Welcome to 21st century Britain

This Telegraph article is really rather scary:

'Women should not be allowed to go on long journeys without a male chaperone a British Muslim group has advised followers.

Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary and equalities minister condemned the advice from Blackburn Muslim Association as "disgraceful" and said such views had "no place" in modern Britain.

Instructions from the association's "Department of Theology" insist that it is "not permissible" for a woman to go more than 48 miles – deemed to be the equivalent of three days walk - without her husband or a close male relative.

It also stipulates that men must grow beards and advises women to cover their faces.

The rulings are contained in a question and answer section of the group's site which offers offer "solutions and answers" to social, religious and financial matters from Sharia teaching, accompanied by the catchphrase: "Allah knows best."'

There's more in the article and more of this to come all over the UK as the country descends into dhimmitude.

Once again the BBC's dhimmi attitude in action

This BBC article leaves me in no doubt where the BBC stand on the matter in question: against Pamela Geller. But it's this paragraph that annoys me for the usual reason.

'Transport officials in Washington DC have blocked plans by an American free speech pressure group to have a controversial cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad displayed on the subway.'

It's the use of the phrase 'the Prophet Muhammad'. He's the Islamic Prophet not anybody else's. The BBC don't describe Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, why the difference?

BBC The Report - Anti-Semitism in the UK: Is It Growing?

Last night's The Report programme was entitled 'Anti-Semitism in the UK: Is It Growing?'

The Report's description of the programme is 'Anti-Semitism in the UK: Simon Cox investigates the changing face of prejudice against Jewish people after recent lethal attacks in Paris, Copenhagen and Brussels. With the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, calling for European Jews to move to Israel, we look at whether there is more dangerous anti-Semitism online and on the streets of the UK.'

Let's have a listen and see if the BBC actually focus on the perpetrators of anti-Semitism.

One minute in and the BBC have found a right-wing former member of an a far right anti-Semitic group, although they also promise to look at anti-Semitism within the British Muslim community. We will see which threat the BBC are more comfortable discussing.

The first incident mentioned was perpetrated by a white right-wing gang.

The first interview is with 'Michael' a former member with the far-right group Combat 18. Some minutes again the BBC are still interviewing 'Michael' about a new far-right group's anti-Semitism - National Action.

Now we've moved on to some more coverage of National Action. Half way into the programme and it's far-right groups all the way.

Now we've moved onto a British politician, Lee Scott, victim of anti-Semitism who describes the perpetrators as calling him an 'enemy of Islam' and that he should be 'stoned to death'. The programme seems to skip over those comments. 

Almost two thirds into the programme and the programme plays some National Action comments, just to give us a flavour?

Now we're discussing 'a controversial group', ISCAR  , who are an Israeli student group who fight anti-Semitism on social media. This part of the programme discussed Joshua Bonehill's proposed march through Stamford Hill and ISCAR fight against it. They also played Joshua Bonehill's phone call to BBC 5Live. 

Over two-thirds of the way through the programme and we're back in Stamford Hill looking at the way the Hassidic community has 'spread' since the programme's presenter, Simon Cox, worked in the area.

Twenty three minutes into a half hour programme and nothing about the threat from Muslims to the Jewish community. Instead we've moved onto how some non-orthodox Jews want to confront the anti-Semitic gangs. They refer back to the groups that marched against the fascists in London's East End in the 1930s. Another link to the far-right and ant-Semitism.

Finally twenty five minutes into the programme the BBC manage to bring up Islamist extremism as the new threat, let's see how they cover it. The opening comment is '... Islamist extremists... and their violent, distorted view of Islam that is of course shunned by the vast majority of Muslims'. Is that true? We will return to that later.

Then there is an interview with a Muslim expert, Memed Natchbandi (?), who visits Mosques around the UK and is an advisor to the police and government, who admits that anti-Semitism is endemic amongst Muslims, the phrases 'casual racist views' and 'nasty stereotypes' are used. But the BBC presenter, Simon Cox, is keen to counter that narrative by pointing out that 'Jewish communities are not the only victims of hate crime, Muslims suffer from it every day too. In fact there are more reported Islamophobic attacks in the UK than anti-Semitic ones. And there have been Islamophobic murders,   murders such as the murder of an 82 year old grandfather in Birmingham in 2013. And surely any Muslims listening to (the Muslim expert) would say that his was a misleading and inaccurate portrayal of his views.' Why did the BBC deem this comment necessary or indeed accurate? I'll come back to that point later. 

