Thought crime in the UK - the end of freedom

A British blogger is to be arrested for what looks like free speech. The Labour party has been so desperate to buy votes from the Muslim community that it has sold free speech down the river.

As Lionheart says with current EU legislation soon all of us could receive arrest warrants from any EU country.

Given the fact the police don't dare to move against Muslim publications of religious hatred this is a clear case of double standards. I'm not saying I approve of what is said on his blog, but they are valid points for debate. He has one or two pictures that look objectionable, I personally think the one of the pregnant woman is objectionable - but then has photographs of Islamist campaigners saying worse things ( whom the police have left alone ).

Hat tip to Cranmer for spotting the issue.

Also: See the comments on non-Muslim no go areas here from Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester.

Freedom of religion in the UK ?

Would the MCB like to explain why a woman needs police protection, in the UK, just because she has converted from Islam to Christianity ?

Its not just Sudan that has a problem with Islam.

The Times Online has the original article by Ruth Gledhill. It contains the following chilling extract:

The latest threat was a text message from one of her brothers, warning he could not be responsible for his actions if she did not return to Islam.

Hannah said she was looking forward to getting married so she could change her name and escape detection by her family. Not all Muslims in Britain are this extreme, she believes.

"It is representative of some Muslims. I know the Koran says that anyone who goes away from Islam should be killed as an apostate so in some ways my family are following the Koran. They are following Islam to the word. But I do not think every Muslim would actually act on that."

Earlier this year, a Policy Exchange study found that 36 per cent of British Muslims aged between 16 and 24 believed those who converted to another religion should be punished by death.

Update: A further article on these lines is shown here in the Telegraph. It contains the following denunciations by MCB officials - can they be believed I wonder ?

Most leading Muslims in Britain are unequivocal in their denunciation of British Muslim parents who threaten to kill their children for leaving Islam.

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), says that it is "absolutely disgraceful behaviour… In Britain, no Muslim has the right to harm one hair of someone who decides to leave Islam."

Inayat Bunglawala, also a spokesman for the MCB, insists that such behaviour in Britain is "awful and quite wrong. The police should crack down on it."

And yet a significant portion of British Muslims think that such behaviour is not merely right, but a religious obligation: a survey by the think-tank Policy Exchange, for instance, revealed that 36 per cent of young Muslims believe that those who leave Islam should be killed.

There is considerable support, from the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts, for that position - which may explain why, out of the 57 Islamic states in the world today, seven have a legal code that punishes Muslims who leave the religion with death.

The truth is that Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

Its going to be a lighter blogging week this week. More work to be done - so I'm going to try to restrict myself to linking to interesting posts I've found in the blogsphere / MSM. ( Of course that rather gives the game away about not doing enough work also, but who's perfect ? )

Didactophobia has a key point on the apologists for Islam and the Teddy fiasco in Sudan, its well worth a read here.

( OK if Labour do something really stupid - by their current low standards I might be tempted. And I have one post in prep on the armed forces - but after that its work time - honest.)

Denis MacShane is right on Islamists and terror

Denis MacShane has an important article on facing up to what is the real cause of the current wave of terror - Islamism. Read it here ...

He has a point in his criticism of David Cameron saying we shouldn't use the word Islamist. But it is of course nothing compared to his own party's Mayor Livingstone's excuses.

However - I also maintain that the weakness we have shown against terrorism in Northern Ireland and Spain has shown in Madrid/Iraq has helped to encourage these psychopaths.

Where do the terrorists come from ? Answer they are cultivated.

It appears Jihadi Mouse has been killed off - beaten to death by an Israeli agent. Have a look at the link - even Al Beeb can't hide the bigotry.

You couldn't make this stuff up - but the Islamicists can.

Q: Where does the hate come from ?
A: Its indoctrinated in the children by evil men and women.

YAB take note.

Jihadi Mouse is still available on Youtube - an example below...

The path to Islamicist power - as seen with Hamas

Just received the press release at the end of this post from the Barnabus Fund which outlines the classic Islamicist path to power that Hamas have trodden and also criticises our liberal media for being so easily taken in. Underlining to highlight is mine.

In summary there are three phases:

1) When the organisation is weak and vulnerable - recruit and build up its base with social and other works.
2) Create organisations, including armed forces, and take whatever power is going via democratic means.
3) Violent overthrow of the state and conquest.

(Strange how close to the Nazi pattern that is.)

