tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-346305492024-03-13T16:11:53.365+00:00Little BulldogsBlogging Against ExtremismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger471125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-28643958890430198282009-10-01T20:44:00.002+01:002009-10-01T20:55:07.181+01:00Lib Dems and Racial Profiling<a href="http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/4659607.Christian_receives_Muslim_holiday_card/">A local paper</a> in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Watford</span> reports that a Christian man received a card from the local Lib <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Dems</span> celebrating the end of Ramadan. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Javid</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Suleman</span> believes that the only reason he received one is because his name sounds Muslim. He says:<br /><blockquote>Somehow they categorised me as a Muslim and the question is how and why. I personally think that's ethically wrong. You have to abide by certain processes and categorising people by their ethnicity, colour or religion is the wrong thing to do. I asked my neighbours if they got it and of course, they didn't. They're not of Asian decent so they definitely didn't get this.</blockquote>A Lib Dem spokesman said:<br /><blockquote>The data we use is based on the electoral roll and MOSAIC data, which is a 'best guess'. This is the type of data used by direct marketing firms. We then go through every name manually and <span style="font-weight: bold;">remove the ones that we know not to be Muslim</span>. Inevitably there are some that do go out to non-Muslims but when they contact us we then correct our data.</blockquote>Are they determining which ones are not Muslim based solely on what their surname sounds like? If so, isn't this just a form of racial profiling?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-54922951531393825712009-10-01T10:12:00.004+01:002009-10-01T10:49:41.333+01:00Fisking Robert SpencerI <a href="http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2009/09/mpacuk-attempts-to-hijack-peaceful.html">wrote on Monday</a> how <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">MPACUK</span> was trying to turn the peaceful praying of a few thousand Muslims at Capitol Hill into a political event. Now it's the turn of the other side. Robert Spencer has <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/spencer-islam-on-capitol-hill-a-missed-opportunity-1.html">written a piece</a> about the event trying desperately to spin it into something it wasn't. Spencer's point is to claim that the event was a "missed opportunity" at which the organisers should have spent their time denouncing terrorism. He tries very hard to make us believe that they didn't because they don't disagree with terrorism and that, in fact, they want to impose Sharia Law on the United States. Here is a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">fisking</span> of the main points from the article:<br /><blockquote>Organizer <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Hassen</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Abdellah</span> had explained before the event that it was designed "to show we are not terrorists, but that most of us Muslims here love America and abide by its laws."</blockquote>Here Spencer tries to give the impression that the event was organised primarily as a protest against Islamic terrorism. If that were the case then not denouncing terrorism is a bit odd. But it simply isn't true. Here is what <a href="http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/godingovernment/2009/09/trying_50000_muslims_to_pray_on_capitol_hill.html">Newsweek reported</a>, more accurately:<br /><p></p><blockquote>The gathering is not supposed to be political, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Abdellah</span> said in an interview. No placards or signs allowed. No major famous imams or popular celebrities scheduled so far. No real agenda other than to pray together. "We want this to be purely about Islam," he said. "We want to change the perception of Islam to show we are not terrorists, but that most of us Muslims here love America and abide by its laws."</blockquote><p></p>So far from being an event to oppose terrorism it was, from the start, supposed to be a non-political event. The aim was never to be "Muslims against terrorism" but rather to be "Muslims as people". The organisers wanted people to see that Muslims are not all about terrorism all the time and this is what they did. 3,000 Muslim people prayed peacefully on Capitol Hill and nothing more. But to some, it seems, Muslims are all about terrorism and therefore everything they do must either be supporting terrorism or opposing it. There can never be anything neutral and this is where Spencer falls over the line into anti-Islam racism/hatred.<br /><blockquote>If the Islam on Capitol Hill event was really supposed to show that Muslims were not terrorists, wouldn't it have been a good opportunity to denounce those jihad plots and the Islamic doctrines of warfare and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">supremacism</span> that inspired them in the first place?</blockquote>No, Robert. Clearly Spencer is starting with the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists unless they declare otherwise. From that point of view in order to show that Muslims are not terrorists they must say so. But for the rest of us who start with the assumption that Muslims are not terrorists they need do nothing to show us that they are not.<br /><blockquote>But <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Hassen</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Abdellah</span>, asked on the morning of the prayer meeting to denounce these plots, demurred, saying that the event was not meant for denunciations.</blockquote>No link to a source but <a href="http://www.islamnewsroom.com/news-mainmenu-28/1003-arab-christian-blog-qpretendsq-they-are-muslim">here is what he told Fox News</a> in an interview:<br /><blockquote>Muslims, individually and collectively, repudiate these acts, but I don't think tomorrow is the place for us to repudiate specific acts. Tomorrow is about our faith; it's not about politics. Because if we involve politics in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Jummah</span> prayer, then what we'll do is only bring on other controversies. We're trying to bring people together.</blockquote>Hardly refusing to address the question simply not wanting to bring politics into the event which is what they said from the start.<br /><blockquote>Yet Brooklyn imam Abdul <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Malik</span>, who preached the sermon at the gathering, found ample time to denounce the immorality of American popular culture and indulge in several oblique denunciations of Christianity. He emphatically recommended Islam as the cure for America's ills - and this was a political prescription, not solely a religious one.</blockquote>Again no source for this other than Spencer's claim. But here is what he did <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/25/muslim.prayer.day/">tell the crowd</a>:<br /><blockquote>But I will say something it took me my whole adult life to come to: America is not perfect, but I want to tell the truth: It is one of the best places in the world to live.</blockquote>Hardly sounds like a raving <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Islamist</span>!<br /><br />I spoke to several Muslims at the event; all said they'd like to see Islamic law, Sharia, come to the United States - a sentiment rife with political implications that remain a matter of indifference on the part of officials sworn to uphold and defend the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Constitution.<br /><br />Once more just the word of Robert Spencer to go on and I'm sure it is easy to find people in a crowd of 3,000 who would like to see at least elements of Sharia adopted in the US. Did any of these people suggest that Sharia should be imposed? If I went into a crowd of Christians I bet I could find several who would say that abortion should be banned and homosexuals locked up. In fact, some Christian protesters at the event were <a href="http://www.islamnewsroom.com/news-mainmenu-28/1003-arab-christian-blog-qpretendsq-they-are-muslim">shouting</a>:<br /><blockquote>Abortion is Murder!! Homosexuality is Sin!! Islam is a Lie!!</blockquote>So even if true it indicates very little. Ask any religious Jews whether they want to see the Messiah arrive and Jewish Law return and they will say "yes". Isn't it easy to say that Jews want to see Jewish law come to the United States?