didn't inform the authorities about the terrorist activities of his friends. He went along with their plans until they were caught; only then did he decide he had been forced into it.
A leading member of the radical Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, who believe that the whole world should be made into an Islamic Caliphate, is a senior member of the Home Office, working for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. (Hat Tip - LGF)
Hizb-ut-Tahrir's spokesmen refuse to condemn any terrorist activities and, in fact, encourage followers to kill Jews and destroy Israel. The group claim to be non-violent, but an investigation by the BBC (of all people) has found that this is simply not so. Below is an audio of the interview (Hat Tip - DFH):
UPDATE: John Reid says he'll get his office to look into it:
If there is evidence, then the BBC no doubt will let us have it, and I instructed my officials last night to ask for such evidence.If there has been a breach of the code of conduct or the civil service code by an employee, that will be dealt with, and dealt with robustly.No doubt, John, but will the vetting system be changed to ensure it doesn't happen again? And will your new and improved system catch foreign terrorists like Abu Hamza's son?
Dr Sentamu accused the BBC of being scared of Muslim extremists. He told an interviewer:
They can do to us what they dare not do to the Muslims. We are fair game because they can get away with it. We don't go down there and say, 'We are going to bomb your place.' That is not in our nature.MPACUK has picked up on this sentence and asks, "is it in my nature as a Muslim to be a bomber?"
Of course, they do not ask it as a form of introspection, rather as a rhetorical question. They accuse the Archbishop of adding one more slander to the pile. However, perhaps the Archbishop is correct.
When he said "our nature" he presumably meant "our religion" rather than something biological; and it does appear that violence is indeed existent within the Islamic faith. If there was no element of violence within Islam, how could so many Muslims act violently in its name? There must, surely, be something there for the radicals to latch on to?
So, is it in their nature? No more than anyone else's. Is it in their religion? It must be there somewhere.
The Home Secretary has warned that Britain is facing waves of terror plots, most of which are now being orchestrated from abroad. He said:
They do look as though they are being directed from abroad, specifically by elements of al-Qaida. Secondly, they look as though they are being prepared strategically. That is, they fit in to a pattern.He went on to say that the threat was seamless and required a seamless response:
The threat from al-Qaida is a seamless one. It is no longer capable of being divided into just defence or foreign affairs issues or domestic issues. There is a seamless threat and we must have a seamless response.That's all very nice, Dr Reid, but if you can't keep extremists out of your own office how will you keep them out of Britain?
The Sun is reporting that the son of Abu Hamza, who was sentenced to three years in Yemen for planning terrorist attacks there, had worked right next to the Houses of Parliament. He had got a labouring job with Westminster City Council and one of those jobs included relaying the turf of Abingdon Green. This is an area very close to Parliament where MPs are often interviewed.
One security source said:
This is a man with a history of being a highly motivated terrorist. But he was free to wander around the lawns near parliament. The obvious fear was that he could have buried or concealed a device. He could also have brought a bomb close to politicians.A couple of weeks ago it came to light that he had been working on the London Underground. In both cases he didn't tell his employers of his terrorist past and this wasn't flagged by searches because it took place abroad.
Now, why is it that this convicted terrorist has had two jobs in two extremely sensitive areas of London? Is it just an unfortunate coincidence?
A BBC investigation has found that Omar Bakri, the head of Al Muhajiroun, is still actively radicalising Muslims via the internet. Bakri fled Britain to Lebanon when he thought he might be arrested and was since banned from returning.
The BBC found that he has regular internet chats with followers in which he encourages terrorism and jihad. The only thing wrong with this investigation is that it old news. Bakri has been using Paltalk to spread hate for over a year.
Last month, Bakri's son was stopped trying to smuggle £13,500 in cash to Lebanon in an envelope marked "Daddy". It was then revealed that Bakri had asked his followers, via the internet, to send money to his son to be sent on to him. At the time, Bakri threatened the police over its return.
It is obvious that angry young men do not become terrorists by themselves, it is people like Bakri who push them into it. When will the government take the necessary steps to stop people like Bakri from preaching hate.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Dr Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, said that the veil does not conform to the "norms of decency" in Britain. He said that it stuck out and attracted unwanted attention; and that while people were free to wear it they shouldn't expect people to accept it.
In response to his statement, Yusuf Karvani of the York Muslim Association, told a local newspaper:
I don't think women in veils do stick out. In many cities, like Leeds, Bradford or Birmingham, it's a common sight - and there are more and more women wearing them now than before.Hold on, throughtout the debate over Jack Straw's comments we were told that only a tiny number of people actually wore the veil. Now, it seems, that it is so common as to not be unusual, and is on the increase.
