Hamza Extradition Delayed

The US wants to extradite Abu Hamza in order to try him there on terror charges. Those charges include supporting Al Qaeda and helping to organise kidnappings in Yemen. However, since Hamza is appealing against his convictions here in the UK the extradition hearing has been postponed. And the appeal hearing itself was postponed until December 6.

What does one trial have to do with the other? If he is cleared of all offences in the UK does that stop him being extradited to the US? The only thing that might happen as a result of this is that he is cleared in the UK and then leaves for Pakistan or some other country from where he cannot be extradited.

An MCB Press Release

Press statements from the Muslim Counicl of Britain are always interesting, this one is a gem.

It complains of the "indiscriminate killing" of 18 Palestinians today. While the deaths of innocent civillians in Gaza is distressing and wrong, the Israelis always seem to do their best to prevent them. Why is it that after every such incident orders are sent to cease all attacks and for an investigation to be made? If it were intentional would such orders be made?

Further (and this is no justification but a point to remember for the next paragraph) Palestinians are most definitely indiscriminate in their targeting; if anything they deliberately target women and children because they are "softer".

Moving on, the MCB says:

These acts of appalling criminality serve to demonstrate yet again, that many Israelis regard the Palestinian people in a racist manner and as a sub-human species.

This is illogical because this act was carried out by perhaps one Israeli soldier, or at worse, the chain of command involving maybe a dozen people. And even if it were deliberate by any of these people it might no have been motivated by such a feeling. It seems like a classic example of psychological projection; there is no doubt about the way most Palestinians are taught to view Israelis. And remember the accusation of "indiscriminate killing".

Less than one week after the Israeli Armed Forces [Actually called the Israeli Defence Forces for a good reason] shamelessly opened fire on a peaceful demonstration of women in the Bayt Hanun district of Gaza, before the cameras of the world, it has returned to kill more innocents.

This statement is absolutely unbelievable. There was no "peaceful demonstration". What really happened, was that a number of Palestinian terrorists had been surrounded inside a mosque. Hamas radio broadcast for women to come and act as human shields to rescue them. And so they did, they entered the mosque, dressed the terrorists as women and accompanied them out. No wonder Israel shot at them, and they have no right to complain about being killed because that is why they were there.

Finally, MCB finishes off with their demand:

We call upon the British government to use its diplomatic and political influence to put an end to these despicable war crimes and to lift the inhuman sanctions against the Palestinian people.

Those "inhuman sactions" are nothing more than not giving free aid to a Palestinian government that refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist and refuse to renounce violence. Nevertheless, the MCB, true to form, will slate one side, make no mention of the terrorism of the other and call on Britain to change our foreign policy to appease those terrorists. A moderate organisation?

Norman Kember Will Not Testify

Norman Kember, the British peace campaigner kidnapped in Iraq, will not testify against his kidnappers unless it helped them get clemency. He was told by police that Iraqi police had arrested those responsible for kidnapping him and three others had been arrested. Mr Kember, though, feels unable to testify against them:

I think that some of them had reasons for regarding us as their enemies. I feel that forgiveness is the most positive thing that we can do in this situation. I would rather they went free than they had a long prison sentence.

Don't forget that they didn't just kidnap four men; one of those hostages, am American, was found murdered. Another thing you shouldn't forget is that after spending a month as a hostage he was finally rescued by the SAS. Yet, despite being saved from death by British soldiers, he declined to thank them for rescuing him.

Yet More Problems with the Veil

An immigration tribunal was stopped after a lawyer refused to remove her veil; twice. The judge asked her to remove it once and she refused; the case was the adjourned to that afternoon. Then the judge, having been forced to ask her to repeat her answers, asked her to remove the veil a second time. He said:

I am not very happy that you are appearing in a veil. Would you kindly remove it to assist with communications? It will allow me to see your face and I cannot hear you as well as I would like.

Once again she refused. The judge referred the case to Sir Henry Hodge, the head of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunals, for a ruling on how to proceed.

UPDATE: The lawyer in question refused to explain to journalists her reason for not removing her veil. Her boss at the law firm, Javid Hussain, told reporters:

This was an unfortunate and unprecedented incident. She will continue to dress as she always has done.

Why did Mr Hussain insist she will continue to dress in the same way? Does he not know that a decision is to be made by Sir Henry Hodge on whether she is allowed to or not? Or is he stating for the record that whatever the decision is she will still wear it?

Muslim Denies Calling for Non-Cooperation

Hat Tip to USS Neverdock for flagging this article.

It seems that Osama Saeed, who told Muslims it was their job to resist police investigations, is unhappy about being quoted. He told the newspaper that first reported the story that he was quoted out of context and that he had never called for non-cooperation.

However, the group who organised the meeting released a statement earlier in which they admitted that he had called for Muslims not to pass information to the police. The newspaper itself published the transcript of his speech. Although he did tell Muslims to "resist" and be "stronger in their defiance" of the police, that isn't a call for non-cooperation, apparently. Osama explained:

I’ve been asked if I disavow the statements attributed to me in the Dundee Courier. The fact is that the word ‘non-co- operation’ did not pass from my lips.

Taking him at his word that the resistance he was talking of wasn't a simple non-cooperation, what sort of resistance was it?

Muslims Told Not to Help Police

A local newspaper reported on a disturbing meeting in Dundee. At the meeting, Osama Saeed from the Muslim Association of Britain, told Muslims that it was their job to resist police involvement in their community. He said:

What Special Branch are doing is isolating the Muslim community. There is no extremism in Dundee - they are barking up the wrong tree. My message to the police is '‘lay off,'’ but my message to the Muslim community is we have got to be stronger in our defiance of this.....