<br /><blockquote>Islam on Capitol Hill was supposed to show that Muslims are not terrorists. Yet not a word was said at the event about the Muslims arrested for terrorist activity that same week, or any assurances given that the assembled Muslims were working to root out this problem from the Islamic community.</blockquote>Again, Spencer starts with the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists or supporters unless they say otherwise. In reality, Muslims are not terrorists and therefore need not say or do anything to prove that. The event was never supposed to be political, it was designed to show Muslims as people and for some that is impossible. Muslims are all about terrorism for Spencer - they either denounce it or they support it.<br /><blockquote>What's more, the Islamic terrorists' stated goal is the imposition of Sharia, with its denial of free speech and legal equality, and <span style="font-style: italic;">that seemed to be just fine with most of those</span> [my italics] who prayed <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Jummah</span> prayer on Capitol Hill on Friday.</blockquote>Where did this come from? Even if we accept Spencer's account that the "several Muslims" he spoke to were foaming-at-the-mouth <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Islamists</span> he hardly spoke to most of the people there.<br /><br />In conclusion, Spencer bemoans the lack of any specific denunciation because for him Muslims are all about terrorism. They must denounce it every time they gather or else they support it.<br /><p></p><blockquote>It was hardly a comforting message to give to free Americans.</blockquote><p></p>On the contrary - it is very comforting to free Americans to know that Muslims are people; it just doesn't fit with Spencer's world view.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-73440342089213658052009-10-01T08:44:00.002+01:002009-10-01T08:57:56.742+01:00Some NewsThe Sun is reporting that 5 convicted terrorists have been sent back to prison for breaching their parole conditions within the last few months. We mentioned one of these <a href="http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2009/09/some-news.html">this time last week</a>. They also report that convicted terrorists will be made to sign a "Terrorists' Offenders Register" and could face prison for five years if they fail to inform authorities when they move house or leave the country. This, like the sex offenders' register, is, I think, wrong. We must surely consider anyone who has served their sentence to now be innocent of all crimes they committed before. (full story <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2662872/Freed-terrorists-sent-back-to-jail.html">here</a>, The Sun)<br /><br />Expect this to be blown out of proportion by those with an agenda. A house in Swansea has been used for Muslim prayers for 20 years although it only had planning permission to be used for teaching not prayer. They are now expected to get permission to use it for prayer too despite a petition against it. 132 people opposed the plan claiming it would cause traffic and disturbance. Those with an agenda may well claim this as a sign of the powers-that-be bending over backwards to accommodate Islamic extremists (though without providing proof that these people are extremists) while the rest of us should perhaps politely point out that this is not the only such case of planning permission being given to people who have used a property for many years without it and that the claims of increased traffic seem ludicrous when there will not be any actual change in the use of the building. (full store <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8281163.stm">here</a>, the BBC)<br /><br />Ed Balls apparently wants to ban teachers from being members of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">BNP</span>. Though the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">BNP</span> are racist and vile they are a legal political party in the UK. If the Government bans teachers who are <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">BNP</span> members that is a gross breach of civil liberties and, while we face tough times, we must never surrender those. If it is legal to be a member of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">BNP</span> then one must be able to be a member without the State punishing one for it. (full story <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/teaching-ban-for-bnp-members-to-be-examined-1795734.html">here</a>, The Independent)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-60358169835155385622009-09-30T15:10:00.003+01:002009-09-30T15:19:33.489+01:00One Step BehindAs I mentioned I'm reading a series of articles by Adrian Morgan about the rise of the EDL and co. In it he offers a transcript of an interview with John Denham (taken from the BBC Today programme from September 12th). According to the transcript, Denham said:<br /><blockquote>What we're seeing at the moment is small, but I think we do need to take it seriously enough to say that there are obviously people who would be provocative, hope that there's not just a reaction but there's an over-reaction and then people blame the people who over-react and the situation gets out of control.</blockquote>While he may be talking about the protests of the EDL and others, his statement makes far more sense when read about Al Muhajiroun's protest in Luton back in March. That was the latest in a series of a protests designed to provoke an over-reaction and this time it worked.<br /><br />The Government clearly understands the game being played here, but they're one step behind meaning that though they know that the danger lies with blaming those who over-react and not those who are doing the provoking, that is precisely what they have done. Had they acted earlier and stronger against Al Muhajiroun we would not be seeing the rise of the EDL now.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-53105549092557331132009-09-30T14:33:00.002+01:002009-09-30T14:39:53.280+01:00Proving My Point on PreventEarlier in the week <a href="http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2009/09/prevent-strategy.html">I argued</a> that the Prevent strategy should be scrapped. The main reason was that the State should not be in the businesses of funding one idea over another or trying to encourage its citizens to adopt one set of beliefs over any other. However, I also made the more practical point that Prevent can never do what it hopes to do.<br /><br />Prevent hopes to give funding to groups that oppose <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Islamism</span> in the hope that these groups will discourage the growth of Islamic extremism in the UK. It seems to me that this can never work because any organisation receiving money from the British State will be ignored and shunned by anyone who harbours ill-feeling towards the British State.<br /><br />Engage (the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Islamist</span> group) has <a href="http://www.iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/1-news/551-building-bridges-pendle-invite-quilliam-charlatans">a piece today</a> that underlines this point. Talking about the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Quilliam</span> Foundation (an Islamic group set up to fight against Islamic extremism) they say:<br /><blockquote>As ENGAGE readers will be well aware, Ed <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Husain</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Maajid</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Nawaz</span> of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Quilliam</span> Foundation have been funded by the Home Office and the Foreign Office to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds to help promote the idea that violent extremism is the result of '<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Islamist</span> ideology' and of course has nothing whatsoever to do with our own violent warmongering policies abroad. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Quilliam</span> Foundation are openly regarded with utter contempt and derision by UK Muslims...</blockquote>Is there any point funding a group to tackle extremism in the Muslim communities when the very act of funding them undermines their ability to do the tackling?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-63637421829146657972009-09-30T10:58:00.002+01:002009-09-30T11:12:41.173+01:00Honour Attack in Burnely?According to <a href="http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/news/s/1141572_father_assaulted_daughter_">The Asian News</a>:<br /><blockquote><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Mohammed</span> Islam, 48, struck <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Shadiya</span> Islam repeatedly, threatened to pour acid in her face and told her he would kill her after the police arrived.