Three minutes later and the programme has moved onto Jews, including Jewish MPS, who are hiding their Jewish heritage.

The sum-up links Israel to Jews and mentions the far-right and Islamist extremists


So were Simon Cox's claims that 'their violent, distorted view of Islam that is of course shunned by the vast majority of Muslims' true?

'A YouGov survey for the Daily Telegraph,^[6] published two weeks after the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground, showed that 88% of British Muslims were opposed to the bombings, while 6% (about 100,000 individuals) fully supported them, and one British Muslim in four expressed some sympathy with the motives of the bombers.^[7] A 2007 poll found that one Muslim in four thought the Government had staged the bombings and framed the Muslims convicted.^[8]'

 How about Simon Cox's claims about the relative numbers of anti-Semitic versus Islamophobic attacks in the UK? Before I look at the figures, I'm not sure why this is even relevant. However according to the 2011 census the Muslim population of the United Kingdom was 2,786,635, some 4.4% of the population whilst the Jewish community amounted to some 269,568 or 0.4% of the population. The Muslim community in the UK is around ten times larger than the Jewish community, were there ten times the number of Islamophobic attacks as anti-Semitic ones?  I doubt it.

Now we turn to Simon Cox's casting doubt on the Muslim experts description of anti-Jewish casual racism as being endemic amongst British Muslims. On what grounds does Simon Cox feel able to say '.. surely any Muslims listening to (the Muslim expert) would say that his was a misleading and inaccurate portrayal of his views.' How does Simon Cox know this? What research has he done to arrive at this conclusion? Or is this just another example of the usual BBC knee jerk defence of Muslims when they are being criticised?

So there we have it, a half hour BBC programme on the rise of anti-Semitism in the UK that manages just three minutes on the problem of anti-Semitism in the UK's Muslim community and counters that with the BBC presenter casting doubt on the veracity of those claims. Just another typical piece of BBC programming that protects Muslims from criticism even when that criticism is from a British Muslim expert. 

Also missing from this programme was any mention of the rise of anti-Semitism amongst the British left, especially at Universities and amongst the 'intelligensia'. But maybe investigating that source of anti-Semitism would be hitting too close to the BBC for their own comfort?

Ban on pork in Islington’s primary schools - Education - London 24

This report worries me

Here it is:

' The Great British banger is off the menu for Islington children as pork has been banned in all the borough's primary schools.

Islington Council has been criticised by the pork industry for refusing to dish up chops, sausages and bacon to youngsters, although the meat is served in secondary schools.

Despite pork being a cheap meat, the council claims it is too expensive to serve because the authority has to monitor what every child eats in case those whose cultural or religious beliefs forbid pork, eat it by accident.

...

Dr Zoe Davies, chief executive of the National Pig Association, said: "This is something we are particularity concerned about.

"It's something we have heard of but we wouldn't say it's common. It tends to happen in areas where there are large numbers of children from, for example, a Muslim background who wouldn't eat pork."

"But we would like there to be a choice. Pork is a very affordable and nutritious meat.

Cllr Joe Caluori, Islington council's executive member for children and families, said: "By not having pork on the menus in our schools, we can keep down costs and reduce food waste, maximising the schools meal budget in tough financial circumstances. We meet regularly with our catering contractor and stakeholders, and feedback is that schools are very happy with the food offered by the service."

A council spokesman added: "Young children, some as young as 4-yrs-old, of different religious and ethnic backgrounds may not know which foods contain pork, or may not realise the importance of avoiding it due to their culture or beliefs.

"Monitoring each child, every day ensuring they are avoiding pork, is an unnecessary cost at a time of tight budgets."'

So they won't serve pork in case a Muslim (or they would add, Jewish) child eats it. But they still serve beef. Do they not care about Hindu and Sikh children?

Just a few extremists?

We are told by the vast majority of politicians, self-appointed community leaders and the left-wing dominated dhimmi media that most Muslims are moderate and don't support stoning adulterers or killing apostates.

There's an example here where the quoted fact is simply ignored and the 'vast majority' claims are made over and over again....