So, is it common and worthy of debate or is it rare and therefore sticks out? Or is it just possible that we are being told a bunch of lies by everyone who wants to stifle any debate?
Abu Hamza's son gave an interview with the BBC's World Service. During that interview he claimed that he was only trying to earn some money while working on the Underground. He said he was proud to be British and had nothing against this country. He also claimed that he didn't agree with his father's hatred, and the media has got the wrong impression of him.
But, it seems, he was unable to explain why it was that he had been planning to kill British and American people in terrorist attacks in Yemen? Maybe he has nothing against the country only its people?
Frankly, it is typical of the BBC that he doesn't seem to have been asked about it.
The Foreign Office said there was "no doubt at all" that Al Qaeda were trying to get hold of nuclear material for an attack on the UK. A spokesman said:
We know the aspiration is there, we know the attempt to get material is there, we know the attempt to get technology is there.Counter-terrorism officials believe that a large number of attacks are being planned in Pakistan. Hundreds of British men have travelled there for terrorism training and money is also being sent over there.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, has launched an attack on the veil and the BBC. Of the former he said that it did not conform to "norms of decency" in Britain. He said:
Well said. And his comments on the BBC are very telling too:
I think in the British context it renders you less secure because you stick out and it brings unwelcome attention. On the first question (of whether the veil conforms to norms of decency) I don't think it does conform.You know, when I visit Orthodox synagogues I never take a cross. When I go into Muslim mosques I take it off. When I go into a Sikh temple I cover my head. And I can’t simply say, ‘Take me as I am, whether you like it or not’. I think the thing is in British society you can wear what you want, but you can’t expect British society to be reconfigured around you. No minority can expect to impose this on the public or civic life.
We get more knocks. They can do to us what they dare not do to the Muslims. We are fair game because they can get away with it. We don’t go down there and say, ‘We are going to bomb your place.’ It is not within our nature.Another point that Dr Sentamu didn't make was that the BBC has its own inherent bias that is only multiplied by those threats.
Mizanur Rahman was found guilty of inciting racial hatred at the Old Bailey, although the jury were unable to reach a verdict concerning the charge of soliciting murder. The case has been adjourned while the prosecution decide whether to push for a retrial on the second charge.
Concerning UK troops, the man said, "We want to see their blood running in the streets of Baghdad." He went on to say, "Oh Allah, we want to see another 9/11 in Iraq, another 9/11 in Denmark, another 9/11 in Spain, in France, all over Europe." This is besides carrying offensive placards.
While it is important that this man has been tried and convicted, he most certainly wasn't the ringleader. Those people are well known to the police and should also be tried and convicted.
UPDATE: Mr Rahman will face a retrial on the charge of soliciting murder. The trial is due to take place in January and he will remain in custody until then.
Four Muslim men were removed from an easyJet flight at Luton after passengers reported their bizarre actions. The four men were wearing traditional dress and started arguing with each other just minutes after boarding. This was followed by a group trip to the toilets.
Hat Tip: USS Neverdock.
A similar incident occurred with Monarch Airlines in August. Due to that incident the IHRC placed Monarch on their short-list to win the annual Islamophobia Award.
Despite complaints from these sorts of organisation, the actions of these passengers is exactly what is required. The public must be alert and must act when they are concerned. These people should be applauded by everyone; some inconvenience is a small price to pay for saving lives. The most basic human right is surely the right to life and any human rights group should support that above all else. But then, the IHRC isn't a group for the rights of all humans, only some humans.
Just a couple of days after the IHRC declared that the number of terrorists stated by the head of MI5 was an "exaggeration", MPACUK has joined the party. In an article they claim that MI5 made up the figures and released them to enable the introduction of ID cards.
They first state that, "We have the Head of MI5 giving us scare stories of hundreds of terrorist cells operating in the UK."
Later on in the article they states that 7/7 was the only real terrorist plot in Britain:
He will definitely remember 7/7 as this is the only real terrorist plot with real casualties.Why do these groups think they know better than MI5? Do they actually know exactly how many terrorists there are out there or do they think that they can continue this denial indefinitely?
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Last month the Mayor of London released a report into Islamophobia in London, it was co-authored by the head of the MCB. At the time, Ken Livingstone told us that Muslims were disproportionate victims. This was exposed as a lie based on 2005 figures.
Now, figures from the London Borough of Barnet tell an extremely interesting story. In an article discussing the threat to both Jewish and Muslim communities, it was revealed that between April and October this year there were 52 anti-Semitic crimes recorded by police and just 5 Islamophobic ones. Since both communities indicate that many cases are reported to religious or communal groups but not to police let us follow only those figures recorded officially.