</blockquote>According to the prosecution this was the result of his daughter's declaration that she intended to move in with her boyfriend. If that is true (and since the defence was so weak it probably is) then this was the first step on the route to a possible "honour killing".<br /><br />As a side note, this is quite worrying:<br /> <p></p><blockquote><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Jawad</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Babar</span>, defending, said [<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Mohammed</span>] Islam was quite liberal and had not imposed any major sanctions on his children. They had gone to school, he allowed them to work and they were free to chose their partners.</blockquote><p></p>Allowing your kids to go to school and choose who to marry is not exactly the preserve of liberals. Makes one wonder what he would consider normal.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-52437651164036923362009-09-30T09:02:00.004+01:002009-09-30T09:12:56.289+01:00Some ThoughtsFor those interested in the EDL and co I've just come across <a href="http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.4392/pub_detail.asp">a series of articles</a> written by Adrian Morgan on an American site called Family Security Matters. Not read them yet but worth noting for future reading.<br /><br />On another note two websites have gone down. Islamist site <a href="http://www.iengage.org.uk/">Engage</a> has apparently exceeded its Bandwidth while <a href="http://www.bnp.org.uk/">the BNP site</a> is simply not loading. Apparently this is not the first time the BNP site has gone down, see <a href="http://www.bnp-chronicle.com/2009/05/bnp-main-website-down.html">here</a> about it in May this year.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-49103708279140966642009-09-29T18:12:00.003+01:002009-09-29T18:18:17.111+01:00MCB - Scrap Prevent and Change Foreign PolicyA favourite line of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Islamists</span> is that all <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Islamist</span> terrorism is the result of foreign policy and that to end terrorism we must change our foreign policy to fit in with their demands. In short they advocate that we surrender to the demands of the bombers (or at least some of the demands).<br /><br />The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">MCB</span> has put on its website its <a href="http://mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-809">response</a> to the inquiry about Prevent. They essentially call for it to be scrapped and say that it could never work anyway because foreign policy must change. The key bits are paragraphs 7 and 8:<br /><blockquote>7. Significant amounts of public funds have been invested in the Prevent programme. The monitoring and intelligence gathering agenda of Prevent are matters that best reside within the National Security Strategy. It was an error to have contaminated the way a department like Communities and Local Government is publicly perceived by placing national security concerns in its orbit. Community development and cohesion policies ought to apply to all communities fairly and equitably, based on need.<br /><br />8. While the focus should be on a criminal and policing strategic response, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">MCB</span> appreciates the need to explore the underlying causes. However, there seems to have been an expectation that community bodies, by showing ‘leadership’, can wave a magic wand and ask young people to remain oblivious to international political developments at the root of the frustration – not least the injustice in Palestine that has lasted well-nigh sixty years.</blockquote>If there's one thing we mustn't do to stop terrorism it is to give in to the demands of the terrorists. And groups that shout from the sidelines that we should surrender should be compared to the bloke who watches his mate punch you in the face then suggests that you should pay up to stop it happening again.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-21299707422837291822009-09-29T12:20:00.005+01:002009-09-29T12:38:08.068+01:00Islamists Push "Jewish Control"As we reported a few days ago the Jewish Board of Deputies (a communal organisation) wrote a submission to the Commons' Communities and Local Government Committee for their inquiry into the 'Prevent' strategy. (see <a href="http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2009/09/anti-semitism-at-mpacuk.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2009/09/prevent-strategy.html">here</a> for my thoughts on Prevent). In the submission they suggested that it was probably best not to give money to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Islamist</span> organisations as part of a plan to stop the spread of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Islamism</span>. Among the groups mentioned was the Muslim Council of Britain and this has annoyed other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Islamists</span>. Their response - push the angle that Jews are too powerful.<br /><br />At Engage (the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Islamist</span> organisation run by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">MCB</span> spokesman <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Inayat</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Bunglawala</span>) the story ran under <a href="http://www.iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/1-news/543-bod-seeks-to-set-conditions-for-government-engaging-with-the-mcb">the headline</a>:<br /><blockquote>UK Jewish body sets conditions for government engaging with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">MCB</span></blockquote>Is it reading too much to consider the title to be deliberately misleading with the aim of giving the impression that the "Jewish body" is somehow forcing a change rather than simply advising one?<br /><br />And then we have <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">MPACUK</span> with <a href="http://www.mpacuk.org/story/280909/islamophobia-within-jewish-community-questioned-jbod-attacks-mcb.html">their headline</a>:<br /><blockquote><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Islamophobia</span> within the Jewish community questioned as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">JBoD</span> attacks <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">MCB</span></blockquote>It doesn't say who's doing the questioning so we can assume that it is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">MPACUK</span> itself. Moreover, note that the headline talks of the "Jewish community" then the article starts of talking about the "Jewish Zionist community" before accusing the Jewish community as a whole of having a problem with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Islamophobia</span>.<br /><br />In the last paragraph of the article they also push the "Jewish control" line:<br /><blockquote>It is the height of arrogance for a Jewish group to tell our community what political views we can and cannot hold, it is also a sign of its immense political power that it can dictate to the Government who they should talk to, but most telling it shows that rampant <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Islamophobia</span> within the community has reached its most powerful groups and governs its policies towards our community.</blockquote>In the minds of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Islamists</span>, it seems, being Jewish and mentioning your concern about the funding of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Islamists</span> by an anti-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Islamist</span> programme and this amounts to dictating to the Government in a demonstration of your control.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-16859700027022663832009-09-28T23:46:00.004+01:002009-09-29T00:04:07.875+01:00MPACUK Attempts to Hijack Peaceful Prayer3,000 Muslims gathered on Friday in America to pray at Capitol Hill. The organisers say this on <a href="http://islamoncapitolhill.com/">their website</a>:<br /><blockquote>The objective of this gathering is to invite the Muslim Communities and friends of Islam to express and illustrate the wonderful diversity of Islam. We intend to manifest Islam's majestic spiritual principals as revealed by Allah to our beloved prophet Muhammad (PEACE BE UPON HIM) of Arabia. Likewise; we intend to inspire a new generation of Muslim to work for the greater good of all people. We shall serve all people, regardless of race, religion or national origin.