It seems that Little Bulldogs has got under somebody's skin. Little Bulldogs has been operating for a little over 6 weeks now and last week received its 10,000th hit.
A new blog was started on Saturday calling itself "Little Bulldogs". So far it only has a welcome message. That welcome message is a carbon copy of the one that this blog was started with (see here), except that "radical Islam" has been switched to "Zionism".
As someone once said, "Imitation is the best form of flattery". In this case it indicates that this blog is achieving some of its objectives.
And, by the way, a big hello to whoever you are. No doubt you read this blog often; please feel free to leave a comment or two.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
It seems that Little Bulldogs has got under somebody's skin. Little Bulldogs has been operating for a little over 6 weeks now and last week received its 10,000th hit.
Radical Islamist cleric Abu Hamza is appealing against his convictions. In Februrary he was sentenced to 7 years in prison for inciting murder and for race-hate offences. He was found to have a "manual" for terrorism called the Encyclopaedia of the Afghani Jihad. Yemen want him extradited there to face charges of being involved in bomb plots but the British Government refuses.
You can read some of his statements here.
It was also reported on Saturday, in a local paper, that The Legal Services Commission has obtained a court order to prevent the sale of a property that Abu Hamza supposedly bought while in prison. The house is worth over £200,000 and Hamza's legal costs, which are paid for by the public, amount to around the same amount.
UPDATE: The grounds for appeal have now emerged. Hamza's lawyer claims that it was "unfair and oppressive" to prosecute him for speeches made a long time before. He also claimed that Hamza was "subjected to a relentless campaign of adverse media publicity condemning him as a preacher of hate and inciter of violence and to public condemnation by political figures".
UPDATE: Hamza's lawyers are trying a new tactic to get him off. They are claiming that incitement laws only apply to inciting British citizens to kill, inciting foreigners to kill other foreigners, they argue, is perfectly permissible.
MPACUK has republished an article on their front page from last December. The article claims that they are Anti-Zionist but not Anti-Semitic. The article states:
Note, we unequivocally oppose Zionism - a political ideology - NOT Judaism - the religion of the Jewish people.They also claim that, "Muslims criticize Zionism, but defend the right of Jews to live in peace and security."
Perhaps these Muslims need to be more honest with themselves.
Zionism is the idea of establishing a Jewish state where Jews can live in the peace and security Muslims claim to be keen on.
Being Anti-Zionist means that you oppose the very idea that Jews could have their own state. In other words, MPACUK is happy for Jews to live in peace so long as they always remain a minority. They are "unequivocally opposed" to the idea that Jews could form their own state. This sentiment can only be described as Anti-Semitic.
The Sun is reporting that Abu Hamza's son was allowed to work on sensitive parts of London Underground. This man has been in prison in Yemen for plotting to bomb British and American targets there. Nevertheless, he passed security checks and was allowed to work on parts of the Underground Network deemed the most likely to be attacked by terrorists.
He was only stopped when other workers recognised his picture in the newspaper and reported him to managers who promptly sacked him. This indicates that the public take this sort of thing seriously. Why then has the Home Office not published pictures of the escaped terror suspects?
It is being reported that John Reid will announce figures for terror charges today. The figures published in the papers are that 387 people have been charged with terror offenses and that 214 have been convicted. 98 await trial, leaving 75 unaccounted for, but presumably they were acquitted.
What isn't being said is how many of these people are Muslims. The assumption appears to be that anyone charged with terrorism these days is a Muslim.
It emerged today that Camilla removed her Remembrance Day poppy in favour of an Islamic scarf. While on an official visit to Pakistan she donned the Islamic scarf to show respect to her hosts, however, the poppy interfered with the scarf so the poppy was removed. An aide said, "She was advised it was better to wear the scarf rather than the poppy". This may well be the future Queen of Great Britain and she is putting Pakistani traditions ahead of British ones while representing Britain.
This isn't the only slight to the brave men who gave up their lives to save us all from Nazism. In Wood Green the local vicar has scrapped the normal Remembrance Sunday service because it isn't multi-cultural enough.
Mr King, the chairman of the Wood Green Royal British Legion, sums it all up brilliantly:
"There's not many ex-servicemen left but everyone goes on about looking after minorities these days, so what about us?"
An arrest warrant was issued today for one of the men who fled while under a control order. What is shocking is not that it has been issued, but that it has taken so long before anyone got round to doing anything about it.
It seems like the Home Office are not taking this seriously. They have refused to provide details of the man which would aid in tracking him down. Besides that, shouldn't breaking a control order lead to an automatic arrest warrant, just like breaking out of prison?
UPDATE: The Evening Standard are reporting that the man was twice given bail, unopposed by the Home Office. He was on trial those times for breaching the control order, yet no one thought it necessary to keep him properly locked away. Now, he has gone on the run and no one knows where he is. How shambolic can this saga become before heads roll?
Sunday, October 29, 2006
The BBC has published an article in which David Loyn answers questions from the public about the Taleban. It starts badly and doesn't get much better. Here are some extracts and some commentary:
The BBC's David Loyn had exclusive access to Taleban forces mobilised against British forces in Helmand Province in southern AfghanistanThese aren't "forces" these are terrorists because they target civillians as well as combatants. And the term "mobilised" implies that they were sent out by others. Perhaps Mr Loyn thinks the Taleban were mobilised by the people?
Q: In the UK, the Taleban are depicted as a harsh oppressive regime which ruled by fear. You associate closely with them. What are your feelings about them?
Raymond Mcalpine, Gravesend, UK
As far as their regime was concerned, it is worth remembering that it was popular in many parts of the country - particularly the Pashtun rural areas in the south, although deeply resented in the north, the west and urban areas everywhere. It was popular because it was seen as not corrupt, and brought law and order so it was possible for Afghans to travel safely around the country in ways that have not been possible before or since. Their new leadership do admit that some mistakes were made in terms of the harshness of their rule, but they have not changed their profoundly conservative religious austerity, nor their desire to impose severe restrictions on women.
Note the stress on their popularity and lack of corruption. In fact, Mr Loyn doesn't answer the question. Are they "harsh and oppressive"? Well, they've made "some mistakes".
But on a separate point, 'our taxes' are paying for 'our soldiers' to fight a difficult conflict, and I rather wanted to know what they are up against and why.Yes, they really did use quotation marks! And finally:
Q: Do the Taleban foresee a time when they will lay down their arms and stop fighting? What is their objective and can they see a time when there will be peace?The first part is accurate even if Mr Loyn doesn't understand that. Just as communism needed to spread communism across the entire world before peace was achieved, so too does radical Islam need to spread Islam across the globe before they can settle down to "the way of peace". As to blaming the international community for not congratulating the Taleban on being able to oppress half of the population under their control and provide training to the world's terrorists; that is simply disgraceful.
Edward McCarthy, Edinburgh, UK
'Islam' means 'the way of peace'. That is their dream. But it may not be achievable in any normal human context, Edward. Rather like the dreams of communism the struggle may be as important as the result. They were very surprised that when they brought relative security to most of the country in 1996 the international community did not congratulate them.
This blog and many others have complained that police do nothing to stop the disgraceful "protests" carried out by radical Islamists. Today the BBC reports that police chiefs are urging the government to give them more powers to deal with these events.