The 2001 census shows there are 46,686 Jews in Barnet and 19,373 Muslims (total population 314,564). Simple maths shows that the rate of attacks against Jews is 4.3 times greater than against Muslims.
So, Mr Livingstone, who is disproportionately targeted?
The Muslim Chaplain of London's Metropolitan University has warned that Islamists have infiltrated at least four universities in the UK. He gave details of how he is working to try and de-radicalise many young people in that situation.
At Brunel University, up to 10 students are in that situation. Brunel's ties to terrorism go deeper. During the trial of Dhiren Barot, it was revealed that he had forged an entry pass to Brunel to carry out research there.
Other incidents, include Sheffield University hosting a lecture from a man who supports the death penalty for homosexuals. At Kingston University, the Muslim Chaplain for Goldsmith's told students that they should join the jihad against Israel. And last month Staffordshire University were addressed by a former member of banned group Al Muhajiroun.
After the BNP leader was acquitted of charges of inciting racial hatred for saying that Islam is a "wicked, vicious faith" Gordon Brown has called for a rewording of the law to ensure that next time he will be found guilty. While it is right to want to stop this man from spreading his own form of hatred - there is more than enough of that around - the reason why the government wants to change the law is unacceptable.
Lord Falconer told the BBC:
We should look at them [the laws] in the light of what's happened here because what is being said to young Muslim people in this country is that we as a country are anti-Islam, and we have got to demonstrate without compromising freedom that we are not.The people saying these things to young Muslims are no better than the BNP thugs. They also want to spread hatred and cause friction between communities. Why then should the government be changing the law to target one set of racists purely for the benefit of another? The government should want to clamp down on that sort of speech from both sides.
Sir Ian Blair told a summit in Germany that terror trials in Britain needed to be addressed to avoid the many problems that exist at the moment. One of the big problems is that cases take such a long time to get to court. Sir Ian gave an example that one major conspiracy would take over two and a half years to reach a trial.
He also said that the 28-days currently available to police to question suspects before charging them would need to be reviewed in the near future. Other details given by the BBC include his calling for a relaxation in the laws regarding the reporting of court cases to allow justice to become more visible; and permitting the use of phone-tap evidence in trials.
One detail completely missing from the BBC report is his statement regarding the cause of terrorism. He said that society must confront "the terrible ease with which it can be claimed that disagreement over foreign policy can justify murder". This claim is at the very heart of the Islamic extremist - left-wing alliance. Confronting that claim means confronting this alliance, something that every free thinking person should welcome.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Here is a round-up of the reactions to the shocking figures supplied by MI5 last night.
The Conservatives called on the government to do more to tackle extremism. They called for a unified border police, allowing the use of phone-tap evidence in courts and said that we need "to be firm on Muslim radicals and Imams who preach hatred to the West".
The Lib Dems, called on the government to capitulate, and change both foreign and domestic policy to suit the radicals. Nick Clegg said, "The effect of our foreign and domestic policies on opinion in our Muslim communities, especially young men, now requires constant vigilance. New security measures alone will not win the battle of hearts and minds if they unwittingly push more and more people into an extremist direction."
The Muslim Council of Britain told the BBC that the problem of radicalisation wasn't a problem for one community but was a wider societal problem. Something which is demonstrably not true.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission, came out all lies blazing. They said that they were "absolutely astonished" by the news and declared the figures to be an "exaggeration". Of course, the IHRC are better placed to know the truth than the head of the body actually gathering the data. But they went further, stating that of the 1,000 people arrested since 9/11 only "Twenty-seven were found guilty – and only ten were Muslim. That is ten too many, but nevertheless, let us keep this in perspective".
This is simply not true. last month John Reid released figures stating that 214 people had been convicted of terrorism since 9/11. Unless of course the IHRC also knows those figures better than the Home Secretary.
Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, is to make a speech later today to call on moderate Muslims in this country to help against extremism. She is expected to tell Muslims to "stand up and be counted" and that "they, the Muslim communities, have a special ability to make a difference in the struggle against extremism."
When John Reid said the same thing to Muslim parents he was condemned by Muslim groups, expect the same again; complaints about being singled out and threats that terror will only stop if we appease them by changing foreign policy.
Another interesting twist is the take the BBC has on this speech. The BBC headline reads, "Terror threat growing - Beckett". While Ms Beckett does slip that into her speech in one line saying the threat "remains serious and is increasing", even the BBC article admits that it isn't the point of her speech. Nevertheless, that one line is the message the BBC want to spread.