<br /></blockquote>Moreover, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555261,00.html">Fox News reports</a>:<br /><blockquote><span id="intelliTXT">The rally is intended to be all about prayer, and no political speeches or signs will be allowed, said the event's organizer, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Hassen</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Abdellah</span>, president of the Dar-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">ul</span>-Islam mosque in Elizabeth, N.J.</span></blockquote><span id="intelliTXT">Another organiser <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/25/muslim.prayer.day/">said</a>:<br /></span><blockquote>This is not a protest, it is a day of prayer, of devotion, hoping that we can work ... for the betterment of the world community.</blockquote>And finally <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/muslims_gather_to_pray_at_capi.html">the crowd were informed</a> at the beginning of the event:<br /><blockquote>We’re here to pray, and not to protest.</blockquote>Yet, despite all this, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">MPACUK</span> is trying to hijack the simple and peaceful act of praying for their own ends. <a href="http://www.mpacuk.org/story/280909/muslims-lead-mass-prayer-capitol-hill.html">They say</a>:<br /><blockquote>This prayer is a political act<br /><br />...<br /><br />We must use politics in all spheres of life to communicate the truth to the world - through mass political acts such as this, to voting, to lobbying the media in order to give a balanced representation of Islam and Muslims.<br /></blockquote>Not content with stirring up trouble themselves they now seek to spin the acts of other Muslims to their own ends. They might like to read what one of the organisers <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/25/muslim.prayer.day/">told the crowd</a>, though:<br /><blockquote>America is not perfect. But I will say something it took me my whole adult life to come to: America is not perfect, but I want to tell the truth: It is one of the best places in the world to live.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-55733897303937503172009-09-27T16:23:00.003+01:002009-09-27T16:32:01.792+01:00Vicar of Bolton Slams EDLThe Vicar of Bolton, Rev Matt Thompson, spoke out against the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">EDL</span> ahead of their proposed "protest" in Manchester. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">EDL</span> claim to be fighting only against Islamic extremism with the best of intentions, hoping to uphold all that is great about Britain.<br /><br /><a href="http://http//www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/4650727./">The Reverend said</a>:<br /><blockquote>What worries me about the English Defence League is when we see pictures of young, white males giving Nazi salutes. This is the kind of hateful ideology their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents fought to defeat.</blockquote>Quite so. Below is the kind of thing he is talking about (taken from <a href="http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5803">here</a>):<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3yZT4kWylI6xh9qOAP9zFMONXnzbaNbgju0pw9S-F-H1FtWP_qOTh-PeHr0KoI2wUXQGaM-uBEYiYBXHwL2Ef0ULJIR2q36mnq1YRHC9rd7oOLjcPo8srFNGXoFtUCy-xlavepw/s1600-h/littlenaziheilhitlering.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3yZT4kWylI6xh9qOAP9zFMONXnzbaNbgju0pw9S-F-H1FtWP_qOTh-PeHr0KoI2wUXQGaM-uBEYiYBXHwL2Ef0ULJIR2q36mnq1YRHC9rd7oOLjcPo8srFNGXoFtUCy-xlavepw/s320/littlenaziheilhitlering.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5386170297355338978" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Lest anything think that the snap was not from an <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">EDL</span> march, see the man in black in the background and compare his t-shirt with those available from the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">EDL</span> shop <a href="http://stores.shop.ebay.co.uk/The-English-Defence-League__W0QQ_armrsZ1">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-65897675941375519732009-09-27T10:20:00.003+01:002009-09-27T10:49:36.673+01:00Islamists and BNP agree - it's the Zionists!The emergence and rise of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">EDL</span> seems to have caused some confusion and concern. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Islamists</span> are confused as to how to react. Up to now it was simple - everything the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Islamists</span> didn't like was a Zionist plot. The terrorist attacks carried out by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Islamists</span> were Zionist plots. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were Zionist plots. Bad press was Zionists etc etc.<br /><br />As we all know, when <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Islamists</span> talk of Zionists they generally mean Jews. And Zionist plots must have someone Jewish involved to be valid. Not normally hard to find since there are plenty of Jewish people working in important posts in the Western World. But the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">EDL</span> doesn't have Jews involved with it and hence the confusion. No Jews means no Zionist plot so how can <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Islamists</span> react without sacrificing their simple world view?<br /><br />Fortunately for them the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">EDL</span> are also aware that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Islamists</span> hate Jews so, as part of their provocation, they march with Israeli flags. And that, you see, is all that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Islamists</span> need to draw the link. Hence articles on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">MPACUK's</span> website entitled <a href="http://www.mpacuk.org/story/060909/exposed-edl-and-its-zionist-connection.html">"Exposed! The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">EDL</span> and Its Zionist Connection"</a> and <a href="http://www.mpacuk.org/story/130909/far-right-and-zionist-thugs-unite-against-palestinian-rights.html">"Far-Right and Zionist Thugs Unite Against Palestinians"</a>. The evidence for the connection is the flag:<br /><blockquote>their [the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">EDL's</span>] motives were soon revealed by their racist chanting and by the unfurling of an Israeli flag by the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">EDL</span> skinheads.</blockquote>and<br /><blockquote>Together they chanted “We hate Muslims” while waving Israeli flags </blockquote>Some <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Islamist</span> groups are more subtle. Take the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">IHRC</span> as an example. It is not a coincidence, I think, that the images they use to illustrate their articles about the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">EDL</span> are the ones in which Israeli flags appear prominently. See <a href="http://ihrc.org.uk/activities/press-releases/9060-press-release-uk-london-anti-muslim-demonstration-in-harrow-latest-in-worrying-trend-of-right-wing-hatred-and-terror-">here</a> and <a href="http://ihrc.org.uk/activities/alerts/9059-forwarded-alert-uk-london-far-right-demo-against-harrow-central-mosque-11th-september-2009">here</a>.<br /><br />So much for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Islamists</span>, what about the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">BNP</span>? Well, they're concerned. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">EDL</span> are gaining much publicity with their own brand of racism and anti-Muslim feeling. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">BNP</span> is worried for two reasons. Firstly they might well lose support as the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">EDL</span> gains ground because the two have similar aims. Secondly, though, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">BNP</span> is terrified that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">EDL</span> will make them look bad. They have tried hard over the last decade or more to look respectable and become electable and have sadly, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">succeeded</span> to some extent. If people link the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">EDL</span> to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">BNP</span>, even just by having <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">common</span> membership, then this could ruin their plans.