The extra powers include making it illegal to burn flags. They also want to be able to impose conditions on rallies to prevent people covering their faces (thought not Muslim women) and to censor banners.
Truth be told, the extra powers are not needed. Evidence from many other cases indicate that police are able to deal with such things if they want. For example, when people rallied on Sunday with banners proclaiming "We are all Hezbollah" the police could have stopped it under the glorification of terror clause. An anti-gay protester was arrested for handing out leaflets with Biblical scriptures on it.
This news is only good if it indicates a willingness by the police to deal with these people. If they still refuse to take action having powers will not help.
UPDATE: Human Rights groups aren't happy about preventing people from burning the symbol of a nation. Liberty couldn't bring themselves to lie flat out and declare flag burning as an acceptable act so they settled for opposing the plans on the basis that they were unnecessary.
However, the Islamic Human Rights Commission were prepared to. They are paraphrased by the BBC:
But Massoud Shedjareh, of the Islamic Human Rights' Commission, said whether it was incitement or not depended on the circumstances, but police already had powers to deal with it.If anyone knows when burning a country's flag does not indicate the wish to destroy that country and its inhabitants, please let us know.
Nearly two weeks ago this blog revealed the connections between Aisha Azmi and Tablighi Jamaat. Azmi is the teacher who was suspended for refusing to remove her veil during lessons. Tablighi Jamaat are the radical Islamic group that are planning to build the huge mosque next door the Olympics; a mosque whose purpose is Dawah (see here).
The Times reveals that Azmi was told to wear the veil in a personal ruling from Mufti Yusuf Sacha. The report goes on to say that Sacha teaches at the mosque run by Tablighi Jamaat in Dewsbury. That would be the same mosque that was regularly visited by two of the 7/7 bombers, and run by an organisation described as "an antechamber of fundamentalism".
This opinion piece in The Telegraph is worth a read if you have 5 minutes spare. Nigel Farndale writes a good piece asking for a reality check. The article centres on Ken Livingstone's comments to the effect that Muslims face similar ordeals to Jews in Nazi Germany; a claim that is completely untrue (see here).
A few nice quotes:
Think book burning and you think Nazis and Islamic fundamentalists, creeds which, in terms of their anti-Semitism, are not that far apart.....And a powerful conclusion:
There is no comparison [between Muslims now and Jews in the Nazi era]. Jews posed no threat at all to German society in the 1930s. They were peaceful, law-abiding people, which made them ideal scapegoats and targets for Nazi propaganda. The "Jewish threat" was just a useful fiction dreamed up by Hitler and Goebbels.
But there is nothing fictional about British Islamofascists such as Anjem Choudary and Abu Izzadeen, extremists who praise the 7/7 bombers and call for the abolition of democracy in Britain and the introduction of Sharia law. I expect they have burnt a few Salman Rushdie novels in their time, too. If anyone, it is they who should be compared to Hitler and Goebbels.
I know this "Muslims are the new Jews" line has become fashionable among the commentariat in London in recent weeks but really, enough is enough. Time for a reality check. Time for a new mayor as well. The current one seems to have gone mad.
Two stories today from Belmarsh Prison. The first, from The Observer, is that one of the terror suspects who escaped while under a control order was released without tagging. Normally, prisoners released under control orders are electronically tagged, but this man wasn't. Apparently he didn't present a risk.
The Sunday Mirror is reporting that the budget at Belmarsh prison is to be slashed by £500,000. It means that the number of officers trained to spot radicalisation inside the prison will be cut from 24 to just 10. Remember, this is the same prison that was having serious problems with Islamists recruiting inside it.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Just a short recap of the week. We started the week trying to figure out what happened with the two supposedly massive protests; they turned out to be pretty small affairs. There was some infighting between MCB and MPACUK, not to mention the latter's extortion efforts.
The BBC admitted its bias and Ken tried hard to further the claims of Muslim victimhood. We also had Omar Bakri's threats over the "gift" he didn't need.
I'll leave you with the picture of the week (from publicansdecoy):
An interesting article has appeared on MPACUK's website. Ostensibly it is an apology to the MCB over some comments made by the head of MPACUK that were apparently misquoted. However, looking a bit closer reveals a lot.
He supposedly said, "At first, I welcomed Bari's appointment because he's a thoughtful man and not an arrogant master of the universe like some of the others in the MCB, but he has simply become their mouthpiece. At least Sir Iqbal was his own man."
There is no indication of who misquoted poor Mr Bukhari (CEO of MPACUK). In fact, running his name through Google News search turns up no hits. Running his name through google wb search with the term MCB do not turn up this supposed quote. So, who exactly misquoted him?
Later in the article Mr Bukhari declares:
MPACUK have for years avoided criticising the MCB in public (and infact defended them countless times) not because they are above criticism but because regardless of their limitations they are trying at least to make a difference and with that they have our support.Call me cynical, but given that MCB attacked MPACUK earlier this week (see here) I wouldn't be surprised if MPACUK invented this "misquote" to hit back. Looks like the rivalry is intensifying; is it too early to make comparisons to factional violence in Iraq and Gaza?
Recently a report was published about the goings on inside Wandswirth Prison. The BBC picked up on the report that about half of inmates claimed they had been "victimised". Sound familiar? That's right, the report states that Black and Asian prisoners were more likely to claim said victimisation.
However, not mentioned in the BBC article is another interesting fact from the report. It seems that there has been a surge in Muslim inmates and that there are now plans to turn the chapel into a Mosque. Muslims now make up almost 20% of the population of Wandsworth.
Without seeing the figures it is impossible to say how much of a connection there is between claims of "victimisation" and the upsurge in Muslim inmates; but there probably is some.
Earlier this month it emerged that a Muslim police officer had been excused from guarding the Israeli embassy. The police tried their hardest to explain it away; we were given three different reasons why it was proper to allow him not to fulfill his duty:
1) He felt "uncomfortable and unsafe", according to the Association of Muslim Police Officers.
2) The Met told us it was because his family in Lebanon might face reprisals.
3) The Metropolitan Police Authority claimed that it was because, "the Met would be seriously criticised if this guy has relatives in Lebanon and his picture was used around the world to demonstrate the irony about having a Muslim defending the Israeli embassy in the UK."
Today all these excuses seemed even less likely. The Sun has obtained a photo of the officer with a Lebanese flag proudly displayed in his car. Still nothing to do with politics?
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority that the debate over the Muslim veil had not had any effect on the number of faith hate attacks.
For the last three weeks, since Jack Straw made his comments, Muslim groups have been claiming that they have fuelled anti-Muslim attacks. While some incidents may have been because of the debate, the figures do not show any rise in the number of attacks.
Try as they might, the claims of Islamic victimhood always seem to ring hollow.
Yesterday we reported that the son of Omar Bakri was stopped while trying to smuggle £13,500 to his father in Lebanon. Omar then issued a direct threat against the police if the money was not returned.
We postulated that his terror operation was still active over the internet. Today, The Sun provided evidence of that:
Later the article confirmed that this had taken place during a conversation in Paltalk.
Now a Sun investigation can reveal Bakri, 48, told supporters to hand over money to his son as much as four months ago. In an internet exchange in June, Bakri was asked by a would-be follower how he could donate money to help back his brand of Islamic extremism.
Bakri replied: "“It depends why you want to send the funds. Is it for the needy people or the Mujahideen or for other reasons?"
