Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Who supports terrorism?

The current Home Secretary like most of her Labour predecessors, seems to have no problem allowing Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on University campuses for the Jihad against Britain and the west, she seems not to take much notice of people marching through British streets screaming their support for Hamas and their hatred for Jews ("we are all Hamas now", "death to the Jews", "Hamas should finish where Hitler left off"). However when a Muslim peer (Lord Ahmed) threatens the mass intimidation of Parliament if a video is shown within the Houses of Parliament (whilst he was happy to invite a known anti-Semite, Jöran Jermas to speak there) then she acts, however not in the way that she should have.

I blogged about Lord Ahmed's threats and his attempt to ban the showing of the Fitna video last month. Subsequent to that, the House of Lords authorities decided not to agree to the proposed ban and said that extra police would be drafted in to meet the threat and that the showing of Geert Wilders' Fitna video and the discussion should go ahead. However Jacqui Smith has decided she knows better and a letter has been sent from her office to Geert Wilders saying:
"...the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

It is interesting that the letter does not say whether the Home Office believe that Geert Wilders' statements are true or not, just that they "would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK". I wonder if someone could ask Jacqui Smith what she believes is the truth.

When a Dutch politician is banned from the UK for telling unpalatable truths about one religion whilst followers of that same religion are allowed to threaten the life of their fellow Britons, then I fear for where this may lead. The UK is sleepwalking (or maybe being lead) in a direction that may be exceedingly dangerous to those of us who are not loved or respected by some followers of strict Islamic tradition. The more the British government accedes to the demands of one minority in the interests of "community harmony", the more the rest of the "community" may feel that the government is not acting in their interests. The more these feelings are allowed to grow, the more nasty the result may be. I know that I am not alone in wondering if this Labour government are actually trying to provoke "community unrest" so that they can implement the Civil Contingency Act; might we be right?


Lord Elvis of Paisley said...

Totally concur.

Anonymous said...

what a load of racist drivel. You seem to like the idea that things will get stirred up. Blame everything on the muslims.

Anonymous said...

You are racist.

Not a sheep said...

Anonymous 12:51: "Racist drivel"? Do please explain how what I have written is racist or indeed drivel? Do you disagree with the facts regarding Hizb ut Tahrir or the chants of "death to the Jews"; do you consider those chants "racist"? Is my reporting of Lord Ahmed's threats in any way misleading? Is it "racist" to criticise a Muslim peer?
I in no way want things to get "stirred up" but I think that they are being. What am I blaming on "the Muslims"? Reading my piece again I seem to be criticising Jacqui Smith (not a Muslim) for double standards and avoiding addressing the matter of truth. I also criticise Lord Ahmed (a Muslim) for threatening "to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and ... to take the colleague who was organising the event to court". Is it "racist" to report facts? Is it racist to criticise someone who is a Muslim?
Maybe you should think more carefully before tossing the word "racist" around. Now if you'll excuse me I'll go back to work; today I have had/ will have meetings with many people: some Christian, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Jewish, some of no discernible religious affiliation at all - does that make me still a "racist", not a "racist" or has it no bearing at all?

Not a sheep said...

Anonymous 12:53: No I am not a "racist".

Is that the full extent of your thoughts on the matter? The readiness of people to use the accusation of "racist" to shutdown debate is indicative of a lack of intellectual capacity. Argue the point by all means but don't resort to crying "racist".

Anonymous said...

Spot on. The troubles are almost certainly being fomented to take advantage of a "beneficial crisis" just as the EU always has. The only thing that is not clear is the entire list of what they want to achieve. Some are obvious, such as the destruction of Great Britain as we knew it in the past, but some may not have yet broken surface.