This video would seem to indicate that their position might not be entirely correct...



That  video was from a conference in Norway, do you think that one held in Britain would show anything radically different?

When the BBC call someone 'controversial' you know they don't approve... BBC News - Indian election: Narendra Modi hails 'landmark' win

When the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27439456 describe the newly elected Indian Prime Minister as 'controversial', you know that they disapprove of him.  He's pro business, not a dhimmified coward and willing to stand up to anti Indian sentiment both within and outside of India. You can see why the BBC find him controversial...

Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs (part 2)

More from that Telegraph article...

'The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class,” the guidance says. “Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.'

Imaging that any other type of will discriminated on the grounds of sex or religion? The screams of protest from the 'liberal' left would be deafening. But as this is Islamic law, not a word of complaint, just dhimmified submission. 

More here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs

Britain is finished.

'Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.'

More here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

I'm sure Anjem Chaudary and the BBC will be cheering this news. I'll be looking for how to leave dhimmified Britain.

BBC3's Free Speech denies censoring debate about being gay and Muslim | Economy | The Guardian

Free Speech? Not when the BBC behave like cowardly dhimmis in the face of Islamic intolerance.

Even The Guardian are embarrassed... http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/14/bbc3-free-speech-debate-gay-muslim

For the BBC, Islam is top of the tree for protection, even outranking homosexuals.

Where's the outrage in the United Nations or online?

Even the BBC are reporting that:

'A jihadist group in Syria has demanded that Christians in the northern city of Raqqa pay a levy in gold and accept curbs on their faith, or face death.

The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) said it would give Christian residents "protection" if they agreed to the list of conditions.

...

Correspondents say ISIS is trying to implement an extreme interpretation of Islamic law in areas it controls.

...

The directive from ISIS, citing the Islamic concept of "dhimma", requires Christians in the city to pay tax of around half an ounce (14g) of pure gold in exchange for their safety.

It says Christians must not make renovations to churches, display crosses or other religious symbols outside churches, ring church bells or pray in public.

Christians must not carry arms, and must follow other rules imposed by ISIS (also known as ISIL) on their daily lives.

The statement said the group had met Christian representatives and offered them three choices - they could convert to Islam, accept ISIS' conditions, or reject their control and risk being killed.

"If they reject, they are subject to being legitimate targets, and nothing will remain between them and ISIS other than the sword," the statement said.

A group of 20 Christian leaders chose to accept the new set of rules, ISIS said.

...

Many Christians fled after ISIS started attacking and burning churches. '

Several things strike me about this report:
1. Where are the human rights organisations protesting this attack on freedom of religion? The organisations that are always ready to condemn Israel for any perceived slight on Islam.
2. Where's the United Nations outrage?
3. Where's the headline news on the BBC or in The Guardian or Independent that would appear if Israel stopped one Muslim from worshipping exactly where he wanted?

The lack of outrage from the above organisations would almost make one believe that they were in some way biased against Israel.

The BBC not quite reporting the whole story re the sentencing of the murderers of Lee Rigby

Compare this BBC article with this Telegraph one, specifically the part about the fracas that occurred during sentencing.

The BBC:

'The pair were absent during sentencing after a fracas in the dock.

As Mr Justice Sweeney began to sentence the men they started shouting and scuffling with court security guards. They had to be forced to the ground and were removed from court.

Fusilier Rigby's family wept as Adebolajo shouted "Allahu Akbar", and Adebowale called out "that's a lie" as the judge told them their extremist views were "a betrayal of Islam".

One relative needed medical treatment after the outbursts. The judge later apologised for the fact that the family had to witness what happened in the dock.'

The Telegraph:

'Michael Adebolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, had to be manhandled out of court by security guards after being told by Mr Justice Sweeney that their crime was a “betrayal of Islam”.

...

Angered by the judges’ comments about Islam, Adebowale stood up and shouted: “That’s a lie. It’s not a betrayal of Islam. You don’t know what Islam is.”

The struggle erupted as the murderer yelled: “I swear by Allah that America and Britain will never have any safety. Allahu Akbar [God is Great].”'

I suppose that it is just about possible that an Islamist murderer might know more about Islam than the British High Court Sir Nigel Hamilton Sweeney. But more interesting is that the BBC saw fit to censor what was actually said, why?