When the follower told him it was to help fund the Mujahideen - holy warriors -— Bakri told him: "“If you want to help the good work you can pass (funds) via Western Union or via the bank account.
"“Pass them directly to my son Abdul Rahman -— he is living in London. He keeps (a) low profile."
UPDATE: Despite Bakri's threat to the police he won't be getting his money for at least three months. According to this report Special Branch were given three months to fully investigate the source of the money and what it was for. It also mentions that the son who was supposedly providing this large gift is unemployed.
Andrew Smith MP sent 2,000 cards to Muslim constituents for the end of Eid. Obviously he is trying to gain support from the community, in the same way as politicians send special greetings to Jews during their festivals and Christmas cards etc.
However, the card has annoyed Taj Hargey, chairman of the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford. In one article from the local newspaper he is quoted as saying, "It's a naked attempt to curry favour with the Muslim voters in east Oxford."
In the column of today's paper it is revealed that he sent his back with a "vitriolic letter". In it he told the MP, "The good wishes of friends, neighbours and colleagues for Muslim festivals are normally highly valued and appreciated. But you are not any of these things to me. In fact, I find it totally repugnant."
It has long been rumoured that Prince Charles would like to be known as "Defender of Faiths" . Now he has said that he wants to be coronated twice. Once in the usual Christian way; as the monarch of a Christian country and the new head of the Anglican Church. Then he wants another ceremony, a multi-faith one.
His courtier , quoted in the Daily Express, said, "As sovereign, he will wish to demonstrate that he can set an example for the entire country to follow." But this is the wrong sort of message to send.
It tells people that he is ashamed of his Christian heritage. Philip Davies MP sums it up nicely:
This country is a Christian country. ItÂs our heritage and we should defend it. This pandering to other religions does not impress me. I donÂt think it impresses people of other faiths either. They might respect our religion more if we respected it in the way they respect theirs.Quite so. Especially with many Islamists feeling that the West doesn't have the will to stand up to them. During this era we must show that we are proud of our culture, as it is, and proud of our history too.
A huge thank you to all who have visited this blog since its inception just 6 weeks ago. Yesterday the blog received its 10,00th hit.
A particular vote of thanks to those who leave comments or email me. Feedback from readers is greatly appreciated.
A word now on some changes. I have added an RSS feed. Not being an expert it may not work. So, if you find a problem, let me know.
More changes are in the pipelines, including a contact form (LGF-like) to make feedback easier.
Once again, thanks to all of you for your support.
Yesterday an entire Muslim family was arrested in connection to the murder of a man. The victim was battered to death with a table leg when he went to visit the home of his girlfriend. The problem, you see, is that he was 21 and she was 13. Why he was seeing a girl of 13 is anyone's guess but that is immaterial.
While honour killings normally target the woman involved, last year a father and two sons were sentenced, in Oxford, for the murder of the daughter's boyfriend in an honour killing. This might be a similar incident.
One family friend told The Evening Standard, "You can imagine how upset the girl's mother and father were to know that their daughter was seeing a man of 21. Although the relationship was in its very early stages, they wanted it to stop as soon as possible."
The BBC also reports on the incident, but neglects to mention that the family is Muslim. No doubt, some may think it isn't relevant. Yet, it has the hallmarks of an honour killing, in which case the religion of the family is entirely pertinent.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
The MCB has produced a statement regarding the veil. It is undersigned by representatives of about 25 Muslim groups; more on that later. The full report can be read here [pdf].
Just to pick out a couple of points from the report. In section 3 the MCB makes it clear that every Muslim should be wearing the veil:
The veil, irrespective of its specific juristic rulings, is an Islamic practice and not a cultural or a customary one as is agreed by the consensus of Muslim scholars; it is not open to debate....Not practicing something enjoined by Allah and His Messenger - regardless its legal status (i.e., whether obligatory, recommended or praiseworthy) - is a shortcoming; denying it is much more serious.They also deny the right of any ordinary Muslim to debate the issue, in section 4:
We recognise the fact that Muslims hold different views regarding the veil, but we urge all members of the Muslim community to keep this debate within the realms of scholarly discussion amongst the people of knowledge and authority in the Muslim community.There also appears to be a hidden attack on MPACUK. It has been noted here that MPACUK is trying to force MCB out of the way and take its position. In section 2 of the report MCB writes:
We strongly condemn any attempt by any individual or organisation to create disunity in the Muslim community.MPACUK has been posting articles on their website about the veil issue for a couple of weeks now, including using it to extort money from Muslims. That explains this from section 5:
Furthermore, we warn Muslim individuals and organisations to avoid seeking to capitalise on this debate in order to further political or personal interests.Finally, the report is signed by lots of organisations including, IHRC and Hizb-ut-Tahrir. But there is no signature from MPACUK.
We all know about Omar Bakri. He is the man who established Al-Muhajiroun and remains the mentor for people like Anjem Choudary and Abu Izzadeen. He fled Britain for Lebanon in 2005 fearing prosecution for treason and was subsequently banned from returning. When Israel decided to hit back at Hezbollah he begged the Royal Navy to "rescue" him; they didn't. For some more info check his entry on Wikipedia.
His son, Abdul Raham Fostok, was stopped at Heathrow on his way to Lebanon. He was found to have £13,500 in cash stuffed in a brown envelope marked "Daddy". The money was confiscated by police under the Proceeds of Crime Act that allows money to be taken when there is a suspicion that it will be used for terrorism. Abdul himself was questioned but allowed to continue his journey.
Omar Bakri is still in contact with his agents in Britain via the internet, giving nightly sermons and discussion over paltalk. This month he revealed his connections to the 7/7 bombers during one such discussion. While his followers are free in Britain he remains a danger. As this attempt to smuggle money shows he is still up to no good.
UPDATE: Omar Bakri wants his money back. Speaking from his house in Lebanon he threatened the police:
I am not expecting any problem with the money but if I do not get it there will be trouble. I will take action because it is my property.That alone seems enough reason to keep it. After all, he told reporters, "I do not especially need the gift"
God says you must do all in your power to get something back if it is taken from you - even if it costs you your life. They will be playing with fire."
UPDATE: Just found this article from The Sun. They claim that, "The Home Office will tomorrow ask for a formal High Court seizure order." Better watch out for a revenge attack.
Also from the article:
Despite living in exile, the cleric has a luxury flat - and sources close to him claim he is STILL scrounging off the state.
One pal said: "He doesn't work. It has been obvious he has been using his family to help fund his lavish lifestyle."
The leader of the Roman Catholics in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, has called on Muslims to apologise for 9/11 and 7/7 and other atrocities carried out in their name. He made the call last week saying, "There have been no apologies for the shooting of the nun [in Somalia after the Pope made his remarks], let alone for 9/11 or the London bombings. I would like to see some reciprocal moves from the Islamic side. We shouldn't have to live in fear of attack from Muslims."
His comments obviously caused anger in the "moderate" Muslim leadership:
Last night, the cardinal's views on Islam had stirred up a new controversy, with Muslim leaders furious at the comment. They claimed that as the terrorist attacks were carried out by extremists, mainstream Muslims who had already condemned the actions had nothing to apologise for.A small token of distancing themselves from the extremists would go a long way. Releasing a press statement takes about 5 mins and holds little weight. When will we see real action from the supposed moderate majority?
