APPEASEMENT
Recent events have demonstrated that the British ruling class has remained cocooned in its traditional comfort zone of snobby appeasement.
This is all the more important and dangerous due to the so-called war on terror.
While 2 members of the British National Party [BNP] have been acquitted on several charges of inciting racial hatred, they remain under threat of a retrial for other charges after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. These other charges include statements about some Asian paedophiles grooming white girls, about which there was a Channel 4 documentary.
Meanwhile, in response to a few cartoons, there have been widespread demonstrations and attacks on Scandinavian, French and other continental European buildings around the world by Muslim mobs. The cartoons were first published several months ago and have been republished since in several European countries.
They have not been published in the British press. This British stance has been lauded by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and the press itself as being a sign of sensitivity. Jack Straw even went so far as to criticise the publication of the cartoons as: ‘insulting, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong’.
In layman’s language the British stance is called appeasement.
The continental press is making a stand on an issue of principle: that free speech takes precedence over Muslim extremism. Once the press gives in and allows Muslims to veto what may or may not be published, in a European country, then that is a veto which will be exercised with increasing ferocity.
The British press are content to allow Muslim extremists that veto as is the British ruling class in general. This is the Munich mentality. The consequence of which is that we will face even bigger problems in due course.
This all comes at a time when the so-called religious hate bill has been watered down [thank goodness] and is meandering its way through parliament. Labour is justifying this bill on the grounds of wanting to outlaw so-called Islamophobia.
One should not forget that the real reason for the demand for legislation outlawing so-called Islamophobia was the failure to kill Salman Rushdie [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated 2 August 2005, which also highlights a determination by certain Muslim organisations to ‘define “no go” areas where the exercise of “freedom of speech” against Islam will not be tolerated’] - and not because of any alleged backlash following the subsequent terrorist attacks on 9/11 or 7/7.
A report in The Times dated the 4 February states:
Presumably, Liaqat Hussain believes that his subsequent comments excuse the hatred revealed in his earlier ones.
Meanwhile, yesterday, in a march in central London, which was escorted by the police, Muslim extremists chanted the name of Osama bin Laden and ‘You must pay, 7/7 is on its way.’ Many of the protestors were carrying placards with slogans such as:
The term ‘Fantastic 4' is a reference to the 7/7 suicide terrorists.
The Metropolitan Police took no action to arrest those who were inciting murder.
One of the organisers of the march, Anjem Choudry, an associate of Mohammed Al Bakri [who is currently in the Lebanon] said:
There is ‘no reason’ why Choudry and his supporters should be allowed to remain in Britain either. The English Rights Campaign has already reported on Choudry’s sentiment regarding his supposed British nationality [see the entry dated 23 August 2005] when he dismissed his British passport as a ‘travel document’.
Choudry and others trooped off to the Lebanon to meet with Bakri and found themselves deported from that country. Labour, far from deporting those extremists allowed them all back into this country. A report in The Times dated the 9 November 2005 states:
Choudry and his supporters should have their ‘travel documents’ revoked and they should be sent back from wherever they have originated from.
Those who wish to make up their own minds as to whether Muslim extremists should be calling for people to be beheaded in this country can find the cartoons at the following site:
http://www.muslimparody.com/Danish.html
This is all the more important and dangerous due to the so-called war on terror.
While 2 members of the British National Party [BNP] have been acquitted on several charges of inciting racial hatred, they remain under threat of a retrial for other charges after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. These other charges include statements about some Asian paedophiles grooming white girls, about which there was a Channel 4 documentary.
Meanwhile, in response to a few cartoons, there have been widespread demonstrations and attacks on Scandinavian, French and other continental European buildings around the world by Muslim mobs. The cartoons were first published several months ago and have been republished since in several European countries.
They have not been published in the British press. This British stance has been lauded by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and the press itself as being a sign of sensitivity. Jack Straw even went so far as to criticise the publication of the cartoons as: ‘insulting, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong’.
In layman’s language the British stance is called appeasement.
The continental press is making a stand on an issue of principle: that free speech takes precedence over Muslim extremism. Once the press gives in and allows Muslims to veto what may or may not be published, in a European country, then that is a veto which will be exercised with increasing ferocity.
The British press are content to allow Muslim extremists that veto as is the British ruling class in general. This is the Munich mentality. The consequence of which is that we will face even bigger problems in due course.
This all comes at a time when the so-called religious hate bill has been watered down [thank goodness] and is meandering its way through parliament. Labour is justifying this bill on the grounds of wanting to outlaw so-called Islamophobia.
One should not forget that the real reason for the demand for legislation outlawing so-called Islamophobia was the failure to kill Salman Rushdie [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated 2 August 2005, which also highlights a determination by certain Muslim organisations to ‘define “no go” areas where the exercise of “freedom of speech” against Islam will not be tolerated’] - and not because of any alleged backlash following the subsequent terrorist attacks on 9/11 or 7/7.
A report in The Times dated the 4 February states:
‘THERE was a quiet calm yesterday on the streets of the northern city whose Muslim community once gained worldwide notoriety for their response to a religious insult.
Seventeen years ago, copies of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses were nailed to wooden stakes and burnt outside Bradford town hall. The flames died down but the public book-burning by 1,500 British Muslims lit a fire through the Islamic world.