<br /><br />So finally the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">BNP</span> find common ground with the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">Islamists</span> - they blame it on the Zionists. In an audio <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">message</span> on the website of Simon Darby (the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">BNP's</span> Deputy Chairman) Griffin explains how he thought the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">EDL</span> was a conspiracy by the British State (again any excuse to ensure that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">EDL</span> being racist doesn't make people realise that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">BNP</span> is also racist) but now realises that it is a Zionist false-flag operation. (see <a href="http://simondarby.blogspot.com/2009/09/putting-down-marker.html">here</a> for the audio from about 6.55 and <a href="http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/520/BNP-blame-Zionists-for-EDL">here</a> for some of the transcript).<br /><br />Once again we find that the common denominator among these three groups of extremists is anti-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Semitism</span>. Scary times for Britain's Jews if they find themselves caught in the crossfire.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-76649496380745151372009-09-27T09:58:00.002+01:002009-09-27T10:11:05.555+01:00Casuals United Come CleanThe group calling itself Casuals United is claiming that it was one of the main reasons for the establishment of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">EDL</span> and now acts as a feeder to that group. <a href="http://casualsunited.webs.com/">They say</a>:<br /><blockquote>If these 30 - 40 [members of Casuals United] had not embarked on the initial anti <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Choudrey</span> protests, then the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">EDL</span> and other Defence Leagues would not be where they are now.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Casuals United now exists simply as a recruiter for the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish Defence Leagues. We do not organise demos, we simply use online and otherwise communication networks of lads to drum up support.</blockquote>This is part of an article starting with the question "What are we all about?" The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">EDL</span> have gone to great lengths to portray themselves as being simply anti-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Islamist</span>. They have no problem with Muslims, apparently, and hate Nazis too. They have nothing to do with the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">BNP</span> and they're certainly not racists.<br /><br />But go to their site and you will quickly believe otherwise. The background is a tiled picture of the UK with the words "**** off, we're full". Nothing anti-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Islamist</span> about that. That's anti-immigration pure and simple, along the lines of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">BNP</span>. But more damning is the article in which they try to explain what they're about. At the end of it they have a video of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Shahid</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Malik</span> giving a speech. In it he explains how there are growing numbers of Muslim <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">MPs</span> and he jokes that one day all <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">MPs</span> will be Muslim (because of the exponential growth in their number) and suggests that one day we might have an MP who happens to be Muslim too.<br /><br />The reaction?<br /><blockquote>Do Muslim <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">MP's</span> like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Malik</span> really think we are that thick? Our advice is this, NEVER EVER vote for any Muslim MP or Councillor as its clear their main interest "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">inshalla</span>" is the advancement of Islam and not the interests of this country.</blockquote>Extrapolating from a joke from one Muslim MP to every Muslim in the country? Sounds like simple racism to me. So much for being only anti-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Islamist</span>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-9384544359184571592009-09-26T22:38:00.003+01:002009-09-26T22:50:09.431+01:00Anti-Semitism at MPACUK?The Board of Deputies of British Jews has apparently written a submission to the Commons’ Communities and Local Government Committee arguing that Prevent money should not be given to groups including the Muslim Council of Britain that espouse <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Islamism</span>. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">MPACUK</span> isn't happy about this. <a href="http://www.mpacuk.org/story/250909/jewish-group-lobbies-government-boycott-mcb.html">They say</a> as follows:<br /><blockquote>This just highlights a common suspicion in this country concerning many Jewish bodies over their unheeded support for Israel's oppression. We call on all Jewish organisations to abandon the racist Zionist political ideology and look towards creating a long lasting peace in Palestine.</blockquote>If I understand this right, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">MPACUK</span> is giving an ultimatum to all Jews in the UK - reject Israel completely or be considered a whole-hearted supporter of Zionism and any and all crimes (real and fictional) that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">MPACUK</span> and other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Islamist</span> groups consider Israel to be guilty of. Since in the mind of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Islamist</span> a supporter of Israeli "oppression" seems to be a perfectly valid target for attack this seems to me very much to be <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">MPACUK</span> declaring all Jews to be "enemies" unless they meet the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Islamist</span> standard of Israel-rejection (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">eg</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Neturei</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Karta</span>).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-29049240295353866022009-09-26T22:03:00.003+01:002009-09-26T22:38:45.454+01:00The Prevent StrategyThe Government's "Prevent" programme for trying to stop the spread of Islamism in the UK has come in for some attention recently. The Tax Payer's Allowance released a report on the 8th September detailing the various organisations that had received money under this scheme (read the report from <a href="http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2009/09/council-spending-uncovered-ii-no-5-preventing-violent-extremism-grants.html">here</a>).<br /><br />The report revealed that much of the money went to groups who did not oppose extremism (but who were not extreme themselves) while some went to extremist groups. <a href="http://http//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/08/terrorism-politics-tax-spending">Matthew Sinclair</a> argued that the strategy should be scrapped essentially because the scheme is impossible to implement properly. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/sep/08/moderate-muslim-groups-funding">Ed Husain</a> argued that it should be continued but fixed.<br /><br />I think Prevent should be scrapped for two important reasons. The first is that not only can it not be implemented properly but that it cannot work. The money must go to one of three groups. The recipient may be inactive in the area of extremism (neither opposed to it nor encouraging it) in which case the money is wasted. The recipient may be a proponent of extremism in which case the money is counter-productive. But even if the recipient works to oppose extremism the receiving of money from the State will undermine its efforts completely. No one with animosity towards the British State (the kind of people Prevent is supposed to encourage to turn away from extremism) is going to listen to groups funded by the British State. Perhaps this is why Rochdale Council <a href="http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/30373/council-refuses-to-disclose-how-antiterrorism-cash-was-spent">refused to disclose</a> who they gave money to claiming that it would be commercially detrimental to a third party.<br /><br />But the main reason why Prevent should be scrapped is that it is wrong. The State should not be in the businesses of funding some ideas and not others. The State should not put its weight behind some ideology and should not preach to us what we should or shouldn't believe. If we want to be a liberal country we must allow the free flow of ideas, not gang up to fund some against others.