These are modelled on the way Islam originally conquered most of its historic territory.

Hamas are the example of the process. The problem is that our media is so willing to be taken in, by a philosophy that states that deception is a core part of its strategy. ( A trip to the MEMRI site is all that's needed to prove that ! The recent translation of the words of a Hamas MP should send shivers down your spine.)

IMPLICATIONS OF THE VIOLENT HAMAS TAKE OVER OF GAZA

Hamas has been presented by many in the West, and especially in the media, as a legitimate liberation movement that should be officially recognised by Western states. This view accepts almost intuitively that radical Islamist terrorist groups are the only true and authentic representatives of their societies and nations. Other powerful forces within these societies are ignored. It is argued that Western governments should recognise these “moderate” Islamist movements that have a political wing, have entered the democratic process in their countries and have gained legitimacy from large constituencies within their own societies. Another argument is that violent movements have always influenced world history, and that, historically, states finally had to deal with terrorists who later became leaders of their new nations or of political parties within their states. Based on these precedents it is argued that recognition, negotiation and appeasement are the best way of dealing with them.

Most of these commentators have a shaky knowledge of Islam, accepting the myth that it is inherently a religion of peace and tolerance. They reason that expressions of violence by Muslims are not rooted in Islam, but in the oppression and poverty of the Muslim masses whose most basic need is to be liberated from their oppressors. This of course is basic Marxist theory incorporated as well into Christian Liberation Theology. These observers advocate that Western governments engage in dialogue with Islamist terror groups, get to understand them better, and induce them to participate in a peace process along the lines of South Africa and Northern Ireland. Such observers seem to be ignorant of the fact that Islamists are masters of taqiyya, the long standing Islamic practice of deception in favour of Islam and its goals. Islamists will not knowingly convey to a Westerner their true aims and motives. There is a real danger that efforts at legitimizing Islamists will marginalise Muslim moderates, liberals, secularists and democrats who are already under tremendous pressure from the Islamists.

The brutal Hamas takeover of the Gaza strip in mid-June 2007, which included murders of wounded Fatah soldiers in their hospital beds in full view of patients and staff and the throwing down of the President’s cook from the roof of a 15 storey building, shows that Hamas fully ascribes to the radical Islamist doctrine of emulating Muhammad’s migration model (hijra) by stages(1). This is a staged programme that seeks to establish an Islamic state under shari‘a modelled on Muhammad’s practice. Islamists are out to capture the state in stages following Muhammad’s paradigm of first setting up an alternative Islamic society which when strong enough will take over full control of the state and its centres of power. The methods are dictated by the stage in which the movement finds itself: in the first stage of weakness it focuses on peaceful mission work recruiting individuals to its ranks. In the second stage of consolidation it organises its infrastructure, buil ds up its armed forces and engages in dissimulation such as the acceptance of the democratic process in order to strengthen its position. Finally in the stage of strength, when it deems the right time has come and it is strong enough, it uses violence with no holds barred to take over the state and initiate a jihadi campaign to expand its sphere of dominion.
A similar process has been going on in Lebanon with Hizbullah, which is poised to take over the centres of power and the state itself from the legitimate Lebanese government.

It is time leaders in the West recognise that Islamists are focused on gaining ultimate power in all states and societies they operate in. Appeasement only encourages them to speed up their programme in the face of perceived weakness of their enemies. The lesson from Gaza is that it was a mistake to allow Hamas to build up its military wing over decades. It was a mistake to allow it to build up its social infrastructure as an alternative to that of the official Palestinian Authority. It was a mistake to allow it to enter the political democratic process as a legitimate party while maintaining and expanding its military wing.

For those with eyes to see, similar processes are underway among the Muslim communities in Western states, including Britain, as Islamists build up a vast infrastructure of organisations and institutions while presenting themselves as liberal and democratic. There can be no doubt that their final goal, according to their published dogmas, remains an Islamic state under shari‘a. The tactics will differ and change, but the goal remains the same and the method of attaining it in well defined stages will continue to be used. Most Islamists in the West reckon they have moved past the first stage into the second, that of building up and strengthening their infrastructure while using deception to enter the democratic process so as to gain new positions of power. Once they judge they are strong enough, they will move into the third stage of power when violence will be used, if necessary, to gain total control of state and society.

(1) Fatah itself also has a history of brutality, especially as perpetrated by its al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

Update: See also Melanie Phillip's comments on the same press release.