UPDATE: Shockingly, Muslims aren't happy:
His comments have been condemned by Muslim groups in the UK. Ashraf Anjum, president of the Glasgow Mosque, said the cardinal was wrong to blame the entire Muslim faith for acts by extremists.Even if Muslim groups do not feel they should apologise, at least they should want to show their anger with their co-religionists. Or is Muslim anger reserved only for infidels?
Osama Saeed, of the Muslim Association of Britain added: "The Pope had to apologise for his own comments. I'm not sure who would apologise for the bombers to the cardinal."
First, a definition, from Cambridge's Online Dictionary:
extortMPACUK has a wonderful article on their site. It lambasts Muslims in Blackburn for failing to vote against Jack Straw at the last election. The young men who make up MPACUK complain that only non-Muslims would provide them with free lodging. They claim that they were beaten up by fellow Muslims who wanted to keep them quiet. They grumble that Muslims would not accept black-and-white flyers only expensive colour ones and then "Too often we found even the color ones on the floor down the street."
to obtain something by force or threat
Then they threaten the entire Muslim community:
The Muslims of the UK did not support MPACUK with their money or even their voluntary time. We fought Jack Straw and other MP's with a handful of brothers and sisters while the most of you carried on your comfortable lives.And below that it a form to make a donation of either £20 or £10 a month for a year. Does that fit the definition given above?
Well now we are all paying the price. Attack after attack is being reported to the Police, hardly covered in the press. The man we were beaten up for by Muslims, has stabbed them the very cronies he relied on in the back. The rest of us are paying the price. When will you Muslims realize that its time to make a stand and organize yourselves, to protect your rights and give some of your money to groups who protect you. Because if you don't, soon enough all the money in the world will not save you from what is coming.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
You will, no doubt, remember that we were having great difficulty finding out about the protest in Glasgow that was supposed to have taken place on Saturday. After the Independent reported that thousands were due to attend there was no more mention of it.
USS Neverdock did his investigation and found that the event had taken place but no one really knew much about it. Read here and here for background.
Today the truth has been revealed. The SocialistWorkerOnline has an exclusive report on the protest. Far from the thousands who were to pack the area there were instead just 300 people.
No surprises there. Nor were there any from Yvonne Ridley who was also there telling the few who were bothered, "Tony Blair and his master George Bush in the White House have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon, with their own brand of extremism."
This rally against Islamophobia was exactly that. As Fellay pointed out in the comments the term "Islamophobia" implies an irrational hatred of Muslims. This rally served to give us all rational reasons for being concerned about some of them; as if there weren't enough already.
The BBC has kept the claims made by its senior members that it is institutionally biased very quiet. Nevertheless, hidden away in the editors' blog is an entry from Helen Boaden attempting to explain. The entry does not make any attempt to deny that the claims made are true.
No, the quotes are completely accurate, but it doesn't matter because:
The main thing is, however, they were both giving their personal opinions. That is entirely their right and what they had been asked to do in the interests of discussion. I disagree with them. I found their claim of liberal bias unconvincing -– based on anecdote and attitude rather than evidence.After this simple and rather pathetic attempt to spin the story she finished with this:
It'’s a shame that the newspapers have made mischief with the seminar, but we won'’t let this small storm put us off trying to get impartiality right.
Today, the Mayor of London, Ken "Imam" Livingstone, launched a report into Muslims. He told reporters that, "Muslims in London face serious discrimination and prejudice... Muslims are disproportionately victims of religiously aggravated crime, more so than any other faith." The report is co-authored by Muhammed Abdul-Bari, the Secretary-General of the MCB.
Let's examine this claim. The figure in the report (provided by the BBC) was 1,000 incidents in 2005. The total number of Muslims in London is 706,000. So, simple maths indicates that we have about 1.3 incidents for every 1000 Muslims.
The CST reported that in this same period there were 455 anti-Semitic incidents against 300,000 Jews. That amounts to 1.5 incidents for every 1000 Jews. (In 2004 the number was 532 and this year is set to be even higher with 92 reported in July alone which would work out as a massive 3.7 incidents for every 1000 Jews)
Additionally, it was reported on Sunday that almost half of people killed in racist attacks were from the white majority.
Lastly, it would be instructive to see exactly what kind of incidents make up these Islamophobic ones. In today's thelondonpaper (scroll to the bottom of the page) there is a report that a Muslim man was shot at during a car boot sale. In fact, his windscreen was shattered and he told police that it was from gunfire. The police found absolutely no evidence but recorded it as an Islamophobic incident anyway.
In conclusion, while the Muslim community are no doubt facing some Islamophobia, the figures are inflated, and they are no higher than racism suffered by other identifiable communities. This is just another case of crying the victim.
Plans are being drawn up by Bradford Council to ban teachers and pupils from wearing the full veil in schools. The reason is obvious; that the veil interferes with communication and prevents the children from learning properly.
Watch this space for Muslim reactions.
A member of the liberal part of the liberal-Islamist alliance has been sentenced to eight months in prison for a brutal attack that left a man in a coma. Christiaan Briggs battered the 19-year old so badly that he was in hospital for six weeks and needed to learn how to walk again.
The defence insisted that Briggs was a "committed pacifist" who is always "trying to make the world a better place". He spent three weeks in Iraq with the Truth Justice Peace Human Shield Action Group. On his blog (no longer updated) he explains that his reason for going to Iraq was to illustrate "an unbelievably important and simple lesson I learnt recently: Wanna be happy? Just centre your life around making others happy."
Funny how both radical Islam and its liberal allies claim to be peace-loving, despite the evidence to the contrary.
UPDATE: The Sun carries this quote from the judge, “This lashing out by people against strangers is a blight on our civilisation.”
Last week we reported on the planned debate in an Irish university about Islamic terrorism. Some of the panel were members of the banned Islamic group The Saviour Sect.
Anjem Choudary, the man who led the protest outside Westminster Cathedral, said after the debate, "The Pope needs to be careful in what he says because you only need to see what happened to Theo van Gogh and Salman Rushdie. People should be aware that certain punishments in Islam are justified for certain actions."
Besides this report from a Catholic Paper, there do not seem to be any reports on this "debate". Please let me know if you find one.
MPACUK has reproduced an article from a blog comparing the forced labour of Jewish children by Nazis in concentration camps to the paid work of minors in an Israeli prison. No real detail of this supposed abuse is provided, but the few that are (e.g. they are paid a small amount and are given two meals a day) already show how vastly different the situations are.
The original source of this story is from The Palestine News Network, which does not seem to be entirely unbiased in its reporting.
MPACUK also decided to take a swipe at Holocaust survivors. In a report it says that Holocaust survivors used money, forged by the Germans, to escape after the war and rebuild their lives. One commenter asked, "Point? Besides the fact that few probably knew they were forged, does this really matter at all to anything about Islam?"
The answer, of course, is that anti-Semitism, whether overt or hidden in the form of anti-Israel is a key part of the Islamists propaganda. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, however ludicrous, is an attempt to undermine Israel's right to exist as shown by the Iranian president.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Following the reports that Greater Manchester Police told officers not to arrest Muslims during Ramadan (a move praised by Muslim groups despite BBC claims) it is being reported that a Muslim terror suspect was excused from coming to court because he wanted to celebrate the end of Ramadan with his Islamic friends in prison.