UPDATE: The Islamic Human Rights Commission has released a press statement exactly fulfilling the prediction. They claim:
Margaret Beckett’s comments today, in once again urging British Muslims to speak out against terrorism, falsely suggest that hitherto Muslims have not been doing so. This repeated habit of focussing on the Muslim community is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from the role played by Britain’s domestic and foreign policies in the rise of terrorism.There are the two parts; first complaining about Muslims being singled out and then telling us that it is foreign policy that must change to prevent terrorism. Completely predictable reaction from the extremists.
The Director-General of MI5 has told the press of the level of threat from terrorism in Britain. The figures are shocking:
1,600 individuals are actively engaged in planning terror attacks
30 major plots are under investigation and 200 less serious ones are not being investigated because of lack of resources.
6 major terror attacks have been prevented in the last six years.
The threat is serious, growing and will, I believe, be with us for a generation. Today we see the use of home-made improvised explosive devices. Tomorrow’s threat may — and I suggest will — include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology
And there was a warning about grooming:
More and more people are moving from passive sympathy towards active terrorism through being radicalised or indoctrinated by friends, families, in organised training events here and overseas, by images on TV, through internet chatrooms and websites....Frightening stuff. This is the kind of threat that the country needs to unite to stand against. When we fought the Nazis the enemy was clear and the cause was clear. Unfortunately, in our time, the enemy is hidden and they do their best to confuse their cause leading to disunity amongst their targets.
It is the youth who are being actively targeted, groomed, radicalised and set on a path that frighteningly quickly could end in their involvement in mass murder of their fellow UK citizens — or their early death in a suicide attack or on a foreign battlefield.
The Muslim PC who was sacked from his post in the Diplomatic Protection Group because he failed a counter-terrorism check, is asking for police protection. He decided to sue the Metropolitan Police for discrimination and as a result had his name, photo and details splashed across the papers. Now he feels that he might be in danger and needs police protection.
His lawyer wrote to the Met saying:
We have tried to protect the identity of our client but were concerned to discover today he had been photographed and his picture appeared in the Daily Mail and Daily Express....It is difficult to comprehend the complaint in this case. He is suing the police for unfair dismissal because he claims not to be connected to terrorism. It is inevitable that the media will investigate his background and shine a massive spotlight on any possible connections. If he didn't want any media attention he should not have gone ahead with his case.
Although most of the press comments have been balanced, the article in today's Daily Mail was inflammatory and caused our client to feel harassed. The article, 'the Al-Qaeda factor' appears to link our client to that organisation rather than the former imam at his former mosque. We believe the article may lead to our client being targeted by far-right groups
A British Muslim woman is due to appear in court today to face charges of possessing information likely to be useful to someone preparing acts of terrorism. Despite the relatively innocuous charge she is alleged to have a whole host of terrorism manuals. These include the Al-Qaeda Manual, the Terrorists Handbook and the Mujahideen Poisons Handbook; not to mention books about the use of weapons.
She is being tried as part of the same investigation which caught a man, Sohail Anjum, trying to smuggle money and equipment into Pakistan for terrorist activities.
Mr Justice Hodge has ruled that full face veils may be worn in courts as long as they do not interfere with communication. He said:
The presumption is that if a representative before an asylum immigration tribunal wishes to wear a veil, has the agreement of his or her client and can be heard reasonably clearly by all parties to the proceedings, then the representative should be allowed to do so.However, he added that if the judge cannot hear the lawyer, as was the case with Ms Mughal that sparked this decision, then "the interests of justice are not served" and the judge may ask for the veil to be removed.
Criticism has come from Conservative MP David Davies who said:
If we were in a Muslim court we would be expected to abide by their rules on dress. So why is it that this lady can work in a British court and wear whatever she likes?”The answer, Mr Davies, is that we are better than they are. We have liberties and they do not. We shouldn't sink to their level. Another Tory MP complained that the judge in the original case was not backed. This is also wrong, because, under the new guidelines, he was right to ask her to remove her veil.
While the wearing of a veil may be culturally abhorrent, it is more abhorrent to pass legislation banning a particular item of clothing for purely cultural reasons. On the other hand, it is important that the practical problems are addressed and so they have been.
A group of 300 elite anti-terrorism officers is to be established in Manchester to create a "hostile environment" for terrorists across the North-West. Two other groups are being planned for Yorkshire and the West Midlands; areas where the terror threat is greatest.
Greater Manchester Police had established their own anti-terror branch containing about 20 officers; they have been involved in many raids. This new force will be all the more effective; necessary when the scale of the problem has been revealed (see today's other story).