The police are doing their jobs and their job is to push the boat out and push the limits they can push. Our job is to resist that, and resist that we must.

Whether or not there is extremism in Dundee is a matter for the police to decide. If Mr Saeed is confident in his assessment then he would encourage Muslims to help the police as much as possible to show the lack of any extremism. In fact, by calling on Muslims to deliberately avoid helping the police he is showing exactly how much extremism there is in Dundee; especially when he tells them it is their job to resist any investigations.

A community under the spotlight removes that focus by showing that there is nothing to see, not by closing all the doors; that just creates more suspicion.

Hat Tip: USS Neverdock. He also tells of his own experience from living in that area.

UPDATE: A leading member of the Muslim community in Dundee has denounced Saeed's call. He told reporters:

I don’t think it is a responsible statement from Mr Saeed. He doesn’t know Dundee. Dundee Muslims are well integrated into the community, and we don’t have any problem whatsoever. I haven’t even met this person, and I don’t think he represents the Muslim residents of Dundee.

However, he didn't just suffice with the usual, MCB-style, "they're not representative, they are not helpful". He actually went the full distance:

Our message is loud and clear — obey the law of the land. If there is criminal activity, or somebody doing something wrong, then we are not going to tolerate it. If it was my own son behaving badly then he would be punished.

We need more Muslims to stand up and tell their community to obey the laws and inform police if criminal or terrorist activity is taking place. Not like the MCB that object to any suggestions that Muslims should be made to tackle extremism.

British Terrorist Sentenced to 40 Years

Dhiren Barot was sentenced to at least 40 years in prison for planning to carry out a host of major terrorist attacks on both the UK and the US. He is a member of Al Qaeda, having travelled to Pakistan and received training in Kashmir.

The Times traces his journey from normal child to Islamic terrorist. Apparently, his life all changed after a sermon from Abu Hamza. This inspired him to look for ways to help "oppressed" Muslims and eventually led him to Pakistan and terrorism.

Yet again we see just how dangerous radical preachers are. It really is about time the government took steps to deal with these people.

Muslim Removed From Diplomatic Protection

A Muslim firearms officer was sacked from his position on the Diplomatic Protection Group. He failed to pass a counter-terrorism check. One of the reasons, who knows what others there were, was that his children "had attended their local mosque for religious studies when the building was associated with an iman whom the police suspected of links to an extremist Islamic group", according to The Independent.

He is suing the police for unfair dismissal. His lawyer said, "Muslims are labelled guilty by association. Doubt is insufficient to save them. They are assumed guilty before being proven innocent."

Time for a reality check for both the newspaper and the lawyer. Firstly, his children did not just "attend" that mosque, they were sent there by their father i.e. by this police officer. That means that the officer in question, who presumably was well aware of the outlook of the mosque, was happy to have his kids educated there with that outlook. That reflects his own outlook on the world. So, it isn't guilt by an association that is happenstance, it is an association that he sought out for himself.

Lastly, this man is not on trial, he is applying for a job. One of the qualifications for that job is that there can be complete trust in the applicant. In this case there cannot be complete trust because he has chosen to associate with a radical Imam. He is therefore not qualified to do this particular job. It isn't a question of him being "guilty" of anything, it is him not being as squeaky clean as is required for this post.

MCB and Khatami

The MCB has released a report about their hosting of former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami. A couple of paragraphs from that article:

He [Khatami] said that whilst Muslims living in the West had an obligation to abide by the laws of the land, the authorities in the West also had an obligation to treat them as equal citizens in all respects. Only then can there be harmony and peace.

What does he mean by "all respects"? They currently enjoy the same rights as every other citizen of this country. The only thing not equal for Muslims is that their religion is not the official religion of this country and that their religious laws are not reflected in the laws of the land. Is that what Khatami wants before there can be "harmony and peace."?

On international events he said that the primary concern of humanity had become the quest for "security". The atrocities of 09/11, unfortunate [?!] and unacceptable, as they were, did however highlight a new era - one in which there was room for one side to create mayhem and oppression in Muslim countries from a safe distance. However, he noted, "we were now in an era of security for all or security for none".

In other words, gone are the days when the West could attack tyrants in Muslim countries without fear of terrorism. Those tyrants now have the ability to direct terrorists against Western countries. That sounds like a threat.

Muslim "Almost Ashamed" for Incitement

Mizanur Rahman, who is on trial for inciting murder at the infamous protest over the Danish cartoons, told the court that he simply got carried away. He had gone to the protest and besides holding placards that read, "let’s annihilate those who insult Islam" and "behead those who insult Islam". At one point he was given a microphone and told the crowd:

Oh Allah, we want to see another 9/11 in Iraq, another 9/11 in Denmark, another 9/11 in Spain, in France, all over Europe. Oh Allah, destroy all of them.

In court, today, he said:

At the time it didn't seem like such a big deal. People more famous than me had been saying the same thing. I feel almost ashamed.....

The majority of this was a prayer. When I was given the mic, I didn't know what to say. I said what other people had said during the demo and what was on the placards. I was repeating what I heard in other speeches.

A few things strike me. Firstly, why is he "almost ashamed"? Secondly, if he regrets what he did, will he be giving the police the names and addresses of the other "famous" people who were inciting the crowd?

Lastly, if he is telling the truth it shows just how dangerous these preachers of hate are. If they were able to incite this man into such a state with just a few speeches, imagine what listening to them for a long period can do. The government must really crack down on people who preach hatred and who incite others to murder and hate.