Mohammed Atif Siddique is facing 5 charges of terrorism ranging from encouraging terrorism online to actively planning terrorist acts.
Paul McBride, QC, defending, told the court: "Mr Siddique is not in court.. He is in custody and there is a religious ceremony he wished to observe."
USS Neverdock has done some more investigation on this particular rally. It was supposed to attract thousands of people but apparently they people at Stop the War HQ had no idea it was taking place. The local branch knew of it but were not attending. Check back with him for any further developments on this one.
Al Quds Day March
Reports are now arriving about this event; not from the MSM but from the bloggers. Justify This was there and his blog will be updated with the pictures and videos he collected. (Hat Tip: Prester John).
Another blog, publicansdecoy, went on the rally. Although not a supporter of Israel (by his own admission) he was rightly shocked by the events. He has plenty of photos, as well as a good report.
True to form, the event was filled with Islamists declaring their desire to destroy Israel, their support for Hezbollah and their aim to create an Islamic state in Britain.
So why no media attention? Let's hope USS Neverdock is right that the MSM has woken up to the evil nature of these events and is starting to shut out the radicals.
Yesterday, The Independent reported that a protest had been organised by the Stop the War Coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain to take place in Glasgow yesterday. The report claimed, "Thousands of people are expected to join to rally in Glasgow today protesting against anti-Muslim rhetoric among politicians and in the media."
Yet, despite this hype there is no report anywhere that this protest took place. Searching on google news, yahoo news, the blogs reveals nothing, even the BBC Glasgow news page has no mention of it.
UPDATE: Yesterday was the annual Al Quds Day March organised by the Islamic Human Rights Commission. Despite boasting on their site that the event had unprecedented support it seems to have been a damp squib. Searching through the news media and the blogs reveals absolutely nothing. It too seems to have not taken place.
If you can find any evidence of these events having taken place, please let us know.
Now that the MCB has been completely exposed, the BBC is looking around for new groups. While MPACUK is trying to take that spot, the BBC seems to have found a new group of unelected individuals; The Ramadhan Foundation. They were introduced on Sunday in the discussion over Greater Manchester Police's decision not to arrest Muslims during Ramadan. The article quotes a spokesman from the group as saying, "It's stupid, lunacy, that police could even consider not arresting Muslims during Ramadan." (More on this below)
Today, the BBC quotes them again as saying that ministers are responsible for attacks on Muslims:
This is another example of Muslims being attacked and persecuted and the responsibility lies with the politicians who have been on a feeding frenzy attacking Muslims and giving ammunition to thugs' hatred towards us. The responsibility for this lies with the likes of Jack Straw, Phil Woolas and others who believe it's open season on Muslims.However, this group is no less radical than the MCB. On their website they have press releases deploring the UK foreign policy and one entitled, "Israel is new Hitler for war crimes."
Now, here's the shocker. In a press release on their website, they completely contradict the report the BBC makes. While the BBC reported them as having been against the actions of the GMP, they are in fact greatly in favour:
The Ramadhan Foundation welcomes Greater Manchester Police's attempts to really understand cultural awareness and be aware of the religious backgrounds of all the people in our region. We often complain about the Police not listening to our concerns and not being aware of our religious beliefs but this news reaffirms the total transformation of the force after the Secret Police programme into a force that is serious about engaging with all sections of our communities.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
It does seem like MPACUK is trying to position themselves as the foremost Islamic group. Last week they "exposed" the Sufi Muslim Council as having "links to the neocons in Washington". And earlier this week they declared that "MPACUK is now the most visited Muslim website in Britain".
Now MPACUK is accusing Al Muhajiroun's former members (current members of The Saviour Sect and Al Ghurabaa) of being "'agent provocateurs for anti Muslim governments or forces". This idea was first floated by good old George Galloway in the immediate aftermath of Abu Izzadeen's abuse of John Reid.
The article starts by declaring "MPACUK is known for it's accountability" which is slightly odd for a group of self appointed young men who openly admit to working from their bedrooms late at night.
The evidence put forward for this little conspiracy theory is summed up by this question, "Why is it that every time the Media need an anti-Muslim story or the Government need a reason to pass an anti-Muslim law this groups just happen to show up?"
UPDATE: Rod Liddle, from the Sunday Times, has picked up on this move by MPAC. He writes:
It is, says everybody, “open season on Muslims”; so nip down to your post office, get yourself a licence and within minutes you too could be in a television studio taking a gratuitous swipe at their awful beards, or their veils, or their apparent dislike of dogs, gays and Jews. In the studio you may well find your arguments countered by an earnest representative of yet another self-appointed pressure group: the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC). These chaps stepped into the void left by the equally non-democratic, Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).In answer to his question, none at all if he does some research. This group actively encourages jihad, although they claim to be advocating a political form. They are also deeply anti-Semitic and last month they called for the destruction of the State of Israel.
The MCB has been cast into the sulphurous pit marked “Bad Islam”. Once it was introduced by BBC correspondents as the “voice of mainstream, moderate Muslim opinion”. Apparently it no longer is. Yet its views have not changed one bit. The only explanation seems to be that the government no longer believes it represents moderate Islam and the media has tagged along. How long will it be before we find out nasty things about the MPAC?
Two stories from The Telegraph on the subject of Islamic terrorism in Britain. The first is a report that MI5 is low on resources to deal with the Islamic terror threat. The report reveals that there are currently more than 1,200 people in Britain suspected of being involved in terrorism.
The second reports on a new group set up by universities to tackle the spread of Islamic fundamentalism on campuses. The head of security at Surrey University said, "We have already received information from our intelligence sources that undergraduates are targeted by extremist organisations attempting to recruit members."
At a meeting earlier this month the government decided it was time to properly deal with radical Islam. Top ministers and security personnel met in private and, after hearing of the radicalisation of the Muslim youth in Britain, decided to play hard ball.
Since that meeting, on October 12, there has been the whole debate surrounding the Muslim veil and, more importantly, Ruth Kelly's comments about the funding of Muslim groups.
One ministerial source said: "There is a feeling that the government have decided to stop pussy-footing around. I can't say this was on the agenda at any meeting, but there has clearly been a conscious decision to take the gloves off."
The Evening Standard has got hold of a leaked account of an "imparitality summit" called by the BBC chairman Michael Grade. At the summit top BBC personalities revealed the extent of the institutional liberal bias in the BBC.
Amongst the revelations was that the BBC would give Osama bin Laden a platform if it were possible. They would also allow the Bible, Kosher food and the Archbishop of Canterbury to be put into Room 101 but not the Koran.
An unnamed executive said, "There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it."
Andrew Marr summed it all up, "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."
Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.
Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'
Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'
Will the BBC now finally, openly admit to that which many have been saying for years?
Saturday, October 21, 2006
A founder of the radical Islamic group The Muslim Association of Britain, Kamal Helbawy, was removed from a flight bound for the US. The US Department for Homeland Security did not explain why he was barred from entering their country other than to say that he was "inadmissible".
The Muslim Association of Britain, is a radical Islamic group. Earlier this year the Daily Mail revealed some of their terrorist connections; one of their members includes a former commander of Hamas, and they have been described by MPs as the British wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Mr Helbawy was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood when he founded MAB.