<br /><br />Scrap Prevent and let people believe what they want. Use the money to make sure that the Islamist cannot blow me up, don't use it in an attempt to force people to believe what the State wants them to believe.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-56655515573067151772009-09-24T20:56:00.003+01:002009-09-24T21:43:36.248+01:00Thoughts on Barnbrook SuspensionBNP member Richard Barnbrook has been suspended by Barking and Dagenham Council for bringing his office into disrepute. He has also been censured by the GLA. See <a href="http://www.lgcplus.com/policy-and-politics/latest-policy-and-politics-news/bnp-assembly-member-brought-office-into-disrepute/5006688.article">here</a> for the full story and <a href="http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:2yzgATkCoGAJ:www.london.gov.uk/assembly/stnds-hearing/2009/sep24/item06b.rtf+%22undermine+the+public%E2%80%99s+confidence+in+local+government+and+the+police.%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a">here</a> for the report concluding that he had breached the Code of Conduct.<br /><br />Here are two thoughts. The first is that this was clearly politically motivated. Apparently Barnbrook lied saying that three people had been murdered in Barking and Dagenham when actually one had been killed in a different borough and the other two were on life support and later recovered.<br /><br />Now, I have no time for the BNP - they're racist. But we all know that politicians lie. And in the year of the great MPs expenses scandal, Barnbrook's lie pales into insignificance. To abuse the Code of Conduct in this way brings far more disrepute onto the GLA and Council than Barnbrook's statement ever did.<br /><br />Another interesting point is how this will relate to the suspension of Ken Livingstone. Will those who protested against Ken's suspension also protest against this one and vice versa? True the situations are not the same but it is interesting nonetheless.<br /><br />I should point out that I was not entirely against Ken's suspension largely because he could and should simply have apologised for what he did yet stubbornly refused to. But there too, since the action was politically motivated it was wrong and I should have said so at the time.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-46123608337146987772009-09-24T15:03:00.002+01:002009-09-24T15:19:39.383+01:00Some NewsThe Home Secretary revokes a control order as the entire system looks set to fall apart. The problem is the refusal to charge and try the suspects because the Government doesn't want to reveal the evidence. In a liberal democracy it should be the case that we either try someone in court or else we leave them be. Yes this may well put us at risk but we mustn't sacrifice what makes us great in the face of threats from those who don't like that which makes us great. (full story <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/24/control-order-revoked-imam-ae">here</a>, The Guardian)<br /><br />The EDL claims to have received support from all kinds of people (Muslims included) as they attempt to shake off the image of being racists of the far-right. People posting on their website doesn't mean much nor do gestures such as burning a swastika. Provoking others and telling British citizens to "integrate or go back to where you belong" (not a direct quote from anyone but the essence of their message from a video posted on their site) tells us all we need to know. (full story <a href="http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/100210/EDL-claims-it-has-Muslims-support/">here</a>, The Daily Star)<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_Mansha">Abu Makr Mansha</a> has been sent back to prison. He was originally conviced in December 2005 under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the belief is that he was planning to murder a British soldier. He was released on probation a few months ago but was recently arrested for another offence and, although released on bail, the probation service decided to send him back to prison as they were concerned he might reoffend. (full story <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/09/24/gun-cops-raid-freed-terrorist-115875-21696397/">here</a>, The Mirror)<br /><br />A Harrow councillor gets it spot on. Susan Hall said, (referring to the recent protests and fighting between the EDL et al and UAF and Muslim extremists) "From the left and from the right, they are all as bad as each other and we in the middle are left cleaning up the mess...If it [the EDL protest] was peaceful protest, we would support it all the time, but with these groups there is no intention for peaceful protest. Similarly, the groups who turn out to defend the mosque have no intention of being peaceful". (full story <a href="http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/4647036.Harrow_councillor___protesters_are_not_welcome_back/">here</a>, The Harrow Times)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-39948424689767375322009-09-24T10:37:00.003+01:002009-09-24T11:04:12.841+01:00Muslim Businesses UnitedI came across an article in the <a href="http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/business/4643442.Gaza_water_bid_at_meal_fundraiser/">Telegraph and Argus</a> reporting that a group called "Muslim Businesses United" was hosting a dinner on 2nd October to raise money for Gaza. Nothing remarkable about that but I thought I'd have a quick look at <a href="http://mbunited.co.uk/default.aspx">their website</a>. It was worth a little digging as a picture of extremism quickly emerges. Their home page announces that they are sending delegates on the Viva Palestina convoy. This group <a href="http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/03/10/guess-whos-getting-the-viva-palestina-aid/">raised money for Hamas</a>.<br /><br />Another page is entitled <a href="http://http://mbunited.co.uk/StopWars.aspx">"Stop Wars"</a> and encourages people to take strike action and boycott various companies. A list is provided neatly splitting companies into two groups - those with links to Israel who should be shunned and those without. Although I'm not entirely convinced by their methods since Starbucks is to be boycotted because:<br /><blockquote>"Although Starbucks has gone to great length stating it does not support Israel. It is still on boycott lists as there is no evidence that it is not supporting Israel."</blockquote>On their "Stop Wars" page they explain why they should not give money to charity:<br /><blockquote>Our charities are being blocked because banks are closing down the charity accounts or the Charity Commission are freezing accounts. This happened in 2008 and 2009 with Interpal and Viva Palestina respectively.</blockquote><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpal">Interpal</a> being another charity that has links to Hamas.<br /><br />There is also considerable craziness from one of the organisation's founders. Saeeda Naz is one of the workers for the organisation. Her name and number appear on the posters for this latest event and the MBU website containts a scan of an article about how she raised £600 for Viva Palestina (ie for Hamas). She also has her own website and on it she has a <a href="http://saeedanaz.co.uk/PressRelease.aspx">page of press releases</a>. On that page she kindly informs us that 9/11, 7/7, the Bali bombing, the Mumbai attacks and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team were all the work of the Americans and Israelis.<br /><br />Far from being a normal Muslim organisation raising money for those suffering the effects of war and occupation, this is an organisation run by extremists with a history of raising money for Hamas and apparently intent on doing so again. I don't need to point out that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and deemed so by UK law making it illegal to raise money for them.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-4056060826578487652009-09-24T10:25:00.003+01:002009-09-24T10:37:26.877+01:00Fake Osman Warning?One of the founders of the English Defence League is one <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/english-defence-league-chaotic-alliance">Paul Ray</a>. He runs a blog called Lionheart and in July he wrote a post entitled <a href="http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2009/07/act-of-war-official-threat-against-my.html">"An act of war! An official threat against my life"</a>. In it he claimed that he had received an Osman Warning. He posted a photo of the warning on his site. Recently this was picked up and spread around the web including the <a href="http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/198820.php">Jawa Report</a>.