Mum claims son was REFUSED water at school in heatwave as it was 'unfair' on fasting Muslim classmates - Mirror Online

'Headteacher Craig Duncan said: "We do everything that we can to ensure the welfare of all of our children and we would never prevent them from having access to water.

"In this case, water was available and pupils were just reminded to be respectful to their classmates who were unable to drink in this hot weather."'

Welcome to 21st century multi cultural Britain. Except often it's less multi cultural and more scared of offending Islam.

More here http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-claims-son-refused-water-2048966

Banned in Britain

I read that the UK Home Secretary, Theresa May, has banned Pamela Geller from entering the UK as it would not be conducive to the public good.

More here http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/06/banned-in-britian-uk-caves-to-jihad.html

Meanwhile Islamic preacher Muhammad al-Arifi who has advocated Jew-hatred, wife-beating, and jihad violence was recently admitted to the UK with no difficulty. Why the disparity in treatment? Are Islamist preachers, and there have been several on recent years, who preach hatred, conducive to the public good? Is promoting hatred of Jews & homosexuals, the beating of women and jihadi violence conducive to the public good? What's wrong with this country? Are our leaders so scared of the reaction of Muslims in the UK that criticism of Islam is no longer allowed?

Muslim staff escape NHS hygiene rule - Telegraph

'Muslim doctors and nurses are to be allowed to opt out of strict hygiene rules introduced by the NHS to restrict the spread of hospital superbugs.
Female staff who follow the Islamic faith will be allowed to cover their arms to preserve their modesty despite earlier guidance that all staff should be "bare below the elbow".:

More here in The Telegraph.

What's more important to the patient hygiene or the religious requirements of the Muslim health workers?

Are we sufficiently dhimmified yet?

Dhimmism

'The Swedish home furnishings store IKEA has airbrushed women from photos in the Saudi version of next year's furniture catalog, the Swedish newspaper Metro reports today.

Metro compares the deletions to Soviet censors who used to airbrush out "state enemies."

In Saudi Arabia, where women must be covered in public and are not allowed to drive, it is not forbidden to depict women in advertising, but strict guidelines are followed, particularly regarding the depiction of very much skin.

In one page of IKEA's standard catalog, a mother is shown brushing her teeth in the bathroom beside a young son. Behind them, in a typically warm IKEA scene, a husband is drying a second child with a towel.
In the Saudi catalog with the identical photo, the mother's image has been deleted.

On another page, women having dinner with a man in the Swedish catalog vanish in the Saudi version, with their images replaced by an empty table.

Metro notes that even a company's female designer is deleted on a page with three male colleagues.

IKEA released a statement expressing regret, saying, "We should have reacted and realized that excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalog is in conflict with the IKEA Group values," the Associated Press reports.'

Note that there was not much flesh on display in the above Swedish advert but if Ikea feel they should pander to Islamic prejudices then that's a matter for them and their consciences. But there is a word for their actions - dhimism. Thanks to USA Today  for the spot.

Pat Condell and the Arab Spring's resultant ethic cleansing of Christians and Obama the dhimmi President

What's happening to the Coptic Christians in Egypt and why this is nothing new

Raymond Ibrahim’s testimony to the US House of Representatives Human Rights Committee on Shariah, Dhimmitude and the Copts.

In just fifteen minutes Raymond Ibrahim demonstrates clearly how the contemporary persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt is simply a continuation of the near identical suffering meted out to the same Coptic Christians for fourteen previous centuries.

Raymond Ibrahim shows that this is no “accidental aberration” as he points to the Quranic injunctions – the literal commands of god – that instruct Muslims to behave in the ways that lead to the inevitable suffering of any non-Muslim who falls under the reach of Islam’s power.

The worry for me is that whilst I have heard all this before, there are so many people who are completely unaware of the Islamic construct. The blame for this lack of knowledge can be laid squarely at the feet of the western 'liberal' media (especially the BBC), much of the West's educational system and the Western establishment who just cannot face the truth about Islamism.