Today, they jointly organised a rally in Glasgow to protest against Islamophobia. They are also involved in organising tomorrow's Al Quds day march in London, an event that involves supporting Palestinian terrorists in their call for the genocide of Jews. Keep an eye out for the pictures and reports from these two events.
At the beginning of last week this blog reported that the teacher suspended for not removing her veil had connections to Tablighi Jamaat.
Today, the Daily Mail reveals the same connection. Ms Azmi's father is, in fact, not just a teacher at the school but one of the headmasters. The paper also confirmed that the school was heavily linked to Tablighi Jamaat.
This is not the first time that the MSM, and in fact this particular paper, has taken a while to report what the blogosphere had been talking about for a week. Last month, the Daily Mail revealed Abu Izzadeen's polygamy ad a week after it had first been revealed here.
Friday, October 20, 2006
The ICRC has raised concerns over a new US anti-terror law. A spokesman for the Red Cross said, "our preliminary reading of the new legislation raises certain concerns and questions".
The Guardian reported this story with the headline, "US Anti-Terror Law Concerns Red Cross". A sensible headline that accurately refelcts the story. The BBC decided that this headline was more appropriate:
Not even quotation marks. The Red Cross certainly weren't lambasting the US, but the impression is that the BBC wished they were.
The British government has been forced to use immigration laws to keep a major Al Qaeda terrorist in prison. Abu Doha was described by a judge as creating Âone of the most significant groups of terrorists in the United Kingdom and a continuing significant threat to its securityÂ.
Yet, it seems, the police have no way to hold him other than by illegal immigration laws, and even that is being challenged by his lawyers. He was due to be extradited to the US to face charges of planning to blow up LA Airport, but that case collapsed after the chief witness refused to testify.
Now, plans are afoot to deport him back to his home country of Algeria where he is associated with a terrorist group. However, Amnesty International have said that that would be like "extradition in disguise".
But, one has to ask why the government do not charge him with some of the offences he has definitely committed here. When first arrested he was found to be carrying a false passport. His council flat was found to have a handgun, rifle sight and dozens of false identity documents.
The radical Islamic group, the Muslim Association of Britain, is not happy that police in Tayside are trying to find out about Islamic extremism in the area. The Special Branch Community Contact Unit was established to gather information about extremist ideas in the Muslim community.
Of course the MAB are not happy about this. There is the possibility that radical Islamic hatred might be uncovered and stopped. How terrible that would be.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Tim Whewell reports on the mega-mosque being planned next to the Olympic village. The whole report runs for just over 8 and a half minutes and can be viewed from here.
The report mentions the objections raised by some people and also talks about Tablighi Jamaat. It even tells us that the FBI has concerns over it. However, noticeably absent from the report is the key phrase, "an antechamber of fundamentalism".
The biggest shock in this report comes just 58 seconds in. Watch the first part below.
For those who didn't catch it the idea of this mosque is dawah. Dawah is the idea of "inviting" people to convert to Islam. So, the key concept behind the massive mosque to be built next door the Olympics is to convert as many people as possible to Islam.
UPDATE: Sir Ian Blair warned that the Olympics would be a "huge target" for terrorists. Maybe Mr Blair should look the 500 yards from the planned stadium and he'd see the first attempt by extremists to target them.
Former MI5 agent, David Shayler, has said that the suicide-bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan doesn't match the profile of a terrorist. He told a local newspaper:
There's strong evidence that he was involved in terrorism. But he seems to have been involved in making explosives for use in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. He fits the profile of a resistance fighter rather than a terrorist. Resistance fighters take great pride in the fact that they do not target civilians.Just to remind you all, Mohammed Sidique Khan led 3 other Muslims to blow themselves up on packed tube trains killing 52 innocent civilians. Or did he? According to Mr Shayler:
There's no evidence the London bombings were an inside job, but I think people need to exercise more critical judgement. The Home Office narrative is full of attempts to implicate these so-called suicide bombers.This comes just two days after I reported that the Islamic Party of Great Britain, a supposed "moderate" group, had an article on their website claiming very similar things.
Aisha Azmi, the teacher who was suspended for refusing to remove her veil and thus being unable to teach, has lost her appeal. She had appealed to a tribunal on the grounds of religious discrimination. Her claims were dismissed. Nevertheless, she was awarded over £1,000 because the council was guilty of "victimising her". No explanation from the BBC what form this victimisation took. But another source reveals that it was for "injury to feelings".
The BBC once again used its infamous quotation marks:
Using quotation marks about the final decision of the legal system this country relies on is absurd and inexplicable, especially considering that there are no such marks surrounding the far more subjective words "veil row".
The BBC reports that a poll of more than 27,000 people worldwide (25 countries reveals that almost a third of people are in favour of "some torture" if it will save lives. Only 59% said that torture should never be used.
Not surprisingly, the two countries on the front line in the battle against terrorism, Israel and Iraq, polled highest support for torture. And European nations polled lowest in support.
As an interesting note, the BBC points out that in Israel there is a stark difference between the attitudes of Jewish citizens and Muslim ones. While Jews are more inclined to agree to torture, Muslims are "overwhelmingly against" it. The reason is obvious; those on the receiving end of terror support the means necessary to save lives.
According to The Guardian the UK is now top of Al Qaeda's list of targets. This is not very surprising. On the one hand security in Britain is pretty poor. We have terror suspects escaping, and people who openly incite Jihad allowed to do so while those who oppose it are silenced. On the other hand we have an establishment that falls for the "victimhood" claim of the radicals.
Al Qaeda had a major victory in Spain and it probably thinks it can repeat that in Britain. With the current climate of liberal appeasement they could well be right.
Also, remember that a top Al Qaeda "general" might well be in the UK already, according to my report from earlier this week.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
I happened to be browsing the BBC Editor's blog when I came across an entry from Simon Wilson. It is talking about a new style guide created for BBC journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One of the entries discusses the use of the term "terrorist". The BBC guidelines, it seems, demand that the word terrorist never be used:
The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution.That would explain why in this article the BBC referred to Islamic Jihad as a militant organisation and paraphrased an army spokesman, adding in the word "militant" where the spokesman probably used "terrorist".
However, can the BBC explain why they are happy to call Maoist rebels in Bengal "terrorists" in this article?
An army spokesman said the cache of arms was meant for Maoist rebels and other terrorist groups active in and around eastern West Bengal state.It seems that only Islamic terrorists must be called militants.
A local newspaper is reporting that a man was arrested today for wearing a ski-mask. The man was making a demonstration in support of Jack Straw's comments regarding the Muslim veil, he was also collecting signatures for his petition.
He told the paper:
Some people were hostile to me and said they wouldn't talk to me dressed like that, which was the point I was trying to make. Then two female police officers arrived and told me I should demonstrate without my balaclava, they said if I carried on I would be arrested.He refused and was duly arrested for causing a Breach of the Peace.
I reported last week that George Galloway was planning to fly to Pakistan to beg for the life of a prisoner there. The man was sentenced to death by an Islamic court even thought the High Court of Pakistan quashed his conviction. The President says he cannot interfere with the Islamic courts.
Earlier, Islamic groups MPACUK and IHRC had called for his release. The irony of the situation is surely not lost on anyone, despite the tragic circumstances.
But, now it seems that George has gone missing. Last week, the BBC had a whole page article about George's heroic mission to Pakistan. On Monday, the BBC quietly informed us that he was due to fly out that day. But today, when the BBC reports that an execution date has been sent, there isn't even a mention of him.