Demonstrations were held in other countries, protesters were shot dead in Pakistan and one month later Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to murder Rushdie.
The Bradford Council for Mosques, which co-ordinated the protests in West Yorkshire, looked on with approval. The author, the council said, had “tortured Islam” and deserved to pay the penalty by “hanging”. Since those days, Bradford has twice been brought to its knees, in 1995 and 2001, during race riots that caused damage running to millions of pounds ...
While it was hard to find a believer who was not offended by the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, it was equally difficult to speak to anyone willing to advocate public street protests. Muslims spoke of feeling hurt, angry and insulted but also preached the need for caution and voiced fears that demonstrations and marches would merely provoke a backlash.
Liaqat Hussain, the secretary of the Bradford Central Mosque, initially seemed eager to fan the flames of a dispute that he cited as evidence of “the beginning of a Muslim holocaust in Europe”. Mr Hussain, 54, a former president of the Bradford Council for Mosques and its general secretary during the Rushdie protests, said that the blame for the widespread publication of the cartoons did not rest solely with the editors of the newspapers involved.
“This is clearly a demonstration by the Christian world of hostility towards the Muslim community,” he said. “This has come from all the nations of Europe and it reflects an ongoing campaign against Muslims by the Western powers. You can’t differentiate between the Western world and Christianity; you can’t separate what’s happened from the people of those countries and their governments. I blame all of the Western population because these cartoons reflect the opinion of the people.”
He said that the publication of the cartoons across Europe was a deliberate act of provocation.
“We have already seen the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia and we’ve witnessed the support by Christians and the West for Israel and its atrocities against the Palestinians,” he said. “Now we’re seeing the early stages of creating a suitable environment for a Muslim holocaust in Europe.” Two hours later, however, the firebrand had turned into a man of moderation. Yes, it was a Muslim’s duty to preserve the honour of the Prophet, but this must only be done in a way that was lawful and democratic.
Mr Hussain also praised newspapers and broadcasters in Britain for the restraint they had shown and their “responsible attitude” in reporting the story. “I would call on all Muslims who may want to express their anger to use peaceful means and not to be carried away by their emotions”.’
Presumably, Liaqat Hussain believes that his subsequent comments excuse the hatred revealed in his earlier ones.
Meanwhile, yesterday, in a march in central London, which was escorted by the police, Muslim extremists chanted the name of Osama bin Laden and ‘You must pay, 7/7 is on its way.’ Many of the protestors were carrying placards with slogans such as:
Kill Those Who Insult Islam.
Massacre Those Who Insult Islam.
Behead Those Who Insult Islam.
As Muslims We Are Prepared To Fight!!
Europe You’ll Come Crawling When Mujahideen Come Roaring.
Annihilate Those Who Insult Islam.
Jihad Against European Crusaders
Europe You Will Pay, Fantastic 4 Are On Their Way!!!
The term ‘Fantastic 4' is a reference to the 7/7 suicide terrorists.
The Metropolitan Police took no action to arrest those who were inciting murder.
One of the organisers of the march, Anjem Choudry, an associate of Mohammed Al Bakri [who is currently in the Lebanon] said:
‘7/7 was brought upon the people of London and Britain by the foreign policy of Tony Blair. He violated the sanctity of Muslims, he violated the covenant of security.
The police and security people in Britain say there will be another security attack. There is no reason why there will not be another suicide bombing.’
There is ‘no reason’ why Choudry and his supporters should be allowed to remain in Britain either. The English Rights Campaign has already reported on Choudry’s sentiment regarding his supposed British nationality [see the entry dated 23 August 2005] when he dismissed his British passport as a ‘travel document’.
Choudry and others trooped off to the Lebanon to meet with Bakri and found themselves deported from that country. Labour, far from deporting those extremists allowed them all back into this country. A report in The Times dated the 9 November 2005 states:
‘FOUR key lieutenants of Omar Bakri Mohammad, the banned Islamic cleric, have been expelled from Lebanon and deported back to Britain.
Their expulsion comes as the British authorities attempt to deport to Beirut a number of Lebanese radicals who have been identified as a terrorism risk. Bakri fled to Beirut, fearing that he would be arrested in Britain as part of the Government’s promised crackdown on so-called preachers of hate.
Bakri claimed that he had flown to Lebanon on holiday in August but Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, banned the cleric from returning to his London home. The four men rounded up in Beirut were there helping Bakri to set up a religious school and are allegedly members of his banned al-Ghuraba group. Anjem Choudray, the cleric’s deputy, blamed the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for orchestrating their deportations. Whitehall would not comment on the case.
Bakri’s followers say he cannot find work. The cleric has claimed an estimated £250,000 in state benefits since claiming asylum in Britain 20 years ago. He has complained about being followed. Mr Choudray described his deportation from Beirut as “outrageous”. He said that the Government is deliberately trying to isolate Bakri by deporting anybody who tries to help him.
“The British Government has put a lot of pressure on Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad ever since he’s been there. He’s been interrogated again and again by the various sections of the security services there whether that be the army or the internal security service”.’
Choudry and his supporters should have their ‘travel documents’ revoked and they should be sent back from wherever they have originated from.
Those who wish to make up their own minds as to whether Muslim extremists should be calling for people to be beheaded in this country can find the cartoons at the following site:
http://www.muslimparody.com/Danish.html
posted by erc @ 4:20 pm
<< Home