<br /><br />However, it seems to me that his Osman Warning is a possible fake. The photo of the letter he supposedly received conspicuously lacks any letter head from any organisation. It lacks anything that could not have been written by Ray himself on any computer. But what really makes me wonder is the fact that Ray has signed it but yet still seems to have it. Generally, when a document needs to be signed it is so that someone else has a record of the person having received it. They would therefore need to keep the signed copy. Indeed, this <a href="http://http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/YourRightInformation/FreedomInformation/Policies/D339.pdf">policy document</a> [pdf] from the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary makes this plain with regard to Osman Warnings:<br /><blockquote>(Insert name) will be informed that he is not under arrest and is there voluntarily. The contents of the attached letter will be read to (Insert name), you will then hand him/her this letter and ask him/her to sign it as proof he/she has been made aware of the threat. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Once signed you will retain the document.</span><br /></blockquote>So, did Paul Ray fake his warning in order to cause trouble? And have other sites been conned?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-13690925637883530082009-09-24T10:06:00.002+01:002009-09-24T10:25:28.786+01:00Blogging Against ExtremismIt's been sometime since I last posted but I feel the need to start again. Originally I started blogging to provide a record of the various <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Islamist</span> activities in the UK. I don't know if what I did made any difference but I felt I was doing something. In the time since last year I have not found another site or blog dedicated to this job.<br /><br />But things have changed recently. For some time now we've had the far-left supporting <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Islamist</span> groups and extremist Islamic groups are unfortunately quite plentiful. However, we now have the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">spectre</span> of extremist far-right groups. With the rise of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">EDL</span> and the Stop the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Islamification</span> of Europe group etc there is bound to be an increase in extremism. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">EDL</span> and co will provide fuel for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Islamists</span> and vice <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">versa</span>. The danger is that these two extremes will grow at the cost of the middle ground.<br /><br />So I'm back blogging against extremism on both sides. There will be a slight change in the style as, to save time, many posts may <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">consist</span> of a link to an article and some small comment. Others will hopefully be longer "investigations" of sorts. Either way, I hope that this blog will be useful to people who want to know what the extremists in our country are up to, be they <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Islamist</span> or far-right racists.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-10452743456723402008-04-07T10:23:00.005+01:002008-04-07T10:34:21.664+01:00More of Have Their Say?<a href="http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2008/03/bbc-news-have-their-say.html" target="_blank">Last week,</a> we reported on the BBC's use of the Have Your Say to select quotes for stories and the possibility that this system was being abused by the BBC to give their own views. In that instance a quote was provided that was supportive of the BBC when it was way down on the list of popular sentiments.<br /><br />Today I checked <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm" target="_blank">the Have Your Say page</a>. The question asked is "Should sport and politics mix?" in relation to the Olympic Torch and the occupation of Tibet. There are two quotes selected. One reads "Those who disrupted the torch relay should be fined, jailed and where necessary, deported" which appears on page 11 when ordered according to recommendations, but at least it has 12 of those. The other comment reads "I have nothing but contempt for "personalities" who've chosen to endorse this mockery of the Olympic spirit" from one "Adrian, UK". Only trouble is, this doesn't even appear to be a published comment.<br /><br />Perhaps the BBC could publish their rules for these sorts of things to avoid confusion. This comment may well be one of the 1149 in the moderation queue, but if it has been published one must assume that it has been moderated. And why have the "Readers Recommended" option if the BBC continually ignores those comments?<br /><br />The entire system is open to abuse. Since effectively the BBC can get any quote it wants from the thousands provided it is left to someone to choose one quote. And with apparently no oversight on the selection process it is all too easy to choose a nice quote that fits the mindset of the person writing the article and instantly it becomes an opinion piece not a news article. So if the BBC is going to continue to use this quoting system there needs to be an awful lot more transparency.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-2124558701057794232008-04-07T09:36:00.004+01:002008-04-07T10:08:42.385+01:00Ken TwistsKen was on a walkabout in Islington on Saturday with "peace and anti-war campaigners", according to <a href="http://www.kenlivingstone.com/media/ken_livingstone_campaigns_in_islington_with_londoners_for_peace" target="_blank">a Press Release</a>. It's a slightly fascinating statement for a number of reasons, not least it's aim. I'm going to try a little deconstruction.<br /><br />Firstly, then, is the opening line:<br /><blockquote> Ken Livingstone will join Tony Benn and other peace and anti-war campaigners today on a walkabout in Angel Islington.</blockquote>That's an interesting expression - "peace and anti-war campaigners". Perhaps Team Livingstone can explain what the difference is between these two breeds? The simple implication is that quite a number of those campaigners aren't interested at all in peace.<br /><br />The next paragraph reads:<br /><blockquote> To reinforce the need to keep the forward-looking approach that London has seen over the last eight years, Londoners for Peace activists will be highlighting the clear differences between Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson's record on war and nuclear weapons.</blockquote>Ever heard of this group "Londoners for Peace"? A Google search reveals that the only sites mentioning the group are those reporting on this event. The same result comes from Yahoo and MSN. So does this group really exist or was it conveniently set up for the Mayor's outing?<br /><br />Next we have:<br /><p></p><blockquote> Veteran peace campaigner Bruce Kent said:<br />"Ken Livingstone has worked tirelessly for community harmony and international peace. He is my first choice for Mayor."</blockquote> <p></p>This would be Bruce Kent formerly of CND. One wonders why Ken might be his first choice? Could it have anything to do with Ken's allowing the CND to <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3257532.ece" target="_blank">use City Hall for free</a>? And how about "community harmony"? Won't take long for most of you to think of at least one community in London that Ken seems to have worked tirelessly to antagonise - to the extent that he was <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/livingstone-suspended-over-nazi-jibe-467583.html" target="_blank">suspended for a while</a> because he couldn't bring himself to apologise for the offence he had caused. And international peace? Well, if you include cosying up to certain unpleasant people like Castro and Chavez.<br /><p></p><blockquote> Ken Livingstone said:<br />"London rejected the war in Iraq from the start and subsequent events have shown that they were right.</blockquote> <p></p>From the start? That would be why according to GLA commissioned poll more Londoners supported the war than opposed it? [<a href="http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/consultation/docs/mar03_poll_results.pdf" target="_blank">see here pdf</a>]<br /><br />But it's the end of the statement that is the most twisted:<br /><p></p><blockquote> The war has killed hundreds of thousands of people, created a firmer basis for terrorist organisations in Iraq and made our city more of a target for terrorist attacks.<br />I am proud as Mayor to support the anti-war movement and to join the millions of people who demonstrated against the war in Iraq. The majority of Londoners, and every major candidate at previous elections opposed the invasion of Iraq - as do myself, Brian Paddick for the Lib Dems, and Sian Berry for the Greens. Boris Johnson enthusiastically backed the invasion of Iraq.