Thursday, November 09, 2006
George Galloway has cancelled an appearance at a school in Edgware because he didn't want to be forced to keep to the topic. He was invited to speak at North London Collegiate School in Barnet on the topic of the future of the Labour Party. However, some Jewish parents were worried that he may spout his usual anti-Semitic tirade against Israel and give his support for Palestinian terrorism. This is a perfectly understandable request; his incitement could easily make life uncomfortable for the Jewish students of the school.
The headteacher reassured parents that he would be told to keep to the point. He had said:
If he were to touch on areas that we didn't feel appropriate, we would redirect the discussion, but at the end of the day he isn't coming in to speak about Israel.Seems perfectly sensible from the school too. But Mr Galloway couldn't bear to be told to stick to the point, so he cancelled his appearance, saying:
I cancelled it because of their discourtesy. I read on a Jewish web site that they intended to read me a lesson in what I might speak about and what I must not speak about. Well, Tony Blair hasn't been able to gag me and the North London Collegiate School would not be allowed to.If Mr Galloway wanted to talk about Israel why would he accept an offer to talk about the Labour Party? And if he isn't interested in talking about Israel then what is the problem? Two possibilities spring to mind. 1) He wants any platform he can find to spread his unique form of hate or 2) being told to keep to the topic at hand would be such an ego bashing for him he can't stand the thought that it might happen.
A lecturer in international politics and terrorism, based in Swansea, told a local paper that terrorists are increasingly using Wales to cover their activities. He told the paper:
If a terrorist cell carries out all its emailing and internet work from one location they are virtually waving a big flag over their heads saying 'we are here'. So what they are doing increasingly is using motorways to get out of places like London and Birmingham and heading for the relative anonymity of places like Wales and Scotland.However, he said that it really made little difference where they accessed the internet from because security services could track them just as well. One point, though, is that Wales isn't being used only for internet access but for other activities too. The 7/7 bombers spent some time in Wales for a bonding session. Clearly they felt that security in Wales was generally more lax than elsewhere.
Even if it isn't true, there shouldn't be such a feeling because it is important to keep those planning terrorism under pressure which makes it more likely that they will make mistakes and be caught.
The Met has defended its decision to prevent a Muslim police officer from guarding diplomats because he failed to pass a counter-terrorism check. A statement says that the decision is, "entirely proportionate, defendable and justified" and, "The level of vetting increases according to the sensitivity of the roles that officers and staff have to perform."
The officer failed because he had sent his children to be taught at a mosque whose cleric has links to terrorism. That mosque is the Broad Street Mosque in Swindon. Today, Azim Khan, secretary of that Mosque, said that the Imam in question had left three years ago and niether he nor the mosque had any connections to terrorism. He also mentioned that the officer had been on the committee of the mosque and declared:
We made a policy about six years ago not to allow anybody into our community who stands for inter-community hatred and we have no association or affiliation with any groups around the country.Not quite true, his mosque is a member of the Swindon Stop the War Coalition. Furthermore, neither he nor his mosque are entirely moderate either. In regards to the Pope's recent comments, Mr Khan said that his comments were certainly in reference to terrorism and therefore the Pope should say "that he wants forgiveness for what he said."
During a meeting with the local MP discussing extremism he declared, "What we want is for justice for the third world, for the Palestinians and Iraqis. The UK needs to distance itself from the imperialism of the Americans."
Finally, his mosque organised a lesson for the local council on the true meaning of jihad. AT that meeting they said, "The people who bombed London and the Twin Towers are not Muslims."
And presumably if Islamic terrorists aren't Muslims then no Muslims need to tackle extremism and certainly don't need to take any responsibility for their actions.
If this is the kind of company that this police officer actively seeks out, it is little wonder that he doesn't pass a counter-terrorism check. While they may not be advocating murder they do not seem to be totally moderate and harmless.
UPDATE: More details are emerging and those involved are backtracking. The group that the Imam had links with is called Sipah-e-Sahaba, a Pakistani group believed to be a formal member of Al Qaeda. The Imam is associated with the group and held meetings with its members in Pakistan.
Yesterday, Azim Khan denied that the Imam had any connections with terror. Then a source from the mosque confirmed he did:
There was an imam here who was forced to step down because the other imams did not approve of his association with Sipah-e-Sahaba, which is a movement in Pakistan meaning Army of Companions. The imam went to madrassas in Pakistan in the 1980s and met this group, which is banned there. If Pakistan has banned a group, you know it's bad.And then Mr Khan himself had to change his story somewhat, admitting that there had been problems in the Mosque but claiming that they had nothing to do with terrorism. It certainly seems that there is much more to this than was first revealed.