William Hague shows his lack of understanding or maybe just the influence of the Arabists at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office

William Hague, a man who my respect for diminishes almost daily, has issued a statement to commemorate the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Here is is in full, followed by my comments:

'Tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks

11 September 2011

Foreign Secretary William Hague has commemorated the victims of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, and of other global acts of terrorism since.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said:

"Today we commemorate the citizens of the United States and over 90 countries who perished in the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, including 67 British nationals. We remember the courage and dignity of the American people in the face of such appalling loss. And we also recall the victims of other global acts of terrorism since – including the attacks in London in 2005. Such attacks have only served to bring the international community closer together, and to bolster those who seek change through peaceful means, not through barbaric violence.

"In the decade since the 2001 attacks on the United States, terrorists have succeeded only in the murder of innocents, often from among those they claim to represent. Al Qaeda is now weaker than at any time in the decade since 9/11 – and political progress through peaceful protest in the Middle East and North Africa has shown it to be increasingly irrelevant to the future. The true expression of what people in the Muslim world aspire to was seen not at Ground Zero in 2001, but in squares and streets across the Middle East and North Africa this year. So while we remember the victims of 9/11, stand firm with our allies and remain tirelessly vigilant against future threats, we also face the future with confidence in our values and faith in human nature."'

In the first paragraph William Hague manages not to mention that the terrorists were Islamic terrorists carrying out their diabolical plan in the name of Islam. He might not like that fact, he may find that fact an 'inconvenient truth' but a fact it remains.

In the second paragraph William Hague ascribes motives and aspirations to the 'peaceful protest(s)' in the Middle East and North Africa that he should know are not true. The protests and revolts in much of North Africa and the Middle East have been shown time and time again to have an Islamist tinge. The cries of "Allahu Akhbar" have resounded across the squares, souks and mosques of the area and the number of placards and chants calling for the destruction of Israel and death to Jews have been noticed by many who do not rely on the BBC for the approved version of the news. Has William Hague not noticed what has happened in Egypt over the past few month, let alone the last couple of days?

I used to admire William Hague as a politician, however since the last general election he has shown himself to have little more understanding or interest in the truths of the world situation than did the leaders of the last Labour government.

Carnita Matthews update

At the very end of last I year I blogged about Carnita Matthews the burqa-clad mother of seven who claimed she was the victim of mistaken identity has been jailed for six months for making a false complaint against a police officer. You can read the story at that stage on my blog, including the video that saved the policeman from censure.

Unfortunately I now read that:

'THE Muslim woman accused of lying about police trying to tear her burqa off has avoided jail – because her identity could not be proven.

Carnita Matthews, 47, from Woodbine, in Sydney’s southwest, had been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to forcibly remove her burqa because he was a racist.

But judge Clive Jeffreys said yesterday he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Matthews who made the racism accusation because the person who complained to police was wearing a burqa at the time.

The absurdity of the law is that, to reach the level of proof of identity to make the case, Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burqa at the police station – what started the uproar in the first place.

More than a dozen Muslim supporters linked arms and began chanting “Allah Akbar” as they stormed out of Downing Centre Court with Mrs Matthews concealed behind them.

Tempers rose and they began jostling with police after several members of the group attacked cameramen.

It marked a stark difference from their behaviour minutes earlier, when they had quietly assembled outside the lifts for prayer shortly after the judge’s decision.

Mrs Matthew’s lawyer Stephen Hopper defended their actions saying: “They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them.”

Judge Jeffreys said yesterday that even if Mrs Matthews had made the complaint, he could not be sure she knew it was a “false” statement.

“I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she made the complaint,” he said.

“Even if I was satisfied that she made the complaint, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was knowingly false.”

Mrs Matthews made the claim in her court appearance last year, saying police could not prove it was her behind the burqa when the complaint was handed in to police. The local magistrate rejected it.'

Now I begin to see why wearing the burqa is so popular; it's a 'get out of jail free' card. I hope the Australian courts realise what they have left themselves open to...

Was Osama Bin Laden's funeral at sea a Muslim burial and was he absolved of all sins?

"O Allah, forgive him, have mercy on him, pardon him, grant him security, provide him a nice place and spacious lodgings, wash him (off from his sins) with water, snow and ice, purify him from his sins as a white garment is cleansed from dirt, replace his present abode with a better one, replace his present family with a better one, replace his present partner with a better one, make him enter paradise and save him from the trials of grave [sic] and the punishment of hell."

Creeping Sharia has more on this fascinating story.