Where has George gone?
UPDATE: The mystery is solved. In yet another article in the BBC all is revealed:
Respect Party MP George Galloway had planned to fly to Pakistan on Monday to appeal directly to the president to quash the penalty, but cancelled the trip at the request of Mr Hussain's family. A spokesman for Mr Galloway said the MP continued to "support every effort that the family is making" and was still prepared to travel to the country "should it be felt all round that it would advance things".Just one small point. When George first said he was going he told the BBC it was because "Mr Hussain's family and friends have prevailed upon me to intervene and I do so gladly."
What exactly is going on?
The culture minister David Lammy is to give a speech tonight. The Guardian reports that in it he will defend the BBC for providing a forum for the radical Islamist Abu Izzadeen. Parts of his speech have been leaked or released to the press, in it he says:
People ask, is it right for the BBC or al-Jazeera to interview groups who spread mistrust and division through a twisted reading of Islam? To give them what used to be called the oxygen of publicity? The answer is 'yes, it is'.What about the cartoons? Ah, well that's different:
Freedom of expression means showing up the extremists for what they are. They usually don't speak for anyone other than themselves, and their poisonous voices are best silenced by rational and reasoned argument.
Publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed was no shining defence of free speech. It ignored how power works. The majority can shout louder than the minority, and printing the images was deliberately designed to cause offence.Even though the cartoons were apprently meant to cause offence the BBC "acted with intelligence and sensitivity" by not giving anyone the opportunity for the same "rational and reasoned argument" that would silence the cartoonists. The reason being that only minorities are allowed to cause offence.
The Daily Express reported that 98% of those polled "agreed that a restriction [on the veil] would help to safeguard racial harmony and improve communication." Considering that the poll was conducted by people phoning or writing in, I doubt it is very accurate. However, the numbers are probably quite high.
The BBC (Northern Ireland) did a review of the newspapers and picked up on this poll on the front page of The Express. This is what they had to say:
The Express has been asking its readers what they think about Muslim women and the veil. Apparently 98% think that banning the veil would help racial harmony and improve communication.But later in the same article it says this:
But the Daily Telegraph says people can be offended by anything. It notes that one Persian sect shies away from lettuces.
The Cambridge Online dictionary defines 'apparently' as "used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true". So, why is the BBC casting doubt on the poll result of the Express but not on a claim (which seems more unbelievable) that a group of people are offended by lettuces?
The Sun reports that the British Muslim who escaped his control order had allegedly undergone AL Qaeda training with the leader of the 7/7 suicide bombings. They also claim he is an expert in explosives. Bear in mind that the media know the name of this man but are barred, by the government, from reporting it.
The man was arrested in Pakistan for terrorism before being deported back to Britain. He was a supposed friend of another British man who blew himself up in an Israeli nightclub.
But don't worry, "Home Office chiefs insist he was not involved in plotting attacks here." Well that's OK then.
In other news it has emerged that some cargo on passenger planes is being sent without being properly checked. The worry is that terrorists could use this means to bring down a plane.
A Muslim student was arrested and questioned by police after he took photographs of Canary Wharf for his architecture course. The young man has a beard and wears traditional dress and is very readily identifiable as a Muslim. He says "I was singled out for being a young Pakistani Muslim and I was humiliated".
The question here is not whether race/religion played a part in his arrest; it obviously did. The question is whether that was right or not. In my opinion it makes perfect sense to pay more attention to the person who fits the "profile" of a terrorist than a little old lady, for example. It is unfortunate that the actions of his co-religionists have brought this suspicion on him, but that suspicion should not be removed simply because it is uncomfortable to him.
If Muslims do not want to be associated with the Islamic terrorists than they need to start distancing themselves from them. At the moment there doesn't appear to be much gap between regular British Muslims and those prepared to carry out acts of terror. The situation is unfortunate for the moderates but they must surely help themselves.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Just a day after it was revealed that the government was to ask universities to clamp down on Islamic extremism we get this. The Guardian reports that the Philosophy Society of Trinity College Dublin has organised a debate between radical Muslims and moderate ones on the subject of Islamic terrorism.
The university says they are not involved in this debate; but this is precisely the sort of thing they should be getting involved in. The organiser said "people are saying that we are giving the extremists a platform to preach hatred but to not allow freedom of speech is to go against everything that this society stands for". Surely, as a budding philosopher, this man has heard of a non sequitur.
However, the biggest problem is the panel. For the extremists we have Anjem Choudary, Abu Izzadeen and other Al Ghurabaa members. For the moderate we have some moderates but also a certain David Pidcock, head of the Islamic Party of Great Britain.
Browsing their website I came across this statement as their policy on foreign affairs:
But the overriding concern of such a party, as also of other Muslim organisations,wherever they may be, can only be the brave struggle of the Palestinian people against military occupation. It is on this matter that the Islamic Party would hope to make its voice most effectively heard.As if this wasn't bad enough they also have an article published just a week after 7/7 that suggests that the whole thing was a government conspiracy, like 9/11. There is even the hint that Mossad were involved.
Which side of the debate should this man be on?
A local newspaper reports that a British Muslim, Kibley Da Costa, was denied bail today. He is charged with providing terror training as well as receiving training himself. He was arrested along with others during the raid at a restaurant in London connected with the searching of a private Islamic school. He is due to appear in court again on October 24.
The Mirror reported that the father of the teacher suspended for refusing to remove her veil, works for a radical Islamic school. The school is called The Institute of Islamic Education and is in Dewsbury. Ofsted reported that there was an "over emphasis" on religion and that the teachers had limited understanding of the pupils' needs. Adding that "Methods, such as memorisation of text, are better suited to the madrassah (Islamic) curriculum."
Before you ask why she isn't teaching at that school, it is boys only. The Ofsted report is here.
According to the Ofsted report, the school's head (Chair of Shura) is a certain Mr Shabbir Daji. Now, I wonder if this is the same Shabbir Daji quoted by The Telegraph as a secretary and trustee of the Tablighi Jamaat movement. In that article (dated August 2006) Mr Daji was also quoted as a spokesman for the Merkazi Mosque in Dewsbury.
Remember that Tablighi Jamaat is an organisation called by the French as "an antechamber of fundamentalism". It is also planning to build a 70,000 seater mosque right next door the Olympic village in London.
Here are four opinion pieces all discussing pretty much the same topic. Two worth reading and two which are just interesting to know about.
The first is a piece in The Telegraph written by Denis MacShane MP. He makes all the points that we in the blogosphere have been going on about; Islamism, government inaction; the alliance of left and radical Islam, etc. It's all there and I recommend it if you have 6-7 mins.
Another article appears in The Guardian. A Muslim journalist tries on a niqab and tells of her feelings. In an interesting piece we discover that, yes, the veil is a barrier and, something we have all been thinking for a while now, it is more of a statement than a religious necessity. Her conclusion is what you might expect from The Guardian, but don't let that stop you drawing your own conclusion from her report.
Finally, compare these two headlines; "Labour accused of aiding extremists by its focus on Muslim issues" and "Debate about veils is 'healthy'". The first is from The Independent, the second, amazingly, from the BBC (although they do include the famous quotation marks to cast doubt on whether or not it really is healthy to talk about things).