</blockquote> <p></p>If Boris "enthusiastically" backed it, what did the Labour party do? Of course, Ken wasn't an MP at the time so he didn't have to vote in favour of the war but isn't it just plainly dishonest to try and portray himself as some bastion against the war when he's very happy to be the candidate of the party that took us to war?<br /><br />The statement finishes:<br /><blockquote> It would be grotesque if Londoners, who oppose the Iraq war by an overwhelming majority, were to have a Mayor who supported it.</blockquote>And so what about a Mayor from the Party that instigated it? The duplicity is incredibly thick here. Ken himself might be opposed to the war but he's running for the Party that started it and is still the biggest supporter of it. And he claims it would be grotesque to have Johnson as Mayor - surely it would be worse to have Labour in charge from that argument?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-79936922724335461972008-04-03T12:04:00.003+01:002008-04-03T12:14:32.531+01:00Johnson Gets it WrongBoris Johnson has announced a new policy to ban alcohol from the Tube. <a href="http://www.backboris.com/news/pr/index.php" target="_blank">He said</a>:<br /><blockquote>London has a higher rate of alcohol-related crimes than any other region in England and I have been told time and again that people are scared of taking the Underground late at night because of aggressive behaviour by drunken yobs.<br />Too many people find themselves forced to sit opposite someone swigging from a can of lager and engaging in behaviour that is intimidating or worse. I want everyone’s journeys to be safer and more pleasant.</blockquote><a href="http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/04/boris-plans-to-ban-alcohol-on-tube.html" target="_blank">Iain Dale comments</a>:<br /><blockquote>As a liberal Conservative I instinctively recoil from banning things. However, is it liberal to allow tube users to be abused by drunken louts? No, definitely not. I think this policy will be welcomed by many as long as it is policed properly.</blockquote>I think this is the problem. How will this be policed? The press release states:<br /><blockquote>Under the London Regional Transport Railways By-laws, TfL staff are allowed to use ‘reasonable force’ to remove persons who breach any of the by-laws. TfL staff can prevent people from going through ticket barriers if they are in breach such as carrying any open alcoholic drinks. In the same way that anyone smoking can be prevented from travelling on the Tube.</blockquote>This is all fine, but it only helps if a) there are TfL staff at the station and b) they see the person carrying an open alcohol drink. And what about unopened drinks that are opened on the Tube? Johnson could try banning all alcohol on the Tube but then runs the risk of stopping people taking bottles of wine to a friend or to work or wherever. And of course we have the problem of people already drunk before they get on the Tube.<br /><br />The only realistic way to police this policy is to have staff, preferably from the British Transport Police, on the trains. But if they're there anyway there is no need for the ban on alcohol.<br /><br />Overall, the aim is good but the policy itself won't work. No doubt it will be something of a vote winner but in terms of practicalities and effectiveness Johnson has got this one wrong.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-21019714538905082382008-04-03T09:55:00.003+01:002008-04-03T10:08:33.278+01:00Olypmics BenefitsA survey carried out by the BBC revealed that 73% of people in the UK thought that they would receive no noticeable benefit from the Olympics in 2012. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7327693.stm" target="_blank">Tessa Jowell hit back</a> saying:<br /><blockquote>We're not idiots here. We have actually given more thought and careful planning than any other city has ever done before, in making sure that people all round the country have a part in the Games and benefit from the Games.</blockquote>Last year it was announced that the budget for the games had gone <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/15/olympics2012.olympics2012" target="_blank">up to £9.4 billion</a>. Of that £6bn is coming from central government, £2.2bn from the National Lottery and £1.2bn from the GLA. According to a report published by Oxford Economic Forecasting (read full report <a href="http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/31A65F7D-B455-4FEE-8BEE-7CDB83FD634A/0/BC_RS_LKPUK0607_FullVersion.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> [pdf]) London pays for approximately 20% of the UK's taxes. So, if we leave aside the National Lottery contributions for which breakdown of ticket sales is going to be tricky we are left with a total £7.2bn. Of this £1.2bn is being paid directly by Londoners through the GLA and a further £1.2bn is being paid by Londoners through central government. That leaves £4.8bn paid for by those living outside London, or 2/3rd of the cost.<br /><br />So, if you're not idiots, Ms Jowell, how do you plan to ensure that 2/3rds of the benefits for the Olympics will be received by those outside London? Come to that, how do you plan to ensure that all Londoners share in the £2.4bn they are expected to pay for this?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34630549.post-85072821367581452772008-04-03T09:31:00.003+01:002008-04-03T09:55:23.493+01:00Boris Battles BNP BestYesterday the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">BNP</span> told their supporters to give their second vote in the London Mayoral elections to Boris Johnson, as he was the "lesser of two evils". In what can hardly be called a ringing endorsement <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/02/london08.london" target="_blank">they said:</a><br /><blockquote>Our suggestion … is that you hold your nose and cast it in favour of the Conservative candidate, Boris Johnson. This is not because we think that Johnson would be any good as mayor — he is as politically correct as any of the other candidates and has no real ties to our London — but because he wouldn't be actively bad in the way that [Ken] Livingstone [the Labour candidate] is.</blockquote>Of course, the three main candidates had to react and rather unsurprisingly two tried to make political gain out of it. <a href="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7289.html" target="_blank">Ken said</a>:<br /><blockquote>Two parties have now called for a second preference vote in London's Mayoral election. I am proud that the Green Party's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Sian</span> Berry has called for a second preference vote for me. That the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">BNP</span> have called for a second preference vote to the Tory against me is no surprise. I hate and despise everything the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">BNP</span> stand for as against every value of London as a great multi-ethnic tolerant and diverse city.</blockquote>The message apparently being "I hate and despise the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">BNP</span> but Boris doesn't." Brian <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Paddick</span> also follows the same line:<br /><blockquote>Clearly the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">BNP</span> have recognised <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Boris's</span> talent for causing offence and creating division.</blockquote>Whenever an extreme group endorses a candidate that candidate's opponents try and construe that into being indicative of the policies of the candidate. They try and make the candidate guilty by association. Never is it harder to do that then when the endorsers give such reluctant support as the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">BNP</span> did to Johnson. Doesn't stop those who are desperate though.<br /><br />As for Boris, he simply stated:<br /><blockquote>I utterly and unreservedly condemn the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">BNP</span> and have no desire whatsoever to receive a single second-preference vote from a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">BNP</span> supporter. I hope as many Londoners as possible turn out on May 1 to prevent the election of a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">BNP</span> candidate.<br /></blockquote>No attempt to spin this support in his favour. Good on Boris. A pity the other mayoral candidates couldn't be so clear in their opposition to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">BNP</span>. It's one thing to oppose the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">BNP</span>, but when that opposition is linked to an opposition to another candidate, as Ken and Brian did, the opposition is weakened and the principles blurred. At least one candidate has clear moral scruples.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0