The stance that The Independent takes is the standard leftist stance. This is the same bunch who declared that the fight against terrorism just made it worse and so we should give up. No doubt they would be the people shouting that fighting Nazis made them worse (stirring up more nationalistic feelings) and we should give up fighting them too.
Monday, October 16, 2006
It has emerged that two terrorism suspects have escaped police while under control orders. Neither man can be named for legal reasons. One went missing a fortnight ago but the other is believed to have been missing for months.
The control orders are used in place of detention when there is evidence to link them with terrorism but not enough to make a successful prosecution. The government brought this in to avoid having people in prison indefinitely without charge.
The Lib Dems are practically gloating over this. While sensible people would demand tighter security they have a different idea for solving the problem:
In other words, to prevent prisoners escaping from control orders we should release them entirely.
As we have always made clear, the danger of control orders is that they short-circuit due process and keep suspects in a state of limbo.
Our aim must be to get suspects into court and, where they are guilty, convicted.
This should act as a spur for the Government to develop more robust ways to get suspects into court in the first place, such as using intercept evidence.
Just a note to let you all know that comments have been switched to Haloscan. The aim is to facilitate easier commenting while maintaining some level of control over them. Rest assured that freedom of speech will live on, but some trolling comments (should they happen) can now be dealt with appropriately.
The Sun is reporting that an Al Qaeda suspect, with a £2.5m bounty, could be in Britain. The man is Adnan G. El Shukrijumah suspected of planning dirty bomb attacks on seven US cities. The FBI warn that he should be considered armed and dangerous. The report states that:
The FBI are investigating the 31-year-old Saudi-born scientist'’s UK links, including connections to the Midlands and Birmingham.Here is his picture, from the FBI site:
A US source said: "“He traveled extensively in the last seven years, and we believe this includes the UK."
The Guardian reports that universities in Britain are to be asked to keep an eye out for the radicalisation of Muslims on campus. There are mounting fears that universities are breeding grounds for extremism and real concern that they are not doing enough to stop it.
There are suggestions that universities vet external speakers to Islamic Society events and pass on information about Muslim students to police and special branch.
From the article:
The proposals are likely to cause anxiety among academics, and provoke anger [my emphasis] from British Muslim groups...
Wakkas Khan, president of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, said: "It sounds to me to be potentially the widest infringement of the rights of Muslim students that there ever has been in this country. It is clearly targeting Muslim students and treating them to a higher level of suspicion and scrutiny. It sounds like you're guilty until you're proven innocent."
However, there is evidence that radicalisation is taking place on campuses. A friend told me that during a freshers' fair this year at one London campus the Islamic Society were proudly displaying a Hezbollah flag.
Even though it must be uncomfortable to be put under the spotlight, Muslim students must know why they are there. Why would they be so unwilling to go that extra mile to allay all fears over their activities? Reacting with anger and cries of unfair treatment will not remove that spotlight; it will just make it worse. On the other hand, welcoming the scrutiny and saying "We have nothing to hide" sends the message that there indeed is nothing to worry about.
UPDATE: The Mirror is reporting that Ruth Kelly "will order them [police chiefs and local councils] to identify the universities, schools and mosques where young Muslims are brainwashed - and then take the battle to the fanatics by aggressively countering their hate-filled propaganda."
Yet again, Muslim groups have a good opportunity to relieve the pressure. If they shout "Islamaphobia" (as the paper predicts) they will be under further suspicion. If they openly declare their support for any plans to tackle extremism they will go a long way to reassure the British public that they are not our enemy.
There are two stories ongoing at the moment that seem to have similarities. A teaching assistant was suspended because she refused to remove her veil during lessons, and a BA employee was forced to take unpaid leave because she refused to hide the cross she wore around her neck.
Ostensibly the same there is in fact a huge difference. The teacher was unable to do her job because of the veil she wore; even the children were complaining. The BA employee is as capable of carrying out her job as anyone else.
This brings me to the MCB and our good friend Inayat Bunglawala. He decided to bring the MCB into the row over the cross. The reason is evident: "It is an expression of private religious belief and we do respect that in the same way that we respect the right of a Muslim women [sic] to wear the Niqab". (The Guardian)
This is entirely in accord with his comments about the teacher: "We uphold the right for freedom of speech and it is this same freedom which society holds which we also hold for the right to wear the Niqab." (The Herald)
This is why the Muslim community is under such pressure; its representatives continue to make life hard for them. The discussion of the BA cross policy has nothing whatever to do with the MCB. Yet they try and use this to score a political point. They are effectively crying that they are the victims of the BA policy as much as anyone else; even as the whole of Britain knows that no such policy would ban a Muslim headscarf.
Friday, October 13, 2006
I'm making this thread for people to post comments in on topics of their choice, preferably related to the theme of this blog. I don't normally post over the weekend and so this would be a good place to share stories with other readers.
This is still an experiment and will only be continued if there is enough interest. So, if you want this to continue please leave a comment.
An organisation has produced a 60-second graphic advert aimed to deter Muslims from suicide bombing and, by extension, other terrorism. The advert shows a suicide bombing and closes with the cpaiton "terrorism has no reliriogn". The advert was shown through parts of the Middle East.
The backers of the ad are unknown but it is supposedly filmed and edited in the US. The assumption is that it will not do much to stop terrorism, but it is good that at least some people are trying.
Just a short post to keep people informed. Four men appeared in court again today and were committed to trial. The four were all arrested during raids last month, the operation also involved the searching of a private Islamic school where training was allegedly given to terrorists.
One of the men is the first British man to be charged with receiving training for terrorism. The others are charged with funding, supporting etc.
Earlier today I posted about the arrest of a 14 year old girl for racism. That report outlined how she asked to switch groups because the group she was assigned contained pupils who were speaking to each other in a foreign language (unknown) and only one of whom could actually speak English.
The article goes on to say that she made matters worse by allegedly calling them "Blacks", she denies doing this. However, even if she had said that it is still nothing to be arrested over.
The BBC, meanwhile, is reporting on a 14 year old girl arrested in Manchester for "allegedly making racist remarks". Amazingly, the BBC isn't providing any details. It doesn't mention the incident that sparked it, nor the "racist remarks". Given that this article is time-stamped 11:47 AM, there is no way the BBC doesn't know these details.
Are they deliberately hiding the details?
A teenage schoolgirl was arrested for racism. She was placed in a group with a few other children all of Asian origin only one of whom spoke English. The other children spoke to each other in a foreign language and, since she didn't understand, she asked to change groups. Her teacher told her she was being racist and eventually she was arrested by police for it, although released without charge. (Hat Tip: LGF)
This emerges in the same week that it was reported that English is a second language in half of primary schools in central London. It is also the week in which the head of the Local Government Association said that there needed to be quotas in schools to avoid racial segregation.
Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality, said that the problem of segregation was due to "white flight": "To put it crudely, white parents particularly are unhappy about putting children in schools where they think their children - they would put it - are going to be in a minority."
Is it any wonder that parents do not want their kids to be in a school with a large number of children from an ethnic minority. In this crazy world of multi-culturalism, it isn't the foreign children that need to learn English but the English kids who get arrested for not putting up with it. Of course England is becoming segregated because the majority are being treated like second class citizens in order not to offend the sensibilities of the minority.
If this continues it will play into